Skip to main content

Cisco enters Storage market with Neopath acquisition


This is definitely a year of the disruptor. The hyper-disruptor. With this acquisition Cisco has made a bold statement to enter the storage world.

NeoPath sells systems that virtualize or aggregate multiple cross-vendor NAS or file-level storage devices into single namespaces. This is a small and developing sector with limited sales, in which NeoPath has only a handful of rivals. One of those competitors is EMC, courtesy of the NAS v-word systems it acquired when it bought Rainfinity Inc in 2005.

EMC is also one of the largest resellers of NetApp's storage networking or SAN equipment. Not wanting to provoke any speculation that even limited NAS v-word competition could jeopardize its relationship with EMC, Cisco yesterday refused to say what its plans are for NeoPath's products.

Instead Cisco said that by acquiring NeoPath it will gain the expertise that it says it needs to develop interfaces that will allow EMC and other vendors to run their file-level software on Cisco's networking devices.


Read the rest here!
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more