Jeff Steiner

And the best I can say is it's the ones that aren't cost-obsessed.

They're thinking about processes and making the business run better and smoother and bringing more products to market quicker, time to value.

Those are the ones that are sort of signaling, hey, tell me about SolidFire.

the ones that are obsessed about every little dollar of their budget, that's not, they're not ready for the solid fire value yet.

Yes.

I know a friend of mine is the lead storage architect at a major USA retailer and

and he had a good way of explaining it there.

We kind of ruined their dual vendor strategy.

They used to be dual vendor NetApp and SolidFire, and then we became one company.

And for them, SolidFire is their cloud platform.

They've done a very good job implementing OpenStack, and any developer or tester, trainer, if they want a service on the cloud, they end up on SolidFire storage.

If you want the absolute best performance,

then you end up on what they call the Cadillac, which is their AFF ONTAP cluster.

And I think SolidFire looks a whole lot better than any of these hyper-converged providers for databases.

I want to emphasize that for one very simple reason.

With databases, compute and storage do not scale linearly, not even close.

Plus, you'd probably go bankrupt on the Oracle licenses from attempting to

license Oracle in a hyper-converged environment.

When I have a new customer come to me, I don't know whether they want 10 terabytes or 900 terabytes.

Some of them want 10,000 IOPS.