Marketing, FUD and Doing What You Do Best
Rather than leave a lengthy comment on (and from a marketing perspective, Friday’s are bad days to post blogs – especially in the summer) – I thought I would respond here (this may get lengthy as Tom made a number of points which I need comment on).
The first thing I do want to say is that when doing technical marketing; the proper strategy would be to not be on defense but rather take an offensive approach. However, given the amount of FUD that Tom put in his latest blog post, I have to defend compression to some degree.
Now, I think we can all agree that data compression and data deduplication are two technologies that can complement one another very well. Avamar (EMC) deduplicates the data at the source and then compresses the data before sending it to the Avamar Data Store gaining tremendous efficiency in network utilization. ProtecTIER (IBM) compresses the data once it is deduplicated at the target device before it stores the data. Other solutions also combine compression and data deduplication.
I’d like to comment on some key point Tom made in his piece where he is just blatantly wrong:
1) Compression identifies redundant data across a very small window, usually 64 KB. – While this may be true for other compression technologies, this is not true for Storwize. Storwize performs compression where the initial window is not fixed in size at all; it is the resultant write that is fixed in size. This size is also specifically mapped to the I/O patter of the data being written. The goal is such that in 1 I/O Storwize can do all the work it needs to on a particular file or LUN and it is for this reason Storwize has no performance penalty.
2) Compression produces data reduction rates at most 2X for most data types. – Seems Tom needs a lesson in the most common answer in IT – “IT DEPENDS”. Data compression ratios are 100% tied to the data type. For a true indication of data compression ratios see Figure 1.





