Cisco's expected server splash raises data center ruckus

This was originally published at ZDNet's Between the Lines.

Cisco Systems on Monday is widely expected to launch network servers in a move that will put it in the virtualization business and potentially at odds with players like Hewlett-Packard and IBM.

How widely expected is this Cisco data center announcement Monday? Very expected. TheStreet.com cites analysts that have been briefed about Cisco's plans, which could revolve around switch-server hybrid boxes. Reuters confirmed that the March 16 announcement is related to a data center strategy to improve efficiency. According to Network World, Cisco will launch a "Unified Computing System" that includes backing from Microsoft, Intel, BMC, EMC and VMware:

Microsoft, Intel, BMC, EMC Smarts and VMware are expected to endorse Cisco's "Unified Computing" data center strategy at next Monday's launch in New York. Sources say these companies will be on the roster of partners Cisco is lining up for its strategy, which is also expected to include the introduction of the company's 'California' blade servers.

Last month, InternetNews' Andy Patrizio had a detailed story on Cisco's virtualization plans.

Patrizio wrote:

Cisco's efforts in virtualization focus primarily on the launch of its new blade system. According to a source familiar with the products, the blades will be based on Intel's Core i7 processors and come with up to 192GB of memory, well above the maximum capacity of 128GB in today's blades. Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) recently announced it would begin shipping Core i7 Xeon processors, codenamed Nehalem-EP, as part of its Xeon 5000 series.

The blades include a PCI-Express connection, allowing them to connect to Cisco's high-speed Unified Fabric architecture. These connections also give the blades very fast Ethernet access to both the network and storage devices and eliminate the need for a storage-area network (SAN). Instead, the blades would talk directly to the storage servers.

And even Cisco's rivals are in on the act. I received an e-mail from Brocade representatives telling me they'll have a response to Cisco's move on Monday so be ready. Given the players lined up with Cisco (notably EMC) it's not surprising that Brocade, which acquired Foundry Networks, would have a response:

Brocade is aware of the impending news from Cisco on its proposal of its next-generation, virtualized data center architecture. While we are withholding any comment of this proposal until we have had a chance to review Cisco's announcements, please note that I will follow up with you.

Why is everyone so wound up? It's all about the converged box scenario in the data center. As we moved to converged boxes--switches and storage meet servers and virtualization--the architecture of the data center is going to change. And you know what? The architecture of the data center has to change. A few ripple effects:

• Cisco will enter the server market with boxes that will play nice with its networking gear;
• HP and IBM are likely to enter the networking market;
• Virtualization will be embedded everywhere as a commodity software layer;
• Ultimately, storage, servers, switches and even routers will all be lumped in a multi-purpose box in the data center that will save space.

The competition should be fun--and if it improves data center performance all the better--but it's going to be interesting to watch the profit margin implications from this hardware battle.

[dascha1]

See, this is the kind of thing that is a thorn in Google's foot. For some time now I've wondered, and have been vexed to some degree, why their servers aren't realized for the market. I mean they have displaced so many others but if you take away their sails, you take away the wind. The desktop and mobile device is something they've already tackled but what's the server answer (we know clouds are their judgement to date, but it doesn't go the extra mile with hardware). Does anyone disagree with me on this?

[gggg sssss]

not sure why. Google can still build a truckload of white box server for less than one Cisco box. And with a free operating system, there is no saving to having 192 gb memory attached to one CPU or 10. And I understand tehy have their own routing / load sharing sofwtare asl well.

[meh130]

"HP and IBM are likely to enter the networking market"

Huh? HP is in the networking market, and has been for years. HP ProCurve is the second largest Enterprise LAN networking in the world.

[zvonr]

Sun will enter the network market too...
They also already have blades that support 256Gb of ram so Cisco will not beat any records here...
The server market is very competitive, Cisco will not have a easy battle...

[gggg sssss]

Still rooting for Dell. They will also deliver this concept at half the price. I have yet to see anything NOT Dell in my mid size market in years. But yes, pushing NAS instaed of SAN by speeding up ethernet is a great money saver.

[MadLyb]

"Ultimately, storage, servers, switches and even routers will all be lumped in a multi-purpose box in the data center that will save space."

I couldn't disagree more. You are talking about moving networking back to peer-to-peer which is where we were before we learned the value of managing the network. There will be specialized situations (like this), but pushing all the management responsibilities to all peers is both inappropriate and problematical.

The same goes for storage. There are significant economies of scale for aggregating storage, in terms of cost, performance, security and reliability and pushing this back into hosts is antithetical to the lessons we have learned over the last few years.

Unless of course, the box you were talking about is the data center itself.

[gggg sssss]

This used to be called system 370.

[bolero12]

How does Cisco announcing an OEM agreement with Intel, VMware, Microsoft and EMC leave any gross profit dollars for Cisco? I understand why it's good for the other guys, but where's Cisco going to add value, in the bezel?

[b.k.m]

This is not so much about server consolidation as it is about service contract consolidation. If Cisco just wanted to sell wintel boxes, they could use their cash to buy Dell. The sale price of servers is less than half the total cost over the lifetime of the box. Cisco makes money from service agreements and they want to expand that. Because they already have the customers and the worldwide service organization, they just need to expand the portfolio of services by branding servers. They have a competitive advantage because the customers and contracts are already there, and they can integrate compute, storage, and communications infrastructure in their typical "standards-based 'plus'" methodology (also familiar to Microsoft customers).