Users who took part in TheInfoPro study commented on these issues on condition of anonymity:"A key question we ponder is: 'Do the tiers need to be from the same vendor?' It seems like Tier-1 and Tier-2 have to be to date when you factor in the management software. So tiers are good from a cost perspective, but I'm not sure if they let you mix the vendors; it is not easy to move data between tiers." "There is a real dichotomy happening in the market as it relates to tiers. The vendors and users are doing a dance. We, as users, are pushing consolidation and commoditization and there is an inverse effect from vendors who are pushing higher end Fibre Channel as that is where the margin is. Our challenge is the effort to get respective models put together, as ultimately using other tiers helps you reduce your costs overall. Our storage footprint is not shrinking; however, now it is growing at a lower price point. The vendors are trying to make us utilize the higher tiers." "We're working to implement tiered storage but we need to be able to chargeback based on utilization. We can't yet chargeback. Until we can cost out the different tiers, we can't get anyone to go on anything less than the top tier storage performance -- because we can't tell any user that they'll save money –- because it's allocated today."
Despite the drawbacks, over 90% of the companies interviewed expect to use SATA drives in a tiered storage environment by 2006. And 30% of those currently using Serial ATA drives plan to spend over $500,000 on them this year.When asked whether they plan to implement tiers within the same frame, 51% of the respondents said "yes" and 49% said "no." There appears to be two different camps forming on how tiers should be implemented. The "no" camp views high-end SAN frames as expensive real estate that should not include low-cost tiers. While the other half sees no value in empty air in a frame and is happy to mix the tiers. Click here for more of today's news.