* More on the Aperi squabbles
If SNIA, the Storage Networking Industry Association is so great, why has the Aperi group moved Aperi development outside of it? Here are some things to consider.
First, consider the order of things. Vendors invariably think of setting up a private consortium as a first step to developing a market presence – think the Fibre Channel Industry Association, the SCSI Trade Association and, for those of you with a real sense of history, meditate on the deceased-but-almost-interesting I2O (dedicated to deploying I/O processing power away from the CPU and onto special HBAs). Such consortia are a useful launch point for new technologies as far as the vendors are concerned, often providing a needed marketing presence as technical specifications or standards evolve at their own pace.
From here on out, I am indebted to information from one of my correspondents – an insider to all this and a real storage wise guy. I shall refer to him as “Deep Gizzard.” (The term “storage wise guy” is a compliment by the way – see “Storage wise-guy readers respond to recent newsletters”). In a response to the last newsletter, Deep Gizzard pointed out that once Aperi had been launched, the question of “why not do it through SNIA” quickly became clear.
Shortly after the group’s launch in the early fall of last year, the Aperi group approached SNIA and told the association that if it could embrace Aperi, then Aperi would allow SNIA to take over the governance of Aperi. What followed was a lengthy effort in SNIA to work through the rules and regulations that would allow it to accept such offers. But here’s where it gets interesting.
Aperi worked with SNIA on the rules changes to assure they were appropriate to Aperi’s offer. Alas, those rules changes were not acceptable to all SNIA members, and certain members worked to change them. The rules changes that were eventually put to a vote by SNIA – and finally approved – were not acceptable to Aperi. So Aperi withdrew its offer. And now, if you go to the SNIA Web site you will find no reference to Aperi there.
As Deep Gizzard hints, the in-fighting was a sight to see, and certainly verified some of the frustration that a contact at IBM shared with me: “Mike, have you ever tried to get anything through SNIA?” His point – and one I quite appreciate – is that progress, while it does occur, often happens at a glacial pace. But still, that’s better than waiting for dinosaurs to turn into oil.
It is an unfortunate reality when specifications involve interoperability testing (and an ability for people as well as technologies to play well with others). Things happen slowly. It is the nature of the beast.
It would be nice to see EMC, HP, IBM, NetApp, et al, get together on this to put an end to all the corporate bluster and come up with something that creates value for them and for us as well. But as of this writing, the storage universe now contains more-or-less equal amounts of Aperi and anti-Aperi, and the posturing and self-righteous indignation on both sides contributes little to getting the rest of us what we need: reliable, efficient, easily managed storage. Perhaps the smartest people here are all those midsize and smaller vendors, the companies that typically fall within the slice of the pie chart labeled “other”. All of them are staying out of this. Right now, they seem content just to get on with their own businesses and let the Aperi chips fall where they may.
Ah, Aperi. Ah, wilderness.
