Reading through the comments though it looks like I should try making a BTRFS mount for the container storage and that might help the fuse-overlayfs problems though.
Now I understand that btrfs is not really a requirement.
But I've been thinking about using podman to replace docker-in-docker on our fleet of gitlab runners where we build our images, and running btrfs is a deal breaker. We really don't want to add complexity to the mix. Fuse-overlay burning through the whole CPU is not really good looking either. Mh.
I still have to properly dig deep into this, but I'm keeping my hopes high.
Why? Storage is literally the backbone of technology. From databases to webservers there are unique and real requirements. There's a reason why the enterprise storage market is still worth several billion dollars, and it's not because storage is easy.
In 2021, with billions of dollars of R&D at their disposal - neither Amazon, Google, or Microsoft have even a mediocre NAS stack in comparison to the likes of Dell/EMC (Isilon) or NetApp (ONTAP). Heck they can't even compete with startups like Qumulo or Vast.
They have "competition" in the market, it's just horrible. Because storage is hard.
>Storage may be a multi-billion dollar market - but it's also razor thin margin compared to where those brands focus their R&D spend.
I'm going to let you go back and review the earnings reports from the aforementioned companies. Razor thin margins? You wouldn't survive in the market with razor thin margins.
> I'd argue those you've named don't have interest selling storage to the enterprise in the form of legacy boxes.
I'd argue Azure Stack, AWS Outpost, and Google Anthos readily prove you wrong.
> Cloud storage is also recurring revenue where enterprise storage is considered perpetual.
Just... no. Enterprise storage has a shelf life of 3-5 years before maintenance or technology make it obsolete.
>The latter is generally frowned upon from the Street's perspective these days (good, bad or otherwise).
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/NTAP:NASDAQ
5 years ago they were at $20/share, today they're at $69/share. Reality doesn't appear to match your claim as to the street's opinion of enterprise storage.
Yes, razor thin margins - comparatively. The cost of buying physical storage is commoditized. I've worked in technology from the pre-sale engineering side for a number of years. Margins on hardware are fractional compared to software and subscription offerings.
Stack, Outpost and Anthos are not revenue drivers today. They're vendor lock in tools.
3-5 years is a horrible argument in the position you're attempting to make considering it's an eternity in technology. Consider that you sell the storage once in that 3-5 years. Your cloud provider bills you monthly and you don't own it. It's recurring revenue vs a singular sales event.
NTAP over 5 years is a decent return. 215% over that timeframe. Amazon returns 543% in the same timeframe. And let's use a hot space that's 100% subscription based, like Crowdstrike: 265% in less than a year. Software and subscription margins crush the legacy perpetual hardware model.
Storage is an old, stable, and commoditized market. There's no huge growth (any storage earnings report show that very clearly). And while the demand for storage continues to increase, the NetApps of the world aren't capturing where that growth is.
I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong and didn't bother to look up margins like I suggested you do.
NTAP 2020 margins: 66% https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NTAP/netapp/gross-...
AMZ 2020 margins: ~41% https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/profit...
An all time high... and not even close.
>Storage is an old, stable, and commoditized market.
Which is why... per my original post... the cloud providers struggle to provide basic features in 2021 that have been available to enterprise storage customers for 20+ years.
Second thing is gross margin is not the same thing as net margin. Net margin is a far better indicator in the case of pure profitability / revenue. Just because a company shares $1.42B in revenue doesn't mean they have $1.42B in profits. If you look at NetApp net profit margin it's off 45% year over year. Latest net profit margin is 9.68%. So on that 1.42B we have $137M in profit. Not too hot.
The reality is hardware sales have thin margin (comparatively) and NetApp's software model is much weaker than comparative storage offerings in the cloud. It's very expensive to design, build, ship and house inventory of hardware for purchase. There's no way around this, which chews through that profit margin.
Yes, I'm aware Amazon continually buries their AWS profitability. It's 57% of the overall margin, it's not significantly better than NetApp.
>Second thing is gross margin is not the same thing as net margin. Net margin is a far better indicator in the case of pure profitability / revenue.
Net margin is a dial they can and do turn by shifting money in and out of R&D and sales staff. Furthermore you can't simultaneously say that for Amazon we only take into account AWS and not the rest of the business... which is a part of the engine that drives the AWS business. That's no different than saying we shouldn't account for hardware in NetApp's number because they also sell software.
>It's very expensive to design, build, ship and house inventory of hardware for purchase. There's no way around this, which chews through that profit margin.
What exactly do you think Amazon's datacenters are full of? Hardware they design, build, and ship inventory around the country for. They are working with the exact same ODM's that NetApp or any other storage vendor works with to design their custom hardware variations.
All balance sheets can and are manipulated to differing extent. The reality though is net margin takes better into account than what you were proposing, which is a cherry picked angle to make a point. Growth companies move profits to R&D. NetApp isn't highlighting R&D on earnings calls. Amazon highlights R&D very publicly multiple times per year. Low R&D costs and investment are indicators of a stagnant market.
Amazon's hardware model is not the same as NetApp's. You realize Amazon consumes almost 100% of their own hardware offerings for AWS, right? They have a much more palatable JIT model. They can build as they need. NetApp has to house dead weight inventory for potential sales so they can recognize revenue, especially for end of quarter / end of year sales pushes. Amazon doesn't have this problem.
Also NetApp has to package their product for customer distribution. You may ignorantly shrug this off but it's an additional cost that adds up quickly. NetApp also has to maintain documentation and support staff for customer facing hardware related issues. Amazon has a much lighter requirement because they have specialists within their DCs.
It's not even remotely comparable. Amazon isn't working with "the exact same ODMs". Many ODMs NetApp is forced to work with Amazon doesn't need. Take a look at what Amazon is doing internally and it's clear their stack continues to evolve more towards in house designs and build. NetApp is far more reliant on external support than Amazon is given their positions in the market and have far greater control over the hardware stack from top to bottom. Maybe peruse the career openings at AWS vs NetApp for some insights.
Netapp is love, Netapp is life.
I have fond memories of cloning a volume, from a snapshot, in seconds. On EBS it takes minutes.