Are we over new hardware in light of Cisco's server play?

Rodney Gedda

Rodney Gedda is the former deputy editor of CIO and former editor of Techworld.

A briefing with Cisco product managers today answered and raised questions about the company's server product strategy in roughly equal measure. As you know, we love competition here at TechWorld, so throwing a big cat like Cisco among the server pigeons is not a bad thing, but customers will need to be wary of any lock-in posed by proprietary hardware in an area on IT that has risen to become so open.

The x86 server space is the model for open computing and a model Cisco must adopt if it is to succeed. In fact, jokes about Cisco releasing a new type of mainframe are already shooting around.

In contrast, the networking space, while built on open protocols, still enjoys a significant level of vendor advantage via proprietary components (including software) and specialised support requirements.

The server space is quite the opposite: systems and parts are readily available; the operating environment (typically Windows or Linux) is open and skills to administer it are also readily available; and – perhaps most importantly – the server generally doesn't care what type of networking or storage is used, i.e., interoperability is top notch.

Cisco is entering this market with a giant sledgehammer called Unified Computing System aimed squarely at rationalising the data centre.

This may work for the larger data centres, but as I asked during the briefing – what's the barrier to entry like?

The Unified Computing System architecture may work wonders for the top end of town or if you are a hosted service provider, but it may also struggle to get a foot into even small enterprises if a similar level of consolidation can be achieved with inexpensive off-the-shelf virtualisation software.

There's not doubt the enterprise is over capitalized with computing power, which explains why virtualisation is spreading like a wildfire.

Time will tell if throwing good systems after bad is what the enterprise is forever willing to put up with.

I'd be inclined to throw better software at any system.