UCS
Caxias do Sul, Brazil
UCS
Caxias do Sul, Brazil

Time filter

Source Type

News Article | April 21, 2017
Site: www.newscientist.com

The March for Science is set for tomorrow, when thousands are expected to descend on the National Mall in Washington DC. Hundreds of satellite marches are set to take place around the globe. Despite criticisms of the organising committee and a perceived lack of a clear message, it could be a turning point for how scientists approach government. In the days after the 2017 US presidential inauguration, resistance to the anti-science stance trumpeted during the 2016 campaign grew in online discussions on Reddit. Several people, including physiologist Jonathan Berman, proposed a march on Washington similar to the Women’s March in January. “There was this building desire among scientists to become more willing to enter into the political discussion, and we sort of got the timing right to become the fulcrum for that,” says Berman, who became one of the national organisers of the March for Science. Within a week of launching a website, the movement had gained a Twitter following of more than a million people, he says. On the morning of 22 April, environmental group the Earth Day Network will co-host a teach-in and rally near the Washington Monument, followed by the march through the streets ending at the US Capitol. To grow their grass-roots effort, Berman and his co-organisers felt it was important to secure the backing of mainstream scientific organisations. “It was clear we needed to gain their expertise and support, and begin partnering with scientific societies,” he says. His first bite was from former congressperson and physicist Rush Holt, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “I got this middle-of-the-night call from Rush, and it was kind of like being called into the principal’s office,” Berman says. “But he was extremely supportive of our efforts, and once we reached an understanding of our non-partisan goals, Rush helped connect us to other scientific societies.” Partners of the march now include hundreds of universities and scientific societies. These have promoted the march to their members, suggested speakers for the teach-ins on the day, and will be key to rallying people for the science cause long after the march is over, says Berman. One such group is the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which will capitalise on the gathering to train scientists and science supporters to be more politically active. Some of that energy is focusing back on the march itself, however. The march and its organisers have faced criticism for their approach to issues involving diversity of leadership and the inclusion of marginalised groups – problems that have long plagued scientific culture. Jacquelyn Gill, an ecologist at the University of Maine, tweeted that she left the organising committee last month over such issues. She said that initial resistance within the march’s leadership to issuing an internal statement that diversity and inclusion were core values had the effect of weakening the March and its goals by alienating those who stand to lose the most in the War on Science. “#ScienceMarch also represents a tragic lost opportunity to do better than science’s racist, sexist, ableist, colonialist, oppressive past,” she tweeted. But Berman believes some of these issues have been addressed. “Science has done a bad job over time of being diverse and doing all the things it should to ensure that opportunities or scientific careers are equal, and making sure that science itself benefits from all communities,” Berman admits. “I had hoped that we would instigate some of that discussion, and I think to a degree we have.” The long-term goals for the march are also a bit fuzzy – though Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the UCS,  sees it as a chance to highlight the role of scientific evidence in public discussion and policy. While he admits that President Donald Trump may not be swayed by the protest, he says other elected officials and citizens will be listening. Berman says a key audience for the march is politicians themselves. But though there has been interest from US senators and members of the House of Representatives in speaking at the rally, the March for Science has not included any speaking spots for government officials. “We don’t want this to be a platform for someone to get elected by speaking at our event, says Berman.”We want this to be an opportunity to elevate the voices of actual scientists and people whose everyday lives are affected by science. We want to talk about science to the politicians.” Some have expressed concern that the march will politicise science, but Peter Frumhoff of the UCS rejects that dichotomy. He says science is inherently political because it affects policy. And besides, times have changed. “What we’re seeing in the Trump administration and Congress, the rejection of science, the rollback of funding, the efforts to roll back science-based regulations, folks are angry,” he says. “I think people are motivated like never before to speak out, and I think that’s all good.” Read more: How to protest against Trump in his expanded surveillance state; We mustn’t let a superpower turn its back on rationality


News Article | May 4, 2017
Site: www.techrepublic.com

Hyperconverged infrastructure (HCI) vendor Nutanix continues its march to compete with current data center virtualization leader, VMware. Originally focused on supporting vSphere and Hyper-V, Nutanix eventually launched its proprietary flavor of open source hypervisor KVM, naming it Acropolis. Nutanix has existing OEM relationships with Dell EMC and Lenovo, and recently certified Cisco UCS for their HCI platform. Without a formal OEM agreement, Nutanix offers support agreements to assure customers the solution is production ready. Like the Cisco UCS rack server, Nutanix is now certifying specific HPE rack server configurations as well. The Nutanix solution isn't an integrated platform similar to competing products. HPE's SimpliVity, for example, leverages ASIC to speed performance of storage services. To an extent, SimpliVity is tied to the hardware platform, at least for storage acceleration. Nutanix does, however, have visions of becoming a platform. SEE: Nutanix expands software footprint with HPE, Cisco, offers more pricing options (ZDNet) Early in the birth of Nutanix, the company's vision was that of a platform. However, there's a tipping point between when a solution is an application and when it is considered a platform. Today, it's safe to say that vSphere is a platform, and Nutanix is one of many partners within the vSphere ecosystem. Back at the first Nutanix user conference, NEXTConf, Nutanix CEO Dheeraj Pandey spoke on the risk of hubris in calling Nutanix's solution a platform. From my view, Nutanix's strategy involves perfecting the application layer of their solution. Nutanix slow rolled the release of their initial product, and the early product versions shipped via tightly-controlled hardware configurations. Nutanix was clear that the product and hardware platform were independent. The same view existed from the hypervisor perspective. Nutanix viewed vSphere as a platform to run the storage application component of Nutanix. By taking the application approach to HCI, Nutanix can decouple storage and management from both the hypervisor and underlying hardware. It's the decoupling that allows Nutanix to offer support for non-OEM server configurations. In the first step of the decoupling process, Nutanix introduced their hypervisor, Acropolis. As mentioned, Acropolis leverages the open-sourced KVM hypervisor. By leveraging KVM, Nutanix inherited a hardware compatibility list that includes the Linux Kernel. Nutanix has a community edition of the solution for training. There are examples of end users installing the solution on simple Intel NUC mini-PCs. If an organization is comfortable running non-OEM KVM configurations, Nutanix's support of pre-approved HPE and Cisco solutions should fit the support model. Nutanix has some growing to do when it comes to their ecosystem. Even with adding HPE rack servers, the number of server options for Nutanix remains low compared to VMware vSphere. For example, VMware's VMworld brings together storage, network, server, services, and management vendors—all of which have solutions that integrate with the vSphere platform. The customers I've spoken to like the product running on top of vSphere. The primary challenge they run into when looking migrate to Acropolis is the lack of integration with existing tools. Nutanix's offering of support for Acropolis on HPE is an example of the potential of the platform. While still relatively small, Nutanix represents an intriguing competitor to VMware. Update: Upon publication of this article, an HPE spokesperson reached out to TechRepublic with the following comment: "While it's nice that Nutanix recognizes our leadership in the server industry, there is no relationship between HPE and Nutanix. Customers looking for a supported hyperconverged solution on our DL380 are better served using our HPE SimpliVity product."


News Article | May 6, 2017
Site: news.yahoo.com

Paris (AFP) - For the first time since Donald Trump's ascent to the White House, UN negotiators gather next week to draft rules to take forward the climate-rescue Paris Agreement he has threatened to abandon. The mid-year round of haggling in Bonn is meant to begin work on a crucial rulebook for signatories of the pact. But it risks being sidetracked by mounting uncertainty over the world's number two carbon polluter, with Trump at its helm. "This was supposed to be a highly technical and uneventful meeting to flesh out some of the details in the Paris Agreement. But, obviously, the speculation coming out of Washington is now at the top of our minds," the Maldives environment and energy minister, Thoriq Ibrahim, told AFP. He chairs the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), a key negotiating bloc in the UN climate forum which will meet from May 8-18. The deal was sealed at the 21st so-called "Conference of Parties" (COP 21) in the French capital in December 2015, after years of haggling. A diplomatic push led by Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, and China's Xi Jinping, saw 195 countries and the EU bloc -- 196 parties in total -- OK the deal to the popping of champagne corks. Palestine has also since joined. The agreement sets the goal of limiting average global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels -- and 1.5 C if possible. This will be done by curbing planet-warming greenhouse-gas emissions from burning oil, coal and gas -- an objective to which countries have pledged voluntary, nationally-determined "contributions". Scientists project that on current pledges, Earth is on track for warming of around 3C -- a scenario that would doom the planet to potentially catastrophic droughts, floods, and rising seas. Widely hailed as the last chance to stave off worst-case-scenario global warming, the Paris pact was savaged by Trump during his presidential campaign. He called climate change a "hoax" perpetrated by China, and promised to "cancel" the deal as president. With the rest of the world on tenterhooks ever since, Trump has said he will make his decision before the next G7 meeting on May 26-27 in Sicily. "The question of whether this creates a difficult backdrop for the negotiations is clearly a 'yes'," said Paula Caballero, who heads the climate programme at the Washington-based World Resources Institute (WRI). A State Department official confirmed a US delegation will travel to Bonn, though a "much smaller" one than in recent years. "We are focused on ensuring that decisions are not taken at these meetings that would prejudice our future policy, undermine the competitiveness of US businesses, or hamper our broader objective of advancing US economic growth and prosperity," said the official, asked about the negotiators' brief. Some fear a US withdrawal from the agreement would dampen enthusiasm for ramping up national emissions-cutting targets, required to bring them in line with the 2C target. "I can see some countries... saying: 'Well, why should we do more if the US is doing less?'," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a veteran observer of the climate negotiations. The Trump administration has already proposed slashing funds for the UN's climate convention, which hosts the negotiations; for the UN climate science panel; and for the Green Climate Fund that helps poor countries combat global warming. There has been a chorus of appeals from business leaders, politicians and NGOs for the US not to abandon the agreement. Much of the pressure is at home, where businesses, majors and governors have pledged to pursue a clean energy track with or without Trump. Observers say the momentum, politically at least, is unstoppable. At the last COP, held in Marrakesh in November, news of Trump's election served to spur countries into reaffirming their commitment to the pact. "International leadership on climate is more diffuse than before, and other countries are stepping up to lead both within and outside of negotiations," said Caballero -- pointing at major polluters China and India cutting back on coal. In fact, the US may stand to lose the most -- in both political and economic influence. "It would leave America behind while other countries are benefiting from the huge economic opportunities of a transition to cleaner economies," said Caballero. Negotiators in Bonn, while attempting to take the pulse of the US delegation, must make progress on the "rulebook" which has an adoption deadline of end-2018. The guide must clarify what kind of information countries include when they report on emissions, for example, and what counts as a contribution to climate finance. The next COP, chaired by Fiji, will be held in Bonn in November.


Hoag Physicians Selected to Teach Unique Breast Conserving Operative Technique at National Meeting for The American Society of Breast Surgeons Newport Beach, CA, May 01, 2017 --( This prestigious opportunity allowed Drs. Silverstein and Savalia to discuss and teach the Split Reduction, an operative technique developed and perfected at Hoag, for surgeons across the nation. Combining the principles of oncologic surgery with the techniques of plastic surgery, this technique alters the incision site on a patient’s breast to accommodate tumors that other oncologists said could not be removed without a mastectomy. “Hoag is the most advanced place in the world for saving breasts for patients who are told they need a mastectomy,” Dr. Silverstein said. “Women have so many treatment options, including lumpectomies and oncoplastic surgery to remove cancerous tumors while achieving optimal cosmetic and oncologic results. It is surprising that mastectomy is still the default surgical option for breast cancer treatment,” Dr. Savalia added. In addition, five research poster presentations were presented at the national meeting by Hoag faculty and USC/Hoag Breast Fellows on the following topics: A Comparison of Margin Width in DCIS Patients Treated with Breast Conserving Surgery Plus Whole Breast Radiation Therapy. Data supported the Consensus Guideline: 2 mm is an appropriate minimal margin width for patients with DCIS patients treated with breast conserving therapy plus whole breast radiation therapy. Analysis of data found a higher local recurrence rate with narrow surgical margins (< 2mm margins) at 31% compared with the adequately excised group (≥ 2mm margins) at 11%. Authors: Sadia Khan, DO, Program Advisor Hoag Breast Center, Melvin J. Silverstein, MD, Hoag Breast Center Medical Director and the Gross Family Foundation Endowed Chair in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery, et al Excision alone for low risk Ductal Carcinoma In-Situ (DCIS) using University of Southern California/Van Nuys Prognostic Index (USC/VNPI). Findings confirm reports that whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) may be safely omitted in patients with low-risk DCIS. Established the UCS/VNPI algorithm that quantifies five measurable prognostic factors (tumor size, margin width, nuclear grade, age and comedonecrosis) and aids in predicting local recurrence in conservatively treated patients. Authors: Nicole Zaremba, MD (2017 Muzzy Family Endowed Fellowship in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery at Hoag), et al Outcome After Local Invasive Recurrence: The Impact of Original Diagnosis of DCIS Versus Invasive Cancer. Found that patients with an original diagnosis of invasive breast cancer have higher probability of developing an invasive local recurrence when compared to patients with an original diagnosis of DCIS (42% versus 12%). Authors: Julie Wecsler, MD (USC/Hoag Breast Fellow), et al Four-Year Results of a Single Site X-Ray IORT Trial for Early Breast Cancer. Studied intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) as a safe alternative to whole breast radiation (WBRT) for low-risk breast cancer patients. Found the rate of local ipsilateral breast tumor events is somewhat higher than those reported in WBRT patients but lower than those described in patients treated with excision alone. Authors: Melinda Epstein, Ph.D., et al Intraductal Papillomas: To Excise or Not Excise Authors: Sayee Kiran, MD (USC/Hoag Breast Fellow), et al This research was presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Joining the Hoag Breast team at the national meeting was the winner of the 2017 International Scholarship in Breast Surgery Juan Cossa, M.D., Associate Professor of Surgery, Clinics Hospital of Montevideo, Uruguay. Dr. Cossa was selected by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBS) and chose to visit Hoag when given the opportunity to study at any cancer hospital in the United States. “It was an honor to have Dr. Cossa join our team and have the opportunity to teach him about oncoplastic surgery,” said Dr. Silverstein. “Hoag continues to pioneer innovative medical and surgical advancements and it’s a privilege to be able to share that knowledge with surgeons around the world.” Newport Beach, CA, May 01, 2017 --( PR.com )-- Melvin J. Silverstein, M.D., Hoag Breast Center Medical Director and the Gross Family Foundation Endowed Chair in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery and Nirav Savalia, M.D., Director of Oncoplastic and Aesthetic Breast Surgery at Hoag, were among the faculty selected by the American Society of Breast Surgeons to teach the Annual Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Course at the national meeting held this year in Las Vegas on April 26-30, 2017.This prestigious opportunity allowed Drs. Silverstein and Savalia to discuss and teach the Split Reduction, an operative technique developed and perfected at Hoag, for surgeons across the nation. Combining the principles of oncologic surgery with the techniques of plastic surgery, this technique alters the incision site on a patient’s breast to accommodate tumors that other oncologists said could not be removed without a mastectomy.“Hoag is the most advanced place in the world for saving breasts for patients who are told they need a mastectomy,” Dr. Silverstein said.“Women have so many treatment options, including lumpectomies and oncoplastic surgery to remove cancerous tumors while achieving optimal cosmetic and oncologic results. It is surprising that mastectomy is still the default surgical option for breast cancer treatment,” Dr. Savalia added.In addition, five research poster presentations were presented at the national meeting by Hoag faculty and USC/Hoag Breast Fellows on the following topics:A Comparison of Margin Width in DCIS Patients Treated with Breast Conserving Surgery Plus Whole Breast Radiation Therapy. Data supported the Consensus Guideline: 2 mm is an appropriate minimal margin width for patients with DCIS patients treated with breast conserving therapy plus whole breast radiation therapy. Analysis of data found a higher local recurrence rate with narrow surgical margins ( Click here to view the list of recent Press Releases from Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian


News Article | May 4, 2017
Site: www.24-7pressrelease.com

WASHINGTON, DC, May 04, 2017-- US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment will host its annual conference May 11 and 12 at the J.W. Marriott in Chicago, with special US SIF member programming on May 10. A New Climate for Investing in Impact will feature numerous leaders and experts addressing key issues related to sustainable, responsible and impact investing.Said Lisa Woll, US SIF CEO, who will address the opening session and speak in the closing session on What's Next: How Will the New Administration Affect Sustainable and Impact Investing, "With one in five dollars invested using one or more sustainable investment strategies, our conference provides an opportunity at a key moment for investors, companies and policymakers to explore challenges and opportunities at the start of a new administration. This year's conference features an exceptional line up of speakers who will address the expanded interest in sustainable and impact investing across the globe."Some of the issues to be explored during this year's plenary sessions include how to address climate change from the perspective of investors, policymakers and companies; how the new Administration will affect the policy priorities of impact investors; mass incarceration and the role of investors in creating resilient cities.City of Chicago Treasurer Kurt Summers, who previously spoke at the US SIF 2015 conference, will provide welcoming remarks on Thursday, May 11. Treasurer Summers is responsible for the City of Chicago's $7 billion investment portfolio and will launch the Chicago Community Catalyst Fund later this year. The Catalyst Fund is a fund-of-funds that will make targeted investments in Chicago's 77 neighborhoods with an emphasis in the communities that need it most."I am thrilled to welcome US SIF and hundreds of conference attendees, leaders and experts focused on impact investing to Chicago," Treasurer Summers said. "Sustainable and responsible impact investment is key to driving the social change we need not only in Chicago, but in communities all over the country."Bryan Stevenson, Founder and Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative, author of Just Mercy, and a multiple award winner including a MacArthur "Genius" Award and inclusion on the 2015 Time 100 Most Influential People will talk about the profound challenges in our criminal justice system and addressing mass incarceration and excessive punishment in the US.Other plenary speakers include:, Managing Director of Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress., President of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Chair of US SIF Board of Directors and Director, Manager Due Diligence and Thematic Research at Cornerstone Capital Group, Senior Vice President of Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), Managing Partner with Sustainable Insight Capital Management, Chief Executive Officer and a portfolio manager at Trillium Asset Management, President and CEO of Calvert Foundation, Managing Director of Impact Investments at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Executive Director of Benefit Chicago, Founder & CEO of Re:focus PartnersTopics to be explored in breakout sessions include:- Asset Owners and sustainable and impact investing- Infrastructure and climate change adaptation and mitigation- Shareholder advocacy in the new climate- Recent research on sustainable and responsible investing- Intentionality and articulating impact in public equity- Portfolio management and systematic risks- Access to medicine- New pathways for retail investors- Investing in rural communities and small citiesTo register for the conference or for more information please visit http://bit.ly/USSIF17 . To become a US SIF member or to learn about the benefits of membership please visit http://www.ussif.org/join is the leading voice advancing sustainable, responsible and impact investing across all asset classes. Our mission is to rapidly shift investment practices toward sustainability, focusing on long-term investment and the generation of positive social and environmental impacts. US SIF's 300+ members include investment management and advisory firms, mutual fund companies, research firms, financial planners and advisors, broker-dealers, community investing organizations, nonprofit associations, and pension funds, foundations and other asset owners.US SIF is supported in its work by the US SIF Foundation, a 501(C)(3) organization that undertakes educational, research and programmatic activities to advance the mission of US SIF. Learn more at www.ussif.org For more on the annual #USSIF17 conference, follow @US_SIF on Twitter.


News Article | February 21, 2017
Site: www.prweb.com

Vista IT Group announced it has been selected by Cisco to join an elite group of resellers in the Cisco Excess program. This achievement makes Vista IT Group one of a handful of value added resellers in North America that is approved to provide refurbished and excess Cisco products that are guaranteed by Cisco to be SMARTnet eligible. Due to ever-changing customer demands and the dynamic nature of today’s IT market, Cisco has been challenged to maintain and manage an increasingly diverse supply-chain. The Cisco Excess program was established so that Cisco could optimize the value of its entire technology portfolio, regardless of where it sits in the product lifecycle. By establishing the Cisco Excess program, a limited number of highly competent technology providers have the unique opportunity to resell inventory that is surplus to Cisco’s supply chain obligations. “The beauty of the Cisco Excess program is that it’s a win for everyone involved. Our customers benefit by receiving a Cisco approved alternative to buying used equipment from open market sources. Cisco benefits by allowing companies like Vista to relieve surplus inventory pressure from its supply-chain.” said Steve Taylor, General Manager of Vista IT Group. The Cisco Excess program supports surplus and refurbished product from Cisco’s vast portfolio of data center products ranging from entry level routers, Catalyst and Nexus switches, to the full complement of UCS blades and servers. All products carry the same Cisco SMARTnet support options as new equipment, at substantially discounted prices. As a Cisco Excess reseller, Vista IT Group is able to help reduce capital expenditures by up to 90% when compared to buying new. Being nominated into this exclusive program means customers can be confident that Vista IT Group will deliver certified, seamless, and SMARTnet eligible solutions that fit both their strategy and their budget. About Vista IT Group: Vista IT Group is a national technology provider serving customers in every state representing multiple industry sectors and verticals. Having over 30 years’ experience as a global technology provider, our unique business model serves as a strategic complement to the conventional global information technology supply chain. Possessing warehouse, logistics, and full integration capabilities, our ability to execute is unheard of in today’s industry where most technology providers are leveraging external resources to provide their value propositions to their customers. To learn more about Vista IT Group, or the Cisco Excess program visit them online at http://www.vistaitgroup.com/cisco-excess or call 888-870-8847.


News Article | March 2, 2017
Site: www.businesswire.com

BAAR, Switzerland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Veeam® Software, the innovative provider of solutions that deliver Availability for the Always-On Enterprise™, has expanded its work with Cisco by launching the direct snapshot integration with the Cisco HyperFlex hyperconverged infrastructure (HCI) platform. The integration of Veeam Availability Suite™ with the software-defined networking and computing power of Cisco UCS with the Cisco HyperFlex HX Data Platform is designed to deliver simplicity and enhance efficiency in the modern hybrid cloud era, with Veeam enabling enterprises to reduce backup and recovery times and improve overall operational performance. It is increasingly understood that digital transformation is a critical imperative for enterprises worldwide, irrespective of size or vertical market. Organizations that fail to create value, growth and competitive advantage through new digital offerings and business models risk major consequences including long-term business irrelevance. At the heart of this transformation is the hybrid cloud. IDC forecasts that public IT cloud services revenue will exceed $203.4 billion by 2020, recording a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21.5 percent — almost seven times the rate of overall IT market growth.1 In 2019, public IT cloud services will drive a fifth of the $716 billion aggregate revenue generated by the need for applications, development and deployment tools, infrastructure software, storage, and servers. By 2018, more than half of enterprises' IT infrastructure and software investments will be cloud based (private and public), reaching 60 to 70 percent of IT spend by 2020. Organizations are now reassessing their data centers and embracing a hybrid cloud strategy to meet the challenge of digital transformation. However, maintaining Availability across a hybrid cloud environment is not easy. Which is why today’s news, seeing Veeam operate deeper on the Cisco HyperFlex platform, means businesses can realize not only the increased efficiency and adaptability benefits of Cisco HyperFlex and the computing power of Cisco UCS, but with the integration of Veeam, ensure data remains available 24.7.365 across a multi-cloud environment. “Reducing recovery time for data and applications is paramount for businesses, that’s why today’s announcement is so important for the market,” said Peter McKay, President and Chief Operating Officer, Veeam. "By combining Veeam’s proven Availability solutions with Cisco’s next-generation HyperFlex platform, we can offer customers unmatched data and application availability. This means a business can realize its investment in IT, without the production downtime that stifles its ability to execute and deliver innovative products and services to customers.” Today’s news builds on a successful collaboration between Veeam and Cisco, which began in 2013 with joint solutions based on Cisco UCS server technology and Veeam Availability Suite. Now, as businesses place more critical data and systems online to reap the benefits of digital transformation and utilize data to make better, more informed business decisions, management of that data has become more critical. “Digital transformation is driving explosive growth for Cisco HyperFlex,” said Kaustubh Das, Cisco VP, Product Management, Storage. “Veeam’s data protection solution is now deeply integrated with HyperFlex. This integration helps our customers realize the full potential of a next-gen, hyperconverged infrastructure while allowing for rapid business adaptability, minimizing risk, and decreasing downtime for today’s 24.7.365 operations.” Veeam’s direct integration with Cisco HyperFlex will be available globally in Q2 CY2017. “Enterprises leveraging Cisco Hyperflex got a nice win today with the announcement that Veeam can now do direct snapshots of their infrastructure,” said Dan Thompson, Senior Analyst, 451 Research. “With this new, tighter integration, backups take place lower in stack, freeing up resources and saving precious time in those ever-shrinking windows. This improvement brings with it the possibility of a shorter RPO (recovery point objective), which gives organizations more options within their backup and disaster recovery plans.” “Veeam has enjoyed a long-standing relationship with Cisco, and I am delighted that we are further deepening this relationship with native snapshot integration for Cisco HyperFlex,” said Andy Vandeveld, VP of Alliances at Veeam. “This is another example of Veeam working tightly with best of breed storage and server vendors to deliver greater performance to ensure data availability. Customers have made it clear they want us to partner with the major storage and server vendors to deliver flexible solutions that work and meet their growing demands for Availability. That’s what we’ve done here. Cisco’s HyperFlex offers a significant differentiation for customers looking to scale storage and compute capacity. Now those same customers can benefit from our new direct integration, which delivers market-leading Availability.” “Akris is an international fashion brand with store locations worldwide,” said Thomas Kaeser, CIO, Akris, a leading fashion retailer based in Switzerland. “When we needed a flexible, scalable and secure infrastructure to support our operations we chose, together with our partner Ceruno AG, Cisco HyperFlex and Veeam Availability Suite. Now with deep snapshot integration with HyperFlex, our backups and recoveries will be even faster helping us deliver 24x7 operations.” “Betta Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. is undergoing dramatic growth, and the variety of applications used is rapidly increasing. Traditional backup solutions are not scalable and hence are not able to meet the growing needs of the business,” said Chao WANG, IT Manager at Betta Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., a high-tech pharmaceutical firm in China. “Veeam’s integration with Cisco HyperFlex solution is highly flexible, scalable and easy to implement. The Veeam snapshot integration makes backups much faster so there is less impact to the production workloads (VMs) when the backups are taken. It only requires the addition of nodes to increase performance and capacity, reducing total cost of ownership (TCO) which meets the demands of our growing business, and showcases the development trend of industries.” “Our goal is to help customers take full advantage of technology and our customers are looking to us to provide them guidance as they navigate the digital transformation,” said Costa Diamandis, Uplinx Advanced Services, a business partner based in Perth, Australia. “Cisco HyperFlex based on UCS servers and Veeam combine to help us fulfill that promise by offering best in class hyperconverged and availability solutions.” Veeam® recognizes the new challenges companies across the globe face in enabling the Always-On Enterprise™, a business that must operate 24.7.365. To address this, Veeam has pioneered a new market of Availability for the Always-On Enterprise™ by helping organizations meet recovery time and point objectives (RTPO™) of less than 15 minutes for all applications and data, through a fundamentally new kind of solution that delivers high-speed recovery, data loss avoidance, verified recoverability, leveraged data and complete visibility. Veeam Availability Suite™, which includes Veeam Backup & Replication™, leverages virtualization, storage, and cloud technologies that enable the modern data center to help organizations save time, mitigate risks, and dramatically reduce capital and operational costs, while always supporting the current and future business goals of Veeam customers. Founded in 2006, Veeam currently has 45,000 ProPartners and more than 230,000 customers worldwide. Veeam's global headquarters are located in Baar, Switzerland, and the company has offices throughout the world. To learn more, visit https://www.veeam.com. Cisco and the Cisco logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Cisco and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and other countries. A listing of Cisco's trademarks can be found at www.cisco.com/go/trademarks.


News Article | February 24, 2017
Site: www.theenergycollective.com

The looming insolvency of Toshiba has set off a chain reaction of events that threatens the existence of nuclear power in the West: The Japanese and French governments will be compelled to act for economic reasons — their nuclear industries are too important to their economies to fail. The Japanese government has always played a strong role in shaping the direction of its industries, including nuclear, while the French nuclear industry is entirely government-controlled. Even though it lacks its own nuclear industry, Britain is emerging as the strongest of the three nations because it has a significant number of planned nuclear plants that involve Japanese and French companies, and is a big player in a buyer’s market. The new Conservative government of Theresa May has expressed more interest in industrial policy than prior Conservative governments, and has already begun talks with the Japanese government about the UK government coming in as an investor on two of its planned plants. The question is whether anyone in the three governments will have the vision and strength to make the right choices. The right choices will be the most difficult ones because they will require standing up first to the nuclear industry and next to ideologues on the Left and the Right. But crises bring opportunities and there are large ones for reformers within the industry and within governments to do what should have been done 40 years ago: standardize designs, reorganize and consolidate the industry, and implement a vision to scale up plants while bringing down costs. But before doing any of that, policymakers and the public must understand why Toshiba and Areva failed. “Everything you described in your article was true for nuclear plants built in the 1970s,” an industry veteran told me. In my investigation, I described how Toshiba’s Westinghouse AP1000 design was radically new — it had never been tested and indeed wasn’t even complete before construction began. And yet when it came time to build two of them in Georgia and South Carolina, all parties were afflicted with a kind of historical amnesia. “No one involved seemed to fully appreciate just how difficult it would be to build new reactors, especially the AP1000 — a ‘first of a kind’ design,” reports the Financial Times. It’s not unusual for big construction and manufacturing projects to go over time and budget. Consider the San Francisco Bay Bridge. After an earthquake in 1989 caused part of it to collapse, California officials decided to replace the entire eastern span. Construction started in 2002 and was supposed to cost $1.5 billion. The project was afflicted with challenges. In 2009, steel rods flew off the span and hit at least two cars. Faulty bolts were discovered. The problems delayed the opening by four years and cost $6.4 billion — four times more than what had been estimated. Or consider the Boeing “Dreamliner” jet aircraft. The FOAK arrived three years late, in 2011. Immediately things went awry. Engines failed along with fuel pumps, computers and wings. Lithium batteries caught on fire. The problems were so bad that the Japanese government launched its own investigation. Now consider that building a nuclear plant isn’t like building a bridge or a jet plane — it’s like building a bridge and a jet plane at the same time. Except it’s not. It’s much harder than that. The reason has to do with scale. Where Boeing is making 10 aircraft per month — allowing everyone involved to become more efficient and produce planes faster — it takes nuclear plant construction companies up to 10 years to build one plant. Boeing knows the importance of standardization. The company is losing money on every Dreamliner it makes, and says it hopes to make money after selling 1,100 of them. Thus, when faced with a rash of problems in 2012, Boeing didn’t give up on the Dreamliner design — it fixed the problems. The response from the nuclear industry to such problems would have been to invent yet another nuclear plant design complete with promises of greater safety and lower cost. And yet what makes nuclear plants safer and cheaper to build and operate is experience, not new designs. What the constant switching of designs does is deprive the people who build, operate and regulate nuclear plants of the experience they need to become more efficient. Why then does the industry keep doing it? To some extent, the 40-year obsession with innovative new designs is a consequence of an industry dominated by the engineers — the project architects — rather than by the construction firms. But Boeing and Airbus are companies headed by engineers who don’t make the nuclear industry’s mistakes. Why? The answer in part is that Boeing doesn’t have to deal with a powerful, $500 million annual lobby that does everything it can to deliberately make nuclear expensive. NRDC, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, UCS, and myriad state and local groups have spent 50 years frightening the public with pseudo-science, suing utilities, subsidizing the competition, and winning regulations that do nothing for plant safety. On the one hand, the nuclear industry responded brilliantly to these attacks. After the anti-nuclear movement landed a decisive blow against the industry in 1979, with the meltdown at Three Mile Island book-ended by the release of the hysterical film “China Syndrome” and “No Nukes” concerts, the industry got its act together. Over the next 30 years the industry worked diligently to better train its workers and create a culture of safety that resulted in an extraordinary rise in plant efficiency from about 50 percent to over 90 percent today. But the industry also responded by creating new and untested designs: Westinghouse’s AP1000 and Areva’s EPR. The problem of serial design-switching is compounded by the vanishingly small number of nuclear plants being built. Just 60 plants total are currently under construction — most of different designs. The Koreans, by contrast, prioritized efficient construction over innovative new designs, and are now leading the global competition to build new nuclear plants. 3. Too much focus on machines, too little on human beings Areva, Toshiba-Westinghouse and others claimed their new designs would be safer and thus, at least eventually, cheaper, but there were always strong reasons to doubt such claims. First, what is proven to make nuclear plants safer is experience, not new designs. Human factors swamp design. The same is true of aircrafts. What made air travel safe was many decades of training and experience by pilots, air traffic controllers, and regulators — not radically different jet plane designs. In fact, new designs risk depriving managers and workers of the experience they need to operate plants more safely, just as it deprives construction companies of the experience they need to build plants more rapidly. While Boeing has touted the Dreamliner as a kind of breakthrough, it was an incremental improvement on the same jet planes we’ve been flying on since the 1950s, and did little to change the procedures of pilots and flight attendants. To be sure, continuous improvement of jet plane technologies has contributed to making flying safer than ever. But the key factors were executive-level commitment to risk reduction, a company-wide safety culture, better emergency trainings, inspections and accident investigations. Second, how do you make a technology that almost never harms anybody any safer than it already is? Fossil fuels operating normally kill far more people than nuclear plants do when they malfunction. And given such tiny health impacts, it’s simply not clear that making plants any safer is actually possible. Long time horizons and small sample sizes will likely make it impossible to ever know — scientifically — that newer plant designs are safer. Advocates of new designs, including the EPR and AP1000, will acknowledge this point, but point to their enhanced safety, such as the EPR’s double containment dome, the AP1000’s back-up water system, or meltdown-proof fuel-coolant mixtures. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already ruled that all new nuclear plants will be subject to the Aircraft Rule. And containment domes are not as large of an expense as is sometimes suggested. A 2012 Black and Veatch study estimated that for the AP1000 the reactor island was just 13 percent of total plant costs. And the reactor island’s actual share of costs would be lower given the $10 billion in cost overruns of the two US AP1000s. The key takeaway from the Toshiba and Areva debacles is that the cost overruns due to construction delays from building a highly regulated FOAK nuclear plant swamp any savings from modestly smaller amounts of necessary equipment. Finally, the overwhelming amount of harm caused by accidents are due to fear and panic, not radiation exposure. What made Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima the three worst nuclear accidents wasn’t the radiation released. The fire at an innovative gas-cooled reactor in Windscale, England, in 1957, and the partial meltdown of a sodium-cooled reactor near Detroit in 1966, were both far worse than Three Mile Island. What made the more famous accidents harmful was how local and federal governments panicked and triggered dangerous over-evacuations. What they should have done was told local residents to simply “shelter in place” — as is done for things like tornadoes — until the accident was dealt with. Contrast that to the handling of jet plane accidents. PASSENGERS ON SULLY’S FLIGHT BRACE FOR IMPACT BY SHELTERING IN PLACE. In the recent film “Sully,” based on a real event, an Airbus 320 loses both of its engines to bird strikes in just five minutes. With all power gone, the pilot has seconds to act. Can he make it back to La Guardia airport in New York? Or should he attempt a water landing in the Hudson river? Captain Sully chooses the latter. He tersely announces, “Brace for impact,” at which point the flight attendants in unison begin a kind of creepy, hypnotic chant: “Brace! Brace! Heads down! Stay down! Brace! Brace!…” The passengers comply. They are frightened, and some scream, but they stay seated. They tuck their heads and some put hands on the seat in front of them. In other words, they shelter in place. Only two companies make large-bodied jet planes: Boeing and Airbus. Large, complicated projects like building a jet plane or a nuclear plant require very large, upfront investments that only large, well-capitalized entities can back — like an electric utility, or Boeing, which invested $32 billion making the Dreamliner. If nuclear is going to survive in the West, it needs a single, large firm — the equivalent of a Boeing or Airbus — to compete against the Koreans, Chinese and Russians. There will never be as many nuclear plants as jet planes, especially not during a time of low overall demand for electricity. As such, economies of scale must be achieved more rapidly. One of the keys is making both construction and operation as efficient as possible. Many of the big global nuclear players offer to build and operate the plants. That’s what the Korean company, KEPCO,  has done in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The four-reactor nuclear plant KEPCO is building in the UAE is on-time and appears to be on-budget. In January, the UAE awarded KEPCIO with a 60-year, near-$50 billion contract to operate and maintain the plants it built. I was told by someone in the industry that KEPCO treated the construction part of the work as a loss-leader in order to get the more lucrative operation, maintenance and refueling contract — and perhaps to advertise its construction prowess to other nations. The Airbus of nuclear should be run by someone with significant experience in nuclear plant construction — since that’s where the cost savings (and overruns) come from — not engineering. To some extent, consolidation is already happening. In 2006, Toshiba bought Westinghouse and Mitsubishi partnered with Areva, while in 2007, Hitachi partnered with the GE nuclear division. Toshiba recently bought the construction firm hired to build the AP-1000 Vogtle plant, but with the latter deal, the consolidation came too late. It was done in response to, not in anticipation of, future construction and manufacturing delays. Of course, consolidation on its own is not enough, as Areva learned. There must also be standardization, scaling and social acceptance. Consolidation is essential to achieve the repetitions required for cost reductions. And a planned scaling-up of nuclear is the key to achieving those repetitions. First, the new Boeing or Airbus of nuclear should build a single design. Standard-setting is a traditional role of government, and in the past has been a huge aid in helping industries consolidate, grow and achieve continuous improvement. The UK has key role to play here. It should scrap all existing plans and create a new one from a blank piece of paper. All new UK nuclear plants should be of the same design. Second, the criteria for choosing the design should emphasize experience in construction and operation, since that is the key factor for lowering costs. Reprocessing waste should be off the table. It is unnecessary and adds to the costs. Some emphasis should also be on mass-manufacturing modules, something the Koreans are also pursuing. But what both Toshiba and Areva failures underscore is that all new nuclear plants, however much they are going to be manufactured, are going to require construction according to the exacting standards of strict regulators, and it was that kind of construction that helped destroy not just one but two of the world’s largest nuclear companies. Third, the plants should be constructed sequentially so that managers and workers in Airbus Nuclear can learn from experience. Fourth, the firm should have strong financial incentives for reducing costs. Fifth, the program should include a significant increase in funding to test alternative reactors. The record here is clear: governments only invest significantly in demonstrating new nuclear reactor types when their nations are building new nuclear plants. And with good reason: people believe there is a future for nuclear. It works the same way in reverse. Long before they had achieved their goal of shutting down existing plants, anti-nuclear activists avidly sought to cut funding for nuclear innovation. They won a big victory in 1982 when Congress cut funding for the Clinch River fuel processing project. And they won another in 1993 when Congress cut funding for the integral fast reactor. Funding for the experimental molten salt reactor developed at Oak Ridge in the late 1960s was cut before it could ever become a test reactor. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission estimated that building one would cost $10 billion (in 2016 dollars), and noted that past tests usually cost twice what had been estimated. A long-term, global build-out of standardized nuclear plants is the only way in which states will invest the billions needed to test radically different designs. What’s behind the crisis facing nuclear generally and Toshiba in particular is the utter lack of certainty about any future nuclear plant builds — including those under construction. Nations must work together to develop a long-term plan for new nuclear plant construction to achieve economies of scale. Such a plan would allow for certainty, learning-by-doing, cost declines and lower financing costs. Risk and rewards should be pooled. Cost savings achieved through experience should be shared along with the cost overruns of the first few plants. Governments should invest directly or provide low-cost loans. While this will inevitably be decried by anti-nuclear groups, the truth is that the U.S. and Europe have been subsidizing wind and solar for decades. In Illinois and California, subsidies for wind and solar have played a key role in threatening nuclear plants with premature closure, undermining clean air and climate goals. Some basic fairness is in order. This starts with investment and financing as well as support for nuclear plants at risk of premature closure due to our discriminatory subsidy regime. Others might wonder why nuclear energy should be supported when Boeing and Airbus flourished without government help. But the truth is that they didn’t: last year the World Trade Organization says Boeing and Airbus received billions in government subsidies — up to $22 billion worth for Airbus alone. UK Labor leaders have already called for direct government investment to save the plants: “The delay we’re seeing under the Tories is leaving thousands of nuclear workers uncertain about their future,” the shadow Labor secretary said on Wednesday. “Public investment in nuclear energy would bring huge benefits through the nuclear supply chain and energy security.” Plus, financing is the key to opening up the global market — something that is in the entire industry’s interest. Vietnam recently cancelled plans to build nuclear plants and is now planning to build coal plants instead. Someone close to the situation told me that had foreign nations financed the nuclear plants, they would have gone forward. And the quantities of financing — not development aid — are trivial considering the potential benefits to nuclear supplier nations, especially when the financing is spread out over 30 years and is shared by UK, Japan, France and the United States. And such financing would offer a decisive advantage to the Airbus of nuclear over its competitors, allowing it to win contracts and provide the certainty everyone in the industry needs. For such an effort to work, it would need widespread support that lasts for many decades. That will require that national governments work together to increase public demand and social acceptance of nuclear. Toshiba and Areva show that declining social acceptance drives demand for unnecessary regulations, as well as the industry’s constant changing of designs. Japan’s nuclear industry cannot survive so long as public opposition is preventing the restarting of shuttered nuclear plants. The Japanese government and industry leaders must overcome their shame and seek help from allied nations in overcoming the public’s continuing radiophobia in response to Fukushima. What’s needed is an independent, serious and sustained effort by health and medical professionals to help Japanese and other publics to overcome fears based on grossly unscientific information. France, Canada and most recently Vietnam all show that this can be done. And as an analogy, there is much more to be learned from efforts to increase support for vaccinations among skittish parents. There is an aggressive and effective effort to educate the public about vaccines that, for the most part, still works. In response to a recent measles outbreaks, for example, California started requiring students be vaccinated to attend public schools. If millions of parents will inject their children with the polio virus because they understand that it is a weakened version of the one that cripples and kills, they are capable of understanding that nuclear plants are the safest and cleanest way to make electricity. The truth is that human beings around the world have been victimized by fake news about nuclear power since the late 1960s. When most people learn the basic facts about nuclear they become far more supportive of it. And yet neither governments nor industry have ever, in the 50 years of nuclear energy, made a serious effort to provide those facts. What that means is that there is enormous potential to touch hearts and change minds, just as many of ours were upon learning why nuclear is essential to mitigating climate change. The crisis that threatens the death of nuclear energy in the West also offers an opportunity for a new life. When you consider that the nuclear industry has for 40 years often done the exact opposite of what’s known to work, it’s a small miracle that nuclear is still 11 percent of global electricity, instead of zero. Everything that’s wrong — the proliferation of designs, the delay in project starts, efficient Korean competitors, low demand, low social acceptance — is something that can be made right. We can learn from the Koreans. We can standardize design. We can finance the necessary scale. We can go back to Vietnam with a better deal. And we can increase public acceptance. Policymakers have a special role to play. They must seek out reformers and change agents within an industry that is dominated by the same kind of thinking that led to today’s crisis. They must reach out to their counterparts in other nations. And they must stand up to ideologues peddling pseudo-science on the Left and pseudo-economics on the Right. Ultimately new leadership with a new vision and plan must emerge from within the nuclear industry. Toshiba has seen a succession of leaders pitching what is fundamentally the same approach. It’s not clear that Areva has yet learned the lessons from its EPR debacle, or whether anyone has really started to clean house. But, happily, Toshiba and Areva are not the only two companies capable of exercising the leadership required to save the world’s most important environmental technology from being consigned to the long-term waste repository of history.


News Article | March 2, 2017
Site: www.businesswire.com

SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nutanix, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTNX), a leader in enterprise cloud computing, today announced financial results for its second quarter of fiscal 2017, ended January 31, 2017. Reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures and key performance measures are provided in the tables of this press release. “ Our journey has taken us from an unknown upstart to a well-established enterprise IT brand approaching a $1 billion annualized billings run-rate in just five years of selling. We continue to evolve and refine our strategy, including product expansions, sales focus and alternate consumption models, as we seek to capture a growing share of the highly dynamic $100+ billion enterprise infrastructure market,” said Dheeraj Pandey, CEO, Nutanix. “ Our solid results were driven by notable strength in our international business. Further, I am pleased we were able to hold our non-GAAP gross margins essentially steady despite component price increases impacting our costs,” said Duston Williams, CFO, Nutanix. For the third quarter of fiscal 2017, Nutanix expects: Supplementary materials to this earnings release, including the company’s second quarter fiscal 2017 investor presentation, can be found at http://ir.nutanix.com/company/financial/. All forward-looking non-GAAP financial measures contained in this section titled "Q3 Fiscal 2017 Financial Outlook" exclude stock-based compensation expense, and may also exclude, as applicable, other special items. The company has not reconciled guidance for non-GAAP gross margin and non-GAAP loss per share to their most directly comparable GAAP measures because such items that impact these measures are not within its control and are subject to constant change. While the actual amounts of such items will have a significant impact on the company’s non-GAAP gross margin and non-GAAP loss per share, a reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measure guidance to the corresponding GAAP measures is not available without unreasonable effort. Nutanix executives will discuss the company’s second quarter fiscal 2017 financial results on a conference call at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time/2:00 p.m. Pacific time today. To listen to the call via telephone, dial 1-877-201-0168 in the United States or 1-647-788-4901 from outside the United States. The conference ID is 59841448. This call is being webcast live and is available to all interested parties on our Investor Relations website at ir.nutanix.com. Shortly after the conclusion of the conference call, a replay of the audio webcast will be available on the Nutanix Investor Relations website. A telephonic replay will be available for one week following the conference call at 1-800-585-8367 or 1-416-621-4642, conference ID 59841448. Non-GAAP Financial Measures and Other Key Performance Measures To supplement our condensed consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP, we use the following non-GAAP financial and other key performance measures: billings, non-GAAP gross margin percentage, non-GAAP net loss, pro forma non-GAAP net loss per share, and free cash flow. In computing these non-GAAP financial measures, we exclude certain items such as stock-based compensation and the related income tax impact, costs associated with our acquisitions (such as amortization of acquired intangible assets, revaluation of contingent consideration, income tax related impact, and other acquisition-related costs), loss on debt extinguishment, and changes in the fair value of our preferred stock warrant liability. Billings is a performance measure which our management believes provides useful information to investors because it represents the amounts under binding purchase orders received by us during a given period that have been billed, and we calculate billings by adding the change in deferred revenue between the start and end of the period to total revenue recognized in the same period. Free cash flow is a performance measure that our management believes provides useful information to management and investors about the amount of cash generated by the business after necessary capital expenditures, and we define free cash flow as net cash (used in) provided by operating activities less purchases of property and equipment. We use these non-GAAP financial and key performance measures for financial and operational decision-making and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons. Our management believes that these non-GAAP financial measures provide meaningful supplemental information regarding our performance and liquidity by excluding certain expenses and expenditures such as stock-based compensation expense that may not be indicative of our ongoing core business operating results. However, these non-GAAP financial and key performance measures have limitations as analytical tools, and you should not consider them in isolation or as substitutes for analysis of our results as reported under GAAP. Billings, non-GAAP gross margin percentage, non-GAAP net loss, pro forma non-GAAP net loss per share, and free cash flow are not substitutes for total revenue, gross profit, net loss, net loss per share, or net cash (used in) provided by operating activities, respectively. In addition, other companies, including companies in our industry, may calculate non-GAAP financial measures and key performance measures differently or may use other measures to evaluate their performance, all of which could reduce the usefulness of our non-GAAP financial measures and key performance measures as tools for comparison. We urge you to review the reconciliation of our non-GAAP financial measures and key performance measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures included below in the tables captioned “Reconciliation of Revenue to Billings,” “ Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Profit Measures,” and “ Reconciliation of GAAP Net Cash (Used In) Provided By Operating Activities to Non-GAAP Free Cash Flow,” and not to rely on any single financial measure to evaluate our business. This press release contains express and implied forward-looking statements, including but not limited to statements relating to our competitive differentiation, our expectations relating to a contract awarded by the Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, including the execution and resulting value of any future orders under such contract, and anticipated future financial results, including but not limited to our annualized billings run rate, our guidance on estimated revenues, non-GAAP gross margin, and non-GAAP net loss per share for future fiscal periods. These forward-looking statements are not historical facts, and instead are based on our current expectations, estimates, opinions and beliefs. Consequently, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements. The accuracy of such forward-looking statements depends upon future events, and involves risks, uncertainties and other factors beyond our control that may cause these statements to be inaccurate and cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied by such statements, including, among others: the rapid evolution of the markets in which we compete; our ability to sustain or manage future growth effectively; factors that could result in the significant fluctuation of our future quarterly operating results, including, among other things, our revenue mix, the timing and magnitude of orders, shipments and acceptance of our solutions in any given quarter, our ability to attract new and retain existing end-customers, changes in the pricing of certain components of our solutions, and fluctuations in demand and competitive pricing pressures for our solutions; the introduction, or acceleration of adoption of, competing solutions, including public cloud infrastructure; changes in government fiscal or contracting policies, or decreases in available government spending; and other risks detailed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2016, filed with the SEC on December 8, 2016. Additional information will also be set forth in our Form 10-Q that will be filed for the quarter ended January 31, 2017, which should be read in conjunction with these financial results. Our SEC filings are available on the Investor Relations section of the company’s website at ir.nutanix.com and on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and, except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update forward-looking statements to reflect actual results or subsequent events or circumstances. Nutanix makes infrastructure invisible, elevating IT to focus on the applications and services that power their business. The Nutanix Enterprise Cloud platform leverages web-scale engineering and consumer-grade design to natively converge compute, virtualization and storage into a resilient, software-defined solution with rich machine intelligence. The result is predictable performance, cloud-like infrastructure consumption, robust security, and seamless application mobility for a broad range of enterprise applications. Learn more at www.nutanix.com or follow us on Twitter @nutanix. © 2017 Nutanix, Inc. All rights reserved. Nutanix®, the Enterprise Cloud PlatformTM and the Nutanix logo are trademarks of Nutanix, Inc., registered or pending registration in the United States and other countries. SAP, SAP NetWeaver and SAP products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP SE (or an SAP affiliate company) in Germany and other countries. Cisco® and Cisco UCS® are the registered trademarks of Cisco Technology, Inc. Nutanix is not associated with, sponsored or endorsed by Cisco. CRN is a registered trademark of The Channel Company, LLC. All other brand names mentioned herein are for identification purposes only and may be the trademarks of their respective holder(s).


BERLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--StorMagic®, the software-defined storage company enabling hyperconverged infrastructure, today announced the technology demonstration of SvSAN software integrated with Cisco’s NFVIS to provide high-availability for branch office network routers at Cisco Live in Berlin. Earlier today, Cisco announced general availability for the Enterprise Network Compute System (ENCS) and NFVIS which virtualizes the underlying hardware from applications running network functions, as well as mission-critical business applications. StorMagic is part of Cisco’s Preferred Solution Partner Program and its flagship virtual SAN software product is available on a wide range of Cisco UCS servers and networking devices through the Cisco Global Price List. Starting today at Cisco Live Europe in the StorMagic stand E71 in Hall 3.2 there will be a proof-of-concept technology demonstration showing high-availability using Cisco’s NFVIS and StorMagic’s virtual storage software. “Cisco customers and partners are already benefiting from the power of StorMagic SvSAN with Cisco UCS Servers. We are excited about Cisco NFVIS and wanted to demonstrate how easily StorMagic SvSAN could be integrated for high availability,” said Hans O’Sullivan, CEO of StorMagic. “Enterprise customers often struggle to find affordable, easy-to-manage solutions to run mission-critical applications in their branch offices and remote sites. The technology demonstration of SvSAN with NFVIS is another example of how Cisco and StorMagic are working together to solve these customer demands.” StorMagic is a software-defined storage company enabling hyperconverged infrastructure for enterprises and SMEs to modernize IT. StorMagic offers SvSAN, the most cost-effective, centrally managed virtual SAN, removing the need for a physical SAN and reducing server and software spend by as much as 40%. SvSAN delivers performance and reliability where it’s needed most; the remote and branch offices where customers connect with the brand. All product and company names herein may be trademarks of their registered owners.

Loading UCS collaborators
Loading UCS collaborators