brian Hatchell, Author at ONST Technologies https://onst.tech/author/bhatchell/ Tech-ONST-ly Fri, 20 Feb 2026 21:01:49 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://i0.wp.com/onst.tech/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Favicon.png?fit=32%2C30&ssl=1 brian Hatchell, Author at ONST Technologies https://onst.tech/author/bhatchell/ 32 32 237981310 An ONST Take on the ‘RAMpocalypse’ https://onst.tech/2026/02/20/an-onst-take-on-the-rampocalypse/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=an-onst-take-on-the-rampocalypse Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:35:53 +0000 https://onst.tech/?p=1440 An “ONST” Take On The RAMpocalypse… duh, duh, duuuuuhhh Hardware Prices Are Climbing — Plan Ahead (RAM + Flash Shock […]

The post An ONST Take on the ‘RAMpocalypse’ appeared first on ONST Technologies.

]]>

An "ONST" Take On The RAMpocalypse... duh, duh, duuuuuhhh

Hardware Prices Are Climbing — Plan Ahead (RAM + Flash Shock Through 2027)

Hardware Prices Are Climbing — Plan Ahead (RAM + Flash Shock Through 2027)

Flash media and DRAM are driving a structural cost shock across compute, storage, networking, and GPUs. The “wait to buy later” playbook is not working right now.

Forecast: 2026–2027 Topic: DRAM + NAND + HDD spillover Action: buy sooner / find efficiencies
⭐ BONUS STAGE
┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
│     BOSS FIGHT: RISING RAM COSTS     │
├──────────────────────────────────────┤
│  HP: ████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒  (??)    │
│  YOU:  (ง'̀-'́)ง  ──►  [BUY NOW]       │
│  BOSS: [DRAM] + [NAND] + [HDD]       │
│  DROP:  "QUOTES EXPIRE IN 14 DAYS"   │
└──────────────────────────────────────┘

It’s not a normal down-and-to-the-right pricing cycle. Plan like it’s a new game mode.

📈 The situation

Hardware prices are climbing and don’t expect relief anytime soon. Buy your technology sooner rather than later. No easing is expected until at least 2027.

Driven by flash media and DRAM price increases, pricing will be a major shock to anyone procuring almost any computerized electronic or storage device for some time. This is an entirely new market, very similar to the GPU supply crunches we have seen for some years now.

🟡 SAVE POINT
███████████████████████████████
█  WARNING: PRICE PATCH NOTES  █
█  - "WAIT TO BUY" NERFED      █
█  - "BUDGETS" TAKING DAMAGE   █
█  - "LEAD TIMES" SPAWNING     █
███████████████████████████████

Old strategies still work sometimes. Just not in this dungeon.

This will be hard for many to adjust to, as storage and RAM prices generally trend downward and conventional wisdom would indicate that postponing purchases would make things less expensive if measured by costs over capacity.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 12–18 MONTHS and might not ever be true again.

In the past two calendar quarters we have seen DRAM procurement costs rise as much as 172% and SSD media raw materials (NAND wafers) are up 246% year over year. DRAM pricing for compute platforms (routers/switches, storage devices, compute platforms, GPUs) accounts for 30–50 percent of costs on these items.

VDURA has indicated that large SSD (32TB) drive prices have increased by 257% (from $3,062 to $10,950) in the past two quarters. Current cost increases are lagging market and are being cushioned by current inventories, meaning that customers have not seen the worst of this yet.

❓ Why are prices increasing?

Enterprise SSD demand is surging, driven by AI data center needs. NAND foundry allocations to SSD storage have exceeded smartphone supply demands for the first time. Manufacturers of DRAM and NAND are prioritizing their AI data center buyers. These buyers want more capacity than the manufacturers can provide.

Manufacturers are NOT expanding capacity, resulting in a classic ‘demand exceeding supply’ scenario. These price increases are structural. While the current spike is unusually steep, I don’t expect the market to return to previous levels or trends. The curve should flatten somewhat once this initial shock passes.

Global buyers are buying components that are not manufactured yet, for devices not yet assembled, for data centers that are not built yet.

🪙 COIN ROOM
┌──────────────────────────────┐
│  SUPPLY vs DEMAND METER      │
├──────────────────────────────┤
│  SUPPLY : ████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒     │
│  DEMAND : ████████████████   │
│  STATUS : "STRUCTURAL BOOST" │
└──────────────────────────────┘

When demand stays buffed and supply stays capped, prices don’t “reset” politely.

🔮 What can you expect in the near future?
  • QLC NAND is expected to increase 60–100% more this calendar year.
  • TLC media will increase more slowly, with the main effects seen mid-year.
  • Spillover effects will increase HDD prices by as much as 40–50% this year.
  • An Account Executive for a Fortune 500 technology company said they anticipate DRAM pricing to double every month for the foreseeable future.
  • Another AE indicated active quotes are being pulled — new quotes are being issued with only 14-day windows before requotes are needed.
🍄 MUSHROOM POWER
███████████████████████████████████
█  WELCOME TO THE STORAGE SHOP!    █
█  TODAY'S SPECIAL:                █
█   - QLC ↑↑ (60–100%)             █
█   - HDD ↑   (40–50%)             █
█   - QUOTES: 14 DAYS ONLY         █
█  TIP: "COLD DATA != GOLD DATA"   █
███████████████████████████████████

Procurement tip: assume volatility; shorten decision loops where you can.

🪓 LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS FOR STORAGE – FIND EFFICIENCIES

The DRAM, SSD and HDD increase in costs mean that customers are going to pay MUCH MUCH more for storage this calendar year, with SSD media increasing more than traditional spinning disk. The flash-storage-only companies promise of SSD becoming as cheap as HDD will NOT come to fruition anytime soon.

There seem to be two main choices for storage buyers right now.

  1. Don’t buy storage. With the typical organization increasing storage use by 20 percent per year, combined with ‘just in time’ procurement this is not an option for many unless they want to destroy existing data or have not yet turned on data reduction. I am uncertain that any current pricing guarantees/long term contracts will be honored under these market conditions.
  2. Find efficiencies. This will mean data reduction and/or tiering data to less expensive media while preserving flash media only for data that needs the performance of SSD.
🧰 ITEM GET!
┌───────────────────────────┐
│  TOOLKIT UNLOCKED!        │
├───────────────────────────┤
│  [1] Compression          │
│  [2] Deduplication        │
│  [3] Tiering Policies     │
│  BONUS: "Data Awareness"  │
└───────────────────────────┘

The fastest win in a supply crunch is usually “do more with what you already own.”

🧪 Data reduction

Data reduction can be categorized into two methods. Each can be done inline as data is written or post process after data is committed to disk. Inline data reduction often comes with performance penalties on writing data. The efficiencies found from these technologies are very dependent on the type of data you have.

Method What it does Important note
Compression Finds “white space” or redundancies and re-encodes with fewer bits. Many apps already compress data, limiting gains. Generally considered inferior to deduplication.
Deduplication Eliminates redundant, identical data by replacing extra copies with pointers to a single original instance. Can be done at file, block, or byte levels.
🧊 Tiering

Tiering is the ability to place data on different media. The best way to do this is with a policy of some kind, referencing file type, workload, or last accessed time. An example is a solution with SSD and HDD storage that keeps the latest data on SSD and moves data to HDD as it ages.

It makes no sense to keep cold data on the most expensive media. NOT ALL DATA IS CREATED EQUAL.

While there are many third-party products that can move data around and provide links or stubs to the original location of the data, organic solutions native to storage seem to work best. I would recommend a customer-created policy driven solution, as each organization’s needs would be different.

🗺 SOME COMMON UNSTRUCTURED STORAGE SOLUTIONS (CURRENT SUPPLY CRUNCH)

Dell PowerScale is one of the most flexible solutions in the market. Dell offers policy-driven compression and deduplication both inline and post process. Dell offers extensive tiering support both within the storage cluster and off cluster to object storage. Dell is one of the few companies that will write guarantees on data reduction rates. Dell offers QLC, TLC and HDD media in PowerScale clusters.

NetApp ONTAP platforms also feature inline/post process compression, inline/post process deduplication and tiering. ONTAP still relies on RAID technologies, which are not as efficient as their competitor’s erasure coding solutions. NetApp has tiering support as well, but policy support is lacking compared to Dell PowerScale and they only tier to S3 object storage. NetApp offers a variety of media for ONTAP clusters with limitations. NetApp also offers a storage guarantee, but less robust than Dell’s.

Pure FlashBlade//S only supports proprietary QLC media with no tiering as we know it. They do offer ‘Zero-Move Tiering’, but this seems to be a throttling solution, allowing performance classes of storage by allocating less compute and networking to entire file systems that are deemed ‘cooler’. Pure FB//S only offers inline compression with no policy support on tiering.

VAST Data is hugely reliant upon SCM and QLC media – both will be impacted by the current supply situation. While VAST Data claims the best data reduction, using compression and deduplication, it is inflexible and inline only. VAST often recommends turning data reduction off in high-write workloads. VAST has no tiering support whatsoever to different media, and in fact their business model is ‘anti-tiering’.

Qumulo does not have data reduction, rather claiming the same efficiencies for the most part that other erasure code-based systems provide. Qumulo does very limited tiering using hybrid nodes with SSD and HDD drives with automated (no policy support) hot/cold block placement. Qumulo can tier between differing clusters in the same distributed namespace, but it does not seem to be able to tier between HDD and SSD nodes in the same cluster.

🏁 HOW DO THESE RANK AND WHY?
  1. Dell PowerScale Flexible tiering operations, can mix media in a cluster, compression and deduplication with a guarantee, and a supply chain advantage.
  2. NetApp ONTAP Similar features, but RAID inefficiencies hurt them. They cannot tier within a cluster, and tiering policy support is limited.
  3. Qumulo No data reduction, but can tier between clusters of differing media types. Limited supply chain control compared to larger incumbents.
  4. VAST Data Strong data reduction helps, but no native tiering and heavy reliance on constrained media makes competition harder under new pricing realities.
  5. Pure FlashBlade//S Compression-focused SSD-only clusters with limited automated tiering; proprietary media dynamics make timing and magnitude of spikes uncertain.
🏁 CLEAR STAGE!
┌───────────────────────────┐
│   LEVEL UP! PROCUREMENT    │
├───────────────────────────┤
│  + Tiering Policies        │
│  + Reduction Guarantees    │
│  + Faster Decision Cycles  │
│  - "Wait & See" Strategy   │
└───────────────────────────┘

If the market is the boss, you want buffs—not vibes.

🪓 SHARPEN YOUR AX!

It’s going to be a wild ride in 2026 and 2027 for storage purchasers. If your data supports data reduction – you need to be evaluating possible efficiencies NOW, maybe attempt to ride this out if you can.

If you are invested in a storage vendor that does not do tiering, you may be looking at a third-party data manager to move your cooler data to a less-expensive storage solution. If your data is not reduceable or if your workload requires all-flash storage performance, you are at a disadvantage in storage costs.

If you feel you need to buy storage during the next 24 months, it seems to be well worth it to pull the trigger now rather than later. All-flash storage buys should be limited to specific workloads or those severely impacted by rack space and power constraints.

About Brian & TreeBeard Consulting

Brian Hatchell is a seasoned data center technologist and competitive intelligence practitioner with deep experience across unstructured storage, servers, networking, and go-to-market enablement. He’s spent years helping technical and sales teams translate complex infrastructure realities into practical procurement decisions, positioning, and win strategies—especially in high-stakes, competitive environments.

TreeBeard Consulting provides thoughtful, well-informed advisory services spanning sales enablement, deal assistance, competitive intelligence, vendor assessment, technical marketing, and early-warning insights—helping organizations make better decisions faster, and with fewer surprises.

Name
Can we get your digits?
How did you find us?
Tell us about your IT needs, challenges, or any questions you have...
=

The post An ONST Take on the ‘RAMpocalypse’ appeared first on ONST Technologies.

]]>
1440
Object Storage – An ONST Review https://onst.tech/2025/11/04/object_storage_review/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=object_storage_review Tue, 04 Nov 2025 14:54:58 +0000 https://onst.tech/?p=1291 Object Storage – An ONST Review By Brian Hatchell Brian Hatchell is a seasoned expert with over 20 years in […]

The post Object Storage – An ONST Review appeared first on ONST Technologies.

]]>

Object Storage - An ONST Review

By Brian Hatchell

Brian Hatchell is a seasoned expert with over 20 years in data center technology and the founder of Treebeard Consulting. He has led global deal assistance, marketing consulting, product management advising, and competitive intelligence initiatives for large-scale data solutions at the highest level. His work includes winning billions of dollars in competitive deals involving file and object storage solutions for diverse workloads across the full spectrum of competitors.

Brian holds a Master-Level Competitive Intelligence Professional (CIP) certification from the Academy of Competitive Intelligence. He resides in the Big Bear, California area with his wife, two French Bulldogs, and one antique Chihuahua.

This basic guide is designed to separate some of the noise from signal in the object storage space. Many of these vendors are masters at marketing and it is indeed difficult to determine what is best for customers choosing an object solution.

Not so long ago, object storage was primarily used for lower-priority workloads such as modern app development and archival storage. This is 100 percent not the case in late 2025. We see object storage in traditionally file-based and high-value workloads such as data protection and artificial intelligence. Object storage has several advantages over traditional file solutions, including scale, resiliency, data management, versioning, and in many cases cost.

Object storage, pioneered by Amazon, organizes data as objects with unique identifiers and rich metadata in a flat structure called a ‘bucket’, compared to a hierarchal system of folders and subfolders in a file solution.  Instead of using a file access protocol such as NFS to access the data – access is generally programmatic through APIs.  Users generally do not access object data directly – but rather through software.  The flat organizational structure of object data is unfriendly to humans directly accessing the data and a file solution would continue to be recommended for use cases such as shared departmental drives.

There are many worthy vendors that provide object storage, this posting gives an overview of some of the providers of object storage, with an eye on assisting buyers with selecting the proper vendor.  As migrations at scale can be time-consuming and expensive, selecting the proper product initially can save trouble later.

Some of the important features to consider when selecting an object solution are multiprotocol capabilities, security, company vision and stability, resiliency/multisite features, scalability, data reduction, and data management. A feature with an honorable mention is global namespace.  A global, geographically dispersed, data-consistent namespace is becoming more available as an included feature, but potential buyers should consider utilizing a third-party, cross platform solution if vendor lock in is not desirable.

We are going to take a brief look at each of the following products: VAST Data Universal Storage, Pure Storage FlashBlade, Dell Technologies ObjectScale, MinIO AIStor, and Scality RING.  This evaluation will be limited to storage and data management features only, some of these vendors have many additional features that are beyond the scope of this document.

VAST Data Universal Storage is the first we will discuss.  VAST is a young company that is moving very fast and has claimed a lot of mind share.  Their object functions are multiprotocol with file.  VAST presents with decent security including DoD APL certification and immutable snapshots.  VAST has probably one of the best published visions for the future of their company on the market.  For object workloads they claim a global namespace or multi-site replication.  VAST claims unlimited scale – but has so far not published any EB level installs and has no tiering capabilities.  VAST has excellent data reduction, claiming advanced technology, and features an integrated SQL compatible metadata index.  VAST shies away from definitive statements of their capabilities, and some of their claims have not been borne out in the real world.  VAST is a software company that relies upon uncommon, single vendor technology (SCM) and has zero control over hardware supply chains.  I would consider VAST a risky buy despite their advantages due to their limited hardware compatibility, weak resiliency, supply chain weaknesses, and overblown claims.  Customers should be aware that VAST is a marketing machine and utilizes high-pressure sales techniques.  Potential purchasers should be cautious about purchasing without extensive proof of concept testing, which should include failing a single box (not a node), failing an SCM media device, and ensuring that write speeds are in line with expectations. I could only recommend VAST for buyers that have a desire to jump into the VAST Data ecosystem of applications and data management.

Pure Storage FlashBlade is now in its third generation.  Pure’s advantages are their as a service offering “EverGreen//One” and their proprietary flash storage technology that allows for very large individual drives.  Pure does not do object/file multiprotocol, has average security with immutable snapshots and clusters are limited to 100 blades.  Pure can replicate object buckets to other object solutions, but it is asynchronous without any consistency controls and cannot do multisite deployments with the same namespace.  Pure advertises no enhanced data index and does compression only on this platform.  FlashBlade has limited tiering capabilities and can mix a cluster with different types of blades, but the media is all identical.  The FlashBlade solution is very easy to use and consume.  Pure Storage has many fans of their products, their FlashBlade solution does not seem to be their priority as they are developing overlapping capabilities on their scale up solution FlashArray.  Pure has been coming on strong for the past few years and is also a fast-moving company.  For object workloads, Pure FlashBlade is a good buy for object storage that does not need multiprotocol and the FlashBlade //E product is well-priced.  FlashArray is coming online with more features including object storage and Pure will often lead with that product when high-performance, large scale, and multi-node resiliency are not warranted.   Pure FlashBlade would be well suited for customers that need an object solution that is thrifty on power/cooling/rackspace.  Current FlashArray customers will find FlashBlade very easy to use.

Dell Technologies ObjectScale, formerly known as ECS, is the most well-established and mature of the products discussed.  With the EMC legacy, Dell has been in the object workload business for longer than S3 has been around (It was once called ‘content addressable storage’).  ECS is available as an appliance or as a software defined product.  File abilities are very limited on ObjectScale.  ObjectScale has one of the best security stances around with an available airgap protecting a third copy of the data.  ObjectScale has adjustable data compression but has no deduplication like VAST.  Metadata tags are customizable and multi-site single namespace is available.  Dell is slow to innovate and makes many development missteps.  Dell is one of the few companies around that markets separate file and object solutions, often causing customers to look for a more unified file and object solution.  Dell has massively reduced headcount in the past few years, impacting development and field expertise. The current incarnation of this product has a risk of becoming obsolete as market demands change.  I would consider Dell ObjectScale a risky buy due to Dell’s slow development cadence, high purchase price, and perceived limited lifetime of the product. I could only recommend Dell ObjectScale if the very best security is needed.

MinIO AIStor is seen rarely in the corporate world and is the only open-source solution discussed here.  MinIO offers commercial licenses for those who cannot meet the open-source obligations or require enterprise grade features and support.  MinIO can run equally well in the cloud or on premise and is fully software defined.  MinIO has no file support for SMB or NFS protocol and security is very limited.  MinIO features a real-time continuously updated index of objects and metadata.  Muti-site, active-active replication and global namespace are available. MinIO’s vision is limited as the leading products of the next few years will likely be ‘data platforms’. MinIO is messaging object support only, and selecting this product robs an organization of flexibility.  MinIO would be well suited for highly technical organization that desires a software defined object-only solution that can be deployed anywhere

Scality RING is our final product discussed. Scality is software defined, multiprotocol, and multi-site capable.  RING is well-suited for large, geo-distributed object/file workloads on commodity servers and is generally optimized for capacity and resilience instead of performance at scale.  Data reduction is achieved via compression.  Security would be considered average, but resiliency is very good across failures/upgrades with multi-geo distribution available.  Their metadata service is not as advanced as others in the field, and is optimized for durability and scalability, not for complex metadata queries. Scality’s vision is average and highlights their durability, compliance and flexibility across file and object workloads.  Scality RING would be a good selection for organizations that need a scalable, and resilient software defined solution that has good multiprotocol support.

Summing up, the solution that potential buyers should be looking at depends on what they find valuable.

  • If highly technical and needing only object services, MinIO could be indicated.
  • For an easy-to-use and sustainable solution, likely Pure should be considered.
  • For customers who see scale and resiliency as a priority, Scality Ring could be a good fit.
  • While VAST and Dell ObjectScale are not recommended at this time for any specific use cases, they could certainly fit into most object workloads and have many happy customers.

Storage solutions are rarely a perfect fit without tailoring the application’s requirements and the business’ objectives to the available options via a thorough, and ONST analysis.

Although this is not a comprehensive view of the entire object storage market, ONST‘s focus on enterprise, differentiated, and disruptive solutions align with the options reviewed herein.

If you still have questions, thoughts, or would like more information please give us a shout to discuss, we love this stuff!

The post Object Storage – An ONST Review appeared first on ONST Technologies.

]]>
1291