[log in to unmask] wrote:

> David Lethe writes:
>
> > I believe the reason why HP hasn't embraced
> > SSA is because of pressure from EMC  (HP is EMC's largest customer).
>
> Huh?  I thought it was normally the "largest customer" who had the clout,
> not the VENDOR of said customer!
>
> Can I conclude from the original post for this thread that EMC drives
> are generally twice as expensive as SSA's?  Does that mean that the
> profit margin is also likely doubled?  So therefore if HP embraced
> SSA's that their profit in reselling the drives would be cut in half?

EMC's price/MB is significantly more than an SSA configuration.  Depending on

your protection methodology (mirroring, RAID-S (EMC's version of RAID-5), and

the amount of disk, and controllers, then EMC can cost anywhere from 5X to
1.5X more money.

I cannot comment on EMC's profit margin, but if somebody has the time, they
can get an exact figure by viewing EMC's published 10Q information available
on the EDGAR database at the SEC's website.  You can also see exactly how
many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of EMC Symmetrix that HP has sold
over the last few quarters.  Undoubtedly if the cost of storage dropped by
50%, then so would HP's profit, provided their margins stayed the same.

>
> Questions, questions. ;)
>
> --Glenn