Data Center Strategies

It's Official - The Hypervisor is now a Commodity

On today's Q2 earnings call, new VMware CEO Paul Maritz announced that VMware will offer the ESXi hypervisor as a free download. This will clearly be perceived as a bold decision and one that will likely have some VMware investors reaching for their favorite antacid. In my previous post, VMware's Leadership Change - The Dust Settles, I commented that VMware should take immediate steps to significantly drop prices. To me, an ESX price drop is one of several moves that I think VMware has to make. VMware is increasingly seeing competition and in offering its core hypervisor at no charge, VMware has matched similar offerings from rivals Microsoft (Hyper-V) and Citrix (XenServer Express Edition).

Congratulations are definitely in order because I think VMware has made a good move. Taking their flagship hypervisor and offering it for free positions them well alongside their primary rivals and makes it easier for organizations with limited budgets to transition to VMware-based virtualization. To be clear, the free ESXi offering includes the hypervisor, VMware's virtual machine file system (VMFS), and symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) support. ESXi had been priced at $495 for a server with up to two processors. Most production virtualization deployments include high availability, and if you want to add high availability to the free ESXi hypervisor, you'll need to upgrade to a VMware Infrastructure (VI) Standard license, priced at $3,624 for two processors (with the required 1 year Gold support package). Upgrading to the Enterprise license ($6,958 for two processors [includes 1 year Gold support]) would get you features such as VMotion (live migration) and the distributed resource scheduler (DRS). The reason I'm bringing up upgrade prices is twofold. First, I don't think VMware is doing enough with regards to price drops. Second, since practically all VMware sales include the standard or enterprise VI tiers, the impact on revenues will be practically non-existent.

My colleagues who were at Novell at the time that Microsoft's Active Directory was attempting to take down Novell's eDirectory look back and note that Novell was far too conservative in its attempt to protect revenue streams and ultimately lost to Microsoft (somewhere in the VMware corridors someone is now shuddering at yet another Novell comparison). Giving away your flagship hypervisor is a bold move, but VMware really isn't taking much off the table. VMware's core revenues have long been driven by the features (e.g. HA, VMotion, DRS) it sells around the hypervisor. In my opinion, I think VMware needs to do more than give away its hypervisor if it hopes to hold back competition. Instead, VMware should aggressively take sales opportunities from its competitors. To do that, I think VMware needs to drop the prices of its VI Standard and VI Enterprise packages by at least 33%. Chopping a third off the price of its core packages would make its pricing comparable to its main rivals. For example, the Stratus OEM of Citrix XenServer with high availability is just under $2495 per physical host. A comparable solution from Virtual Iron is priced at $799 per socket. If price is equal, purchasing the hypervisor with the most features becomes a "no brainer."

VMware will say that there's more value in their hypervisor, and it's an enterprise-proven platform. So it's right to say that a higher price is warranted. However, a price that is often 2x-3x higher than competitive solutions is putting IT decision makers in a very tough spot, especially as alternative solutions that provide essential virtualization features such as high availability are emerging. Also, VMware must carefully weigh the potential backlash from existing customers who purchased software at a higher price or who are locked-in to a lengthy enterprise license agreement (ELA). Still, to me the question is not "What's the pricing model that keeps us competitive today and allows us to maximize revenues?" Instead, the question should be "How do we leverage pricing to deny market opportunities for our chief competitors?" If the question is the latter, VMware needs a significant price drop in both their VI Standard and VI Enterprise packages. A large drop would open more doors for VMware and remove price as a factor in many virtualization purchasing decisions. What VMware gives up in short term revenue would be recuperated in long term licensing and maintenance contracts. Virtualization is an infrastructure technology, and as such, has higher barriers to exit - organizations with substantial virtualization investments will not rip and replace it on a whim. So today's game is all about penetrating the significant untapped virtualization market. Yes - VMware's already doing that today, but I believe they could be more aggressive. Lower prices today results in increased market penetration and increased long term software maintenance revenue.

In addition to staying price competitive, VMware needs to hit back against Microsoft. Making ESXi free has effectively placed the hypervisor as a commodity, and as a result VMware has taken Microsoft's bait. VMware now needs to hit back. I alluded to some of the ways VMware can do this in my previous post. We've had quite a bit of internal discussion on this topic at Burton Group as well, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on what VMware's next move should be in their chess match with Microsoft.

A conservative, complacent pricing and licensing strategy will not be enough. Sure, that's the "textbook" approach to running a software company. Microsoft loves the textbook. After all, their competitors historically use textbook management practices in their attempts to take down or hold off Microsoft. How well has that worked? VMware - throw away the textbook. Paul Maritz has the pedigree to write a best seller on software vendor strategy. We remember best sellers because their text often defies conventional wisdom and surprises us along the way. A conservative price drop is a good story, but not a best seller.

Posted by: Chris Wolf

VMware's Leadership Change - The Dust Settles

Last week while my colleagues were debating the impact of Paul Maritz replacing Diane Greene as VMware's CEO, I was relaxing on a beach in North Carolina's outer banks. I prefer to be "unplugged" while on vacation, so I didn't hear of the news until I returned home last Saturday. My colleagues Drue Reeves (see VMware: Welcome to the Game) and Richard Jones (see VMware CEO Ousted) did an excellent job covering the leadership change, and after having spoken to Paul on Tuesday, I think it's a good time to weigh-in with my thoughts regarding VMware's executive leadership change.

Diane Greene, in my opinion, did a tremendous job in bringing VMware to where it is today. VMware ships the industry's gold standard for x86 server virtualization, has strong sales, and is continuing to push the innovation envelope. This all happened on Greene's watch. In addition, Greene had VMware strategically positioned to continue broadening the company's growth and market presence. With that being said, it shouldn't be surprising that folks inside and outside of VMware felt that a leadership change at this point was a bad move. Alessandro Perilli uncovered much of this turmoil with the following posts on Virtualization.info:

• Was Diane Greene really approved by VMware employees?
• EXCLUSIVE: VMware employee reveals details on CEO firing, exposes Tucci and Maritz confidential emails
• VMware loses its CEO – Updated

Complacency has never been an effective strategy against Microsoft, so I must say that I understand the timing of the move. VMware has to move forward with a sense of urgency, and dare I say desperation. A complacent VMware would likely get steamrolled by Microsoft. History has proven that time and time again. NetWare and Word Perfect are two good examples of best-of-breed products that eventually succumbed to the Microsoft juggernaut. As Microsoft's previous successes have shown, they don't have to have the best technology to win. "Good enough," combined with low total cost of ownership and simple, effective management has historically worked very well.

Now let's get back to the leadership change. I see it as a good move. Many don't like Maritz's lengthy history with Microsoft, but that's exactly why I see him as the right leader at the right time. Maritz was part of Microsoft's core executive team that took Microsoft from dismissed start-up to dominant force in office applications, desktop operating systems, and server operating systems. Maritz knows how to take on and defeat large companies with well established product lines. Yes - VMware has the dominant hypervisor today, but VMware's future depends on much more than hypervisor dominance. VMware's future will ultimately be tied to the value it brings to applications.

At the end of the day, what matters most is whether or not our applications are available to users. Microsoft realized this long ago, and when you look past virtualization, Microsoft has a better application management story than VMware today. VMware has the best virtualization management solution going, but in the end I don't see that as being enough to hold out against Microsoft. I mentioned in my Apple - Opportunity is Knocking post that the desktop as we know it is in a state of transition and opportunity exists for a more innovative solution to eventually supplant Windows desktop operating systems. Five years out, the desktop operating system will be fundamentally different. The same can be said for the server, as the OS is trending toward being a thinner, modularized foundation for running applications. Just look at Windows Server 2008 core and the success of Linux-based virtual machine appliances to see that. In addition, we'll be seeing some core IT services transition to cloud-based computing. The cloud may be external to the organization, and I believe many organizations will have their own centrally managed clouds as well (essential to meeting the organization's security and compliance requirements).

Nearly all elements of the traditional data center are in flux, and while this is exciting, it has to worry Microsoft. Microsoft sees the transition and is developing their own next generation application, client, and server solution set. For VMware to win, they will have to deliver a fundamentally superior solution to Microsoft, and do it sooner. Of course, this will initially be a complement to existing Microsoft products. But if VMware has its way, many core IT services will transition to cloud-based offerings and virtual appliances. In the mean time, it's clear that Microsoft isn't sitting on it's hands. If you want proof, take a look at the Live Mesh Technical Preview. Live Mesh is a very intriguing cloud-based desktop delivery solution and should have VMware's attention.

As an analyst, I can afford to be wrong once in awhile and still keep my job. Maritz, on the other hand, likely doesn't have this luxury. That being said, if I was in Maritz's shoes, I would immediately do the following:

• Lower the prices of the entire VMware product line
• Accelerate development on a soup-to-nuts solution for the SMB space
• Accelerate development on VMware's virtual desktop solution
• Focus the company's messaging around the application and the total solution

Microsoft and Citrix are both competing against VMware on price. If VMware refuses to lower prices, vendors such as Microsoft, Citrix, Virtual Iron, Novell, and Sun will gladly take the market share that VMware concedes. If VMware wants to take away those market opportunities, then it must drastically lower prices immediately. Short term, a substantial price reduction would hurt. However, over time, denied opportunities for VMware's competitors would equate to more sustained revenue for VMware.

Microsoft has long dominated the SMB market and feels strongly that Hyper-V will do well there. When you factor in the System Center management suite and Data Protection Manager, by the end of the year Microsoft will have a very good management and backup solution to complement Hyper-V (System Center Virtual Machine Manager 2008 has yet to ship). Microsoft is saying that Hyper-V runs on "the Windows you know and love," but if you configure Hyper-V in the recommended deployment on Windows Server 2008 core, I'm not sure how much love you'll be feeling immediately. I've found a Hyper-V on Windows Server 2008 core installation to be more complex than either VMware ESX Server or Citrix XenServer. VMware should capitalize on this, and Microsoft should counter by simplifying the Hyper-V/Windows 2008 Core installation process (yes - it's easy to enable the Hyper-V role, but setting up the network, storage, domain membership, etc. on Windows Server 2008 Core will take additional time). To win the SMB, VMware needs to be cost competitive and offer equivalent SMB management features. I think adding a solution that rivals Data Protection Manager would help.

Some see the virtual desktop as an irrelevant tangent, but not me. Microsoft eventually won the server war due to its integration with the desktop, and I see virtualization as playing out similarly. Citrix is gaining a lot of momentum in the virtual desktop space and Microsoft is telling anyone who will listen to go with the Citrix solution. So VMware has an uphill battle here. VMware has some great ideas for virtual desktop delivery and I feel that they will need them on the street sooner rather than later in order to keep Citrix at bay. Losing the virtual desktop battle may not cost VMware the virtualization war, but it will definitely make their road to success all that more difficult.

Microsoft's core messaging has focused on the solution, while I feel that sometimes VMware places too much emphasis on its individual technologies. When you have a best-of-breed product, you tend to want to brag about the little things that you can do that no one else can. So I understand why VMware is proud of it's individual products. Still, what I want to see from VMware is more about how they are adding value to the entire application stack (management, availability, performance, etc.). Sure, VMware doesn't do it all, but combined with its major partners in the management space, VMware plays a major role in the complete solution. Give us a solution web page that shows how you do it. Better yet, give us a web 2.0-based site that allows anyone to design a fully virtualized data center using products from VMware's core management partners (e.g., BMC, CA, Dell, IBM, HP). The best technology doesn't always win out in the end, but the best story often does.

VMware - tell us your story.

Posted by: Chris Wolf

Storage virtualization – whatever you want it to be.

Storage virtualization - what is it? Does anyone know? I hear the term thrown around describing all kinds of storage devices. It must be good - after all who doesn't love to talk about 'server virtualization'. Kinda the same thing with 'green storage' whatever that is - but that's another blog. Virtualizing anything must be good nowadays - what vendor doesn't want to be associated with the server virtualization stampede, and rightly so.

The definition of storage virtualization according to the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) includes terms like: abstracting, hiding, aggregating, isolating devices, or the delivery of new services. With that definition, pretty much anything can be described as being virtualized. Cool. So if I'm a vendor and I offer a RAID device, then by definition my device supports virtualization- call marketing and get that on the flyer for heaven's sake.

The whole storage virtualization lingo has gone astray - it's become meaningless with overuse and nothing more than a marketing jingle. Now I'm not saying that the functions offered by virtualization are not useful, they definitely are, but let’s call it what it is or should be: 'storage simplification'. An ultimate user should be able to identify what app's she plans to run and order up a chunk of storage to meet that need. And if her data needs protection then order that up too. Does the user or IT admin really want to muck around with the parts and pieces in a storage system to meet the needs? No. It’s much kinder to simplify the complexity and automate by simplification whatever is needed under the covers. It’s the 'whatever is needed' part that storage virtualization vendors focus on. I push the gas pedal the car goes - I don't adjust the timing and fuel mixture - the gas pedal simplifies that for me.

So what's important? Forget about the term 'storage virtualization'. Focus on function and features. Determine what you are looking for in the ultimate storage ecosystem. Do you want to provide nuts to bolts information lifecycle management? Ok then, look for storage vendors who can move data auto-magically from storage tier to tier with some content management thrown in. Or are you tired of managing volume capacities? Then get yourself into thin provisioning. Need volumes to follow around server virtual machines? Look for storage that can flit along with the VM. Need to backup and archive?  Get data deduplication. Consolidate all those disk arrays you've got into a common management point with a few extra features thrown in? Yes we can. Whatever - you get the idea. Call it what it is, describe the function you're looking for and find vendors who can deliver. If the storage vendor wants to call it virtualization, then great, give him a knowing smile, pat him the back, but ask for a firm bid.

Posted by: Gene Ruth

VMware: Welcome to the Game.

Now that the initial shock of Diane Greene's resignation has begun to subside, the "what happened" question begins to loom as people try to understand what is going on at VMware -- a company that has had the biggest tech IPO since Google.

The elephant in the room is whether the relationship between Diane Greene and Joe Tucci (EMC CEO and VMware chairman) was strained. I want to put that aside for a second and talk about the real issue that perhaps contributed or even led to yesterday's events... because whatever your feelings are about the tension between the two, it is secondary (at least) to the real problem -- competitive strategy in an increasingly competitive market.

Game On
The primary issue is VMware's competitive strategy against Microsoft Hyper-V, Citrix XenServer, and other XEN hypervisor players. VMware’s fundamental competitive problem is very analogous to Novell’s struggle against Microsoft in the 1990's. Novell had NetWare and NDS (Novell Directory Services) two of the strongest "system software" products in the market. But Novell didn’t have the enterprise applications that could keep customers from switching to a non-Novell centric environment. Microsoft did. Eventually Microsoft leveraged their application position to take market share away from NetWare by tying applications like Exchange to Windows (and Active Directory). VMware faces almost the very same issue. VMware has ESX -- a superior hypervisor in many respects to Hyper-V. But one has to ask: how long will it be before Microsoft ties Hyper-V to Exchange, SQLServer, or some other part of the Microsoft ecosystem? Hyper-V may not be the best hypervisor in the market, but it might be the best hypervisor for Exchange or for Windows environments. And given Hyper-V’s price (free), it might just be “good enough” to compete (remember -- Active Directory wasn’t near as feature rich as NDS, but because Microsoft tied AD to Exchange, AD is now the defacto directory service ).

The “hyper-V effect” on ESX – at least at this stage – was more of a “pause” than market share shift. Once again, Microsoft pulled off their typical (yet somewhat genius) MO by announcing vaporware, thereby buying time in the market, and then releasing a product with less features than the market leader, at a significantly cheaper price. Now the game ensues again….ESX will see a “bounce” in the sales because consumers will realized that Hyper-V isn’t quite there (yet). But Microsoft accomplished their first goal...get IT administrators “kick the Hyper-V tires” in their labs and gain entry into the market. Be assured that Microsoft will continue to add functionality to Hyper-V and eventually tie their hypervisor to their enterprise applications (like Exchange and SQLServer) and incorporate Hyper-V management into System Center. Eventually one has to wonder if Hyper-V will be “good enough” for customers to migrate because hyper-V works well within the Microsoft ecosystem. I suspect VMware's lack of competitive strategy against such forces was a central cause for concern in the boardroom.

Welcome to the game VMware.

Winning Strategies
Now, I'm not saying VMware is going away. Far from it. They are the market leader and will continue to be in a rapidly growing market. But, they have to address the competitive strategy issue if they want to continue to lead, because right now, they're playing Microsoft's game...and Microsoft is very good at it.

So what should VMware do? How do they address this issue I've raised?  A winning strategy is multi-pronged.

• VMware should stop focusing (so much) on the functionality of the hypervisor and start focusing on strategies that make the OS "irrelevant". If the OS running inside a VM is simply an "operating runtime environment" for the application, then it doesn't matter "what" that runtime environment is...in other words, it's irrelevant (although necessary). This strategy  marginalizes all operating systems...including Windows and Microsoft's application position. VMware has a clear lead in      hypervisor technology (perhaps 2 years or more). While they can't let their hypervisor slip, there is only so much functionality one can add to that layer. By strengthening their application partnerships with ISVs like SAP AND demonstrating that these applications don't need a “bloated OS” to run, VMware might be able to convince customers that running Windows in a VM is overkill. Do applications really need all of the functionality contained within Windows to run a single application? No. So the rest of the "services" loaded by Windows are simply chewing up memory and CPU utilization. VMware needs to exploit this fact, by pressing their "JUICE" initiative or Just enough OS (JeOS). The idea is to load "just enough" of an operating system to run the application.
• Some have suggested that VMware should focus on management, and that, could be a place where they would "win" against Microsoft. While I can agree that management is a differentiator and a place where VMware can compete there are limitations. VMware providing a better management tool for virtualization is -- in many ways -- simply another management silo within the context of   the overall IT ecosystem. Microsoft, with System Center, is better positioned to manage the entire IT ecosystem -- everything from operating systems to applications to storage and servers to virtualization. Do we expect VMware to manage email, storage, physical servers, or networks? Perhaps, but that's a stretch. It’s more likely that Microsoft (or some well-known enterprise management console) will win that battle. In addition, management is not something easily commoditized, so customers have the expectation to pay for what they get. Whereas the      hypervisor is being economically marginalized. This was clearly Microsoft’s plan from the beginning, given Hyper-V's price. So, VMware can't "go it alone" in the management space and expect to win in      the long run. In the management arena, a better strategy would be for EMC     and VMware to combine forces. It's no secret that EMC wants to be a major player in the management space. Teaming up, VMware and EMC could create an enterprise management suite that could manage virtual servers and desktops, virtual storage, and SANs. Partner that with Cisco, and you have the makings of a very nice enterprise management offering.
• VMware should "own" the cloud. Every hosting and service provider in the market should be selling applications -- or SaaS -- using virtual servers running ESX. Make ESX a common part of how companies use the Internet services and resources from the cloud...that's very sticky and hard for people to replace. In addition, if VMware can provide the best management experience    for the service providers AND for the customers using the resources from the cloud, then VMware can own the market. It also allows VMware to quitely replace applications like Exchange with other email applications that provide the same email "service" to customers. Does email as a service require Exchange? or Windows? I suspect that new CEO Paul Maritz will focus in this area.
• VMware should accept/acknowledge that Hyper-V will exist and extend ESX into the enterprise. WHAT?!!? In other words, recognize that -- in the long run -- people are going to have Hyper-V, so make Hyper-V just another part of a heterogeneous enterprise where multiple hypervisors exist. ESX is the "enterprise hypervisor" and Hyper-V is less capable one, but good enough for some applications. However, no one manages -- or virtualizes -- a heterogeneous environment better than VMware. Heterogeneity is something Novell did very well, and continues to do today. Sounds anti-intuitive? Look, the road to perdition is littered with the bodies of companies (WordPerfect and Netscape come to mind) who tried to stand in the way of Microsoft products and lost. VMware should not do the same. If VMware strategy is to compete in the hypervisor space, then they're playing the wrong game.
• Diversify in the virtualization space. VMware is doing this to some degree, but one can make the argument that their strategy has been to focus on server virtualization (that's why they have the best product). VMware needs to increase the scope of their offerings and the focus and attention they pay in those areas.

Maybe VMware is doing these things already. If so, then time to press on the accelerator. If not, time to get going...and fast. For VMware, there's no better time in the market to exact this strategy. Vista sales are lackluster and the transition to Windows Server 2008 may prove slow. In addition, Microsoft is busy fighting another battle that threatens their OS and application dominance: Google apps.

New CEO
I've seen some comments on blogs that suggest VMware -- with the hiring of Paul Maritz -- will cozy up to Microsoft....that VMware should forge the same relationship that Novell has with Microsoft to ensure platform interoperability. Maybe. Interoperability is a good thing for customers. But I’m skeptical this is a comprehensive winning strategy. Whenever a company does this, it signals that the battle between the two is really over. The “if we can’t beat them, then join them” strategy is one where Microsoft ultimately wins. What VMware really needs is a competitive strategy. Given Paul's recent startup in the cloud computing space it seems likely that VMware may be headed in toward the cloud computing space. Perhaps this is a smart move, as it adds to the "OS is irrelevant" strategy. ...it is certainly the right game to play.

posted by: Drue Reeves

VMware CEO Ousted

VMware chief executive officer Diane Green is ousted and x-Microsoft leader Paul Maritz is put in place. 
VMware stock price sank on the news (who would have guessed?)
Back in January, I blogged about the troubled times I saw ahead for VMware; making a comparison to Novell's rise and fall.  Similarities continue to abound.  Remember Bob Frankenberg being ousted from Novell?  Remember Novell brought in Eric Schmidt (now Google's Chief) to save the day?
VMware has adjusted its earning forecasts lower for the remainder of the year.  Wall Street never likes it when a company does that, and they are feeling the pain.  There is a relationship between the company's slowing growth and Ms. Green's departure.  The board needs the company to change its focus and direction as the virtualization market matures.  As BurtonGroup has stated, 2008 is the year of choice in virtualization solutions in the x86 commodity server world.  Xen solutions from virtually (pun intended) everyone and their dog, Hyper-V from Microsoft, not to mention the slowing economy is spelling a drastic need for change at VMware.  VMware's board is looking for that change of focus in appointing a new CEO. 
My experience has been that the success of a new CEO coming on board is 30% the CEO's abilities and 70% the rest of the employees in the company being able to take a step back and recognize the changing market around them such as changes in what's important to users and focus their development and go-to-market efforts around those changes.
As I mentioned in my January blog, VMware has great opportunities; they just need to act on them and quickly.
[Posted by Richard Jones]

SSD - Storage is just the first wave

Solid state disk (SSD) made from FLASH memory technologies are suddenly all the rage, with big vendors like EMC and SUN giving details on their strategy for using SSD to improve I/O performance in enterprise storage. It's not surprising that storage is the first to benefit from the technology for two reasons:

1. Performance: Conventional disk cannot address the growing gap between storage and overall system performance. You can't just make disks spin faster or the read/write heads move more quickly, physics gets in the way.
2. Ease of use: FLASH-based memory packaged as disk (i.e. using the same 3.5" and 2.5" form factors and interfaces) is pretty easy to integrate with existing storage systems, it doesn't take a rocket science degree.

The immediate impact will be on sales of high performance SAS and FC disk, where performance is prized over capacity. Why buy (and subsequently power and cool) ten 72GB 15K RPM FC drives if one or two SSD drives can give you better performance and still meet your capacity requirements? Yes, I know the technology isn't quite there yet, particularly for write performance, but it will be, and it will decimate the high-performance disk market.

With SSD in disk drive form factors a foregone conclusion (my bet is most enterprises will have it for at least some applications by 2010), the more interesting question is how the technology evolves and it's long term impact on several areas:

• Server form factors: Some of the form factor of a typical server or blade is governed by the number of drives supported. But why have drives at all, FLASH memory doesn't have to be packaged that way, it could installed in slots on a motherboard for example. So FLASH bring about new more dense server form factors as storage performance, power consumption, and storage form factors change.
• File systems: All the file systems in widespread use today are designed to overcome or at least mitigate the inherent limitations of conventional disk. For example many file system optimize placement of disk blocks for a particular file to minimize disk head movements caused by fragmentation, others employ defragmentation tools to address the problem. But FLASH-based storage is truly random access, performance is the same for every single block on the device, rendering the whole concept of fragmentation meaningless.
• I/O interface protocols: Protocols like FC and SAS are designed for use with conventional disk, but they don't make sense for high-performance I/O from memory, which would be better suited to a pure memory type interface without all the storage protocol overhead.
• Main memory: At first glance this one doesn't seem that attractive, after all FLASH is much slower than DDR2 DRAM isn't it? But it doesn't have to be that much slower, as Spansion are demonstrating with their NOR FLASH-based DIMMs that plug right into the memory slots on the motherboard. Read performance is not quite up to DDR2 speeds, but it's close enough, and 32GB/DIMM (that's 256GB in eight slots) is very attractive for applications that primarily read from a database that can now be loaded into memory.
• Operating systems: Changing the performance ratio between storage and compute may open up new possibilities in OS design, for example the paging system could be implemented on FLASH storage interfaced directly to the memory bus.

I could go on (and probably will do in the future :-), but that will do for now.

Posted by: Nik Simpson