Regardless, it’s still a credit to the DDUP team(s) and their “smart people” that EMC and Netapp both want what they’ve got, even though the underlying hash methodologies and algorithms are common among many solutions out there.

And it’s still time for Netapp and EMC to both eat boatloads of crow, for claiming/pretending for years that they had anything approaching an optimal solution in this space. I suggest Jack Daniels BBQ sauce to make the yucky bird taste better…

Data Domain licensed Quantum’s patents so at a high level their technology must be similar; however, they have taken different approaches in implementation. Data Domain offers smaller chunk sizes and Quantum offers a combined post-process/inline solution. (There are many more architectural differences; I cite these two as obvious examples.)

EMC is not showing a lack of confidence in hash-based technology (or they would not bid on Data Domain), but rather in Quantum’s implementation of it. Note that the DL3D and DXi products are very similar and so this is really a referendum on Quantum’s technology. Essentially EMC is saying that Data Domain’s implementation of Quantum’s hash patents are better than Quantum’s! Obviously, this puts Quantum in a tough spot.

I cannot really comment on EMC’s acquisition plans except to say that they do have a large commercial business that focuses on smaller customers and Data Domain is a nice fit there. However, they still need a strategy for the high end and I think that everyone will agree that the current DL3D 4000 is not a long-term solution.

You keep mentioning that if EMC buys Data Domain, they are demonstrating a lack of confidence in the Quantum de-dupe technology. Well, which is it?

In reality, EMC seems to be demonstrating a lack of faith in their IMPLEMENTATION of Quantum technology, since they’ve offered $1.8B for a different, simpler implementation of Quantum de-dupe technology than they apparently find in their own CDL/VTL line.

What I actually find most odd in all this is that EMC is not simply buying SEPATON, rather than battling for DD. Sepaton is MUCH more aligned with EMC’s Enterprise-level offerings, due to its scale, capacity, and much higher availability offering. And I have to guess it would be less expensive overall, although I might be wrong about that. DD is public, and Sepaton is still private, and still looking for VC money to ramp it into the big time. EMC could do tht at a stroke, by buying Sepaton and making that line-up and architecture its high-end de-dupe VTL for its biggest pickiest customers.

Very odd to fight over DD who plays primarily in the low end, when EMC has such inroads into the high and extreme high end.

Anyway, thanks again for the insightful commentary (or was that inciteful?)