Nutanix digs itself into a hole ... and refuses to drop the shovel

Hard for everyone in this (no) testing time

Here's what Nutanix told StorageReview about the plan:

While we work to finalise the performance test plan, we ask that you not conduct any testing that measures the performance of the Nutanix product or the performance of any application (including test software) running on the Nutanix platform.

Specifically, we ask that you not use any custom-developed or commercial test tools to measure performance, including but not limited to, Sysbench, VMmark, IOmeter and Open LDAP.

Until we have a mutually agreed upon plan, we ask that you not undertake any performance testing of the Nutanix product, or publish results of prior performance testing.

So Nutanix wants the marketing benefits of a product review in the independent StorageReview magazine, but won't let it run independent tests?

Beeler said no, and commented: "The test plan currently proposed by Nutanix is fine for learning the system and characterising lightweight behaviours, but does not show what customers can expect as their demands grow after initial deployment."

He added: "Nutanix now holds a position that its testing plan should be the hyperconverged standard, which is somewhat surprising given its testing plan leverages synthetic testing tools primarily, and doesn’t stress cluster performance" – i.e. real-world application performance."

StorageReview has a VMware Virtual SAN Review: SQL Server Performance test review, also a VMware Virtual SAN Review: Sysbench OLTP Performance testing result.

If that's not enough to demonstrate VMware VSAN performance transparency, there's also this VMware Virtual SAN Review: VMmark Performance review.

Despite six months of work, StorageReview was not able to produce an independent performance result, using benchmarks which were acceptable to VMware, and which also pleased Nutanix.

If followed through, this would not enable comparisons to be made with other hyperconverged systems – notably VMware's VSAN – which gets us back to the blog spat and Lundell's attempt to occupy the moral high ground.

Sorry Lukas, but Nutanix cannot claim that performance testing moral high ground. The company has seemingly demonstrated that it is not interested in transparency about test results. The clear implication is simply that Nutanix systems don't perform as well in the real world as Nutanix hoped.

A Nutanix spokesperson gave us this statement:

We’re committed to working with independent third-party evaluation labs like Storage Review to compare our solution against any hyperconverged product using comparable hardware and a comprehensive and representative testing methodology.

The current generation of methodologies does not adequately represent how hyperconverged solutions perform in real-world customer environments. We feel strongly that utilising outdated test tools and methodologies would not provide customers interested in hyperconverged solutions with relevant and indicative data.

As indicated by Lukas, we’re building an open, comprehensive test suite for this category that we feel will help customers better understand the performance of hyperconverged solutions. We’ll demonstrate it at the Nutanix booth at VMworld and will release it in September so anyone in the industry can use it.

In the meantime, we’ll continue talking to Storage Review and any other third parties about working together on a review that will benefit both the industry and customers evaluating hyperconverged solutions.


Similar topics

Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021