Comments on: Cisco's expected server splash raises data center ruckus

As we move to converged boxes--switches and storage meet servers and virtualization--the architecture of the data center will get much-needed change.

[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).