Comments on: Cisco touts 10,000 server customers

By: RN

RN — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:11:45 +0000

If anything the management stack for Cisco UCS is the strength of the platform.

Specific integrations with management tools such as vCenter are already available –
http://blogs.vmware.com/orchestrator/2011/03/vcenter-orchestrator-plug-in-for-cisco-ucs-manager-is-ga.html

By: Jesse Freund

Jesse Freund — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:01:47 +0000

Hi Barb,

Point is Cisco has become a large player (again #3 worldwide and #2 in the US over established server vendors) in the market it targeted, which by the way happens to be fastest growing and highest value segment of the server market. Given that x86 blades are a roughly 8 billion dollar market, that’s quite impressive from a market share perspective. Your focus on unit shipments in the general server market (which includes a lot of legacy platforms — towers, anyone?) displays a lack on nuanced understanding about server market dynamics. While I applaud the overall perspective of the article, you would have been better served talking to the analysts that put together the market share rather than relying on a Gartner press release. But again thanks for the perspective; it is generally correct even if it could have been more grounded in the actual market. Just a little friendly feedback fwiw :-)

Lexington, people love UCS Manager. Have you actually tried UCS? If so, you know that the stateless computing made possible by Service Profiles also helps facilitate system-wide consolidation. If not, happy to hook you up with a technical expert to help sort your individual issues.

By: Lexington, KY

Lexington, KY — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:39:10 +0000

I suppose UCS “consolidates more workloads on a single system” refers to the extended memory blades. In my opinion you can get a better CPU/memory ratio for virtualization with an AMD based rack server that offers 12 native DIMMs per processor against 6 DIMMs per processor for a standard blade.
But I feel the main problem with Cisco UCS is the management stack. As we are 100% virtal we prefer not to have an extra management level and enjoy doing almost all the management in vCenter.

By: Barb Darrow

Barb Darrow — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:17:45 +0000

Hi jesse… wasn’t meant as a ding — just some perspective. Cisco has momentum but it’s still relatively small player. To say that cisco is not going for market share (or top 5 or whatever) may be true, but it was Cisco who put out this news so clearly there is some desire to be a big server player, no?

By: Jesse Freund

Jesse Freund — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:11:39 +0000

Barb,

While generally a very positive and accurate piece about the momentum UCS is enjoying in the market, there is a logical misstep that demonstrates a lack of understanding about server markets. Namely, dinging UCS for not cracking the top 5 in server unit shipments is a false argument for two reasons.

First, the whole value proposition of UCS is that it consolidates more workloads on a single system, and therefore revenue is a much more accurate measure of market share than units. UCS collapses the amount of physical infrastructure necessary to support a workload, and that is a very good thing for customers. As Brian Madoff says in your article, “UCS appeals to companies wanting to streamline their data center operations because they pack in more virtual machines per blade. “

Second, UCS never set out to compete in the low growth and low margin segment of the server business. When you look at the highest growth and highest margin segment of the server market (x86 blade servers) UCS has done fantastically well. In less than 3 years it has become #3 platform worldwide (#2 in the US) in x86 blade server market share — a truly remarkable accomplishment.

I fear this lack of nuance is the unfortunate downside of writing a news articles based on a Gartner press release. Interviewing the analysts responsible for these market share stats would have led to a more accurate discussion of the market dynamics.

For the sake of full disclosure I am a Cisco employee.

— Jesse F.