A Spectrum of Compatibility

VMware vSphere will run on a wide variety of hardware, so it’s no surprise that vendors feel emboldened to claim compatibility when they shouldn’t. To me, the minimum acceptable level of compatibility is a listing on the official VMware hardware compatibility list (HCL). I would never recommend production use of a product and configuration that is not listed there. “Because I said it works” is not a valid assurance of compatibility.

For more, read I Don’t Care If You Claim It Works (The Support Matrix Blues)

Whenever a vendor claims VMware compatibility, you can bet I am looking it up in the HCL. Time and again, I’ll interrupt a vendor briefing questioning their claims of compatibility. It’s not enough to have product X in the list when you’re pitching product Y! I will accept “we’re working on it” as an answer, but you can bet I’ll check later to see if it ever made the list!

For products that are listed in the VMware HCL, my next question concerns availability of a vCenter plug-in. Although many devices don’t actually need a plug-in, this is typically the next step companies will take when it comes to VMware vSphere. I might actually look upon a product favorably if it doesn’t need a plug-in to function correctly, but it’s definitely best for administrators to be able to configure infrastructure products from within vCenter.

When it comes to block storage products, support for the three main VAAI primitives is a major positive factor. Now that vSphere 5 is here, basic VAAI support is becoming more common. This is because it supports the simpler T10 interfaces for block zeroing, atomic test and set, and extended copy. Once again, any vendor claiming VAAI compatibility gets a quick check in the VMware HCL to find out just what that means. Bonus points for supporting both vSphere 4 and 5.

Check out A Complete List of VMware VAAI Primitives for more info!

I’m really impressed when I come across a storage device that supports advanced VMware integration, NFS such NFS VAAI primitives or VASA. This is really cutting edge stuff at this point, but it won’t be so impressive 6 months from now. By then, I expect more and more companies will support all of VAAI and offer VASA providers. And maybe by then we’ll have more information about what comes next for VMware integration!

True, VMware VASA is Not Much (Yet)

Stephen’s Stance

I’m a storage guy, so my line of questioning revolves around storage integration features. But I encourage everyone to question vendors who claim compatibility with VMware or any other complicated technology. “Because I said so” is not an acceptable answer: We have the right to demand HCL listings, vCenter plug-ins, and advanced API support.

Note: This is the sort of stuff I’ll get into in my “Building Virtual Infrastructure” Seminar Series - Why not sign up and join us? It’s free!

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2012. | “Our Storage Array Is Compatible with VMware…” Says Who?
Read more posts categorized as Server Virtualization, Storage

EMC VFCache is a Simple Read Cache

I was not pre-briefed on this product, and I’m not all that thrilled at the prospect of attending a launch webinar, so what you read here is based on my own research and reading of the available information as of this morning.

When EMC announced Project Lightning last year, company insiders expressed surprise to me. It seems that many had never heard of the project, and those that had didn’t think it was far enough along to be announced. I didn’t even bother to write about the Project Lightning announcement at the time. But today EMC unveils the production product that came out of Project Lightning.

VFCache is a filter driver that caches writes

EMC VFCache appears to be a simple and straightforward offering:

1. A PCIe SSD from Micron or LSI sits in the server and acts as a read cache to accelerate performance
2. EMC software also runs on the server, snooping on I/O and filling the cache with relevant data

There’s not a lot more to the product than that. EMC will sell the PCIe SSD and bundled software as VFCache, and will no doubt market the heck out of this product. Perhaps the only novel twist is the so-called “split-card” mode, which allows the card to act as a write cache. But EMC only supports this for transient “throwaway” data with direct attached storage (DAS) as a backend. There’s no way a conservative, enterprise focused company like EMC would risk sanctioning a writeback cache with no redundancy or data protection features.

VFCache uses a filter driver installed in the VM guest

Perhaps the biggest limitation of the initial VFCache offering is its limited applicability to enterprise server virtualization environments. VFCache uses a filter driver installed in each VM guest, and includes no hypervisor drivers though there is a vCenter plug-in. This makes VMware vMotion very tricky, involving scripting to remove and re-add storage. This means VMware SRM will not easily work, and there is no support for clustering, either.

This is no surprise, since VFCache appears to the host as a local storage volume (AKA, a disk drive or LUN) which would disappear if a virtual machine is moved to another server. Virsto solved this problem by virtualizing storage presentation to the hypervisor, and Fusion-io’s ioTurbine software does not interfere with vMotion either. EMC will likely go in this direction in the future, but it’s a big hole in the product for now.

You might also like reading Micron Bursts Into the PCIe SSD Market to learn more about the card EMC is using

The News: EMC Is in the Host-Based Storage Business

The primary use case for this product is server I/O acceleration. This is desperately needed, as applications and servers are rapidly outrunning the capabilities of conventional storage arrays. EMC and other legacy array manufacturers initially tried to address this I/O imbalance with tiered storage and in array caching. Indeed, these technologies are fairly effective at accelerating the performance of conventional disk storage arrays.

But flash manufacturers like Fusion-io (not to mention Micron and LSI) absolutely demolished storage array performance with their in-server offerings. EMC faced the prospect of losing out on the high-performance storage market. EMC simply could not allow their bread-and-butter enterprise customers to look elsewhere for strategic, high-performance storage for high-profile applications.

VFCache gives EMC salespeople a silver bullet when customers demand maximum performance, but this launch may not spell doom for the flash startups. For one thing, it legitimizes host-based flash cards as a viable component of enterprise storage architectures. It also opens the door to comparison between SAN storage and non–SAN alternatives that go well beyond what EMC is currently offering.

Shared Flash Storage Is on Deck: Project Thunder

“Project Thunder” will externalize the PCIe flash cards over a high-performance “Server Area Network”

As part of the VFCache introduction, EMC is also talking about Project Thunder, a shared version of VFCache. At the very least, thunder will allow multiple servers to access a shared pool of flash cache. This should allow VMware vMotion and DRS to function, and could be much more than that.

EMC could build a high-availability, high-performance all-flash storage array that may even use InfiniBand as an interconnect. The new Nimbus Data E-Class storage array matches this description perfectly, and their CEO tells me that performance over InfiniBand is indeed comparable to in-server PCIe flash cards. It seems logical for EMC to enter this market, if only to disrupt the momentum of Fusion-io and the rest of the all-flash storage upstarts.

Read more about the Nimbus E-Class: The First Big, Redundant, All-Flash Enterprise Array

The only fly in the ointment here is the recent consolidation of the InfiniBand market. Mellanox bought Voltaire, and QLogic sold out to Intel, putting that protocol on tenuous grounds. Perhaps 40 or 100 Gb Ethernet will emerge as a viable alternative for high-performance connectivity, or perhaps these products will retrench on shared PCI Express instead. Micron recently purchased Virtensys for just such a product, and Xsigo has been making big waves in the area of converged I/O as well. The market clearly need something better than Fibre Channel for maximum performance storage, even if InfiniBand isn’t it.

Stephen’s Stance

EMC VFCache (née Project Lightning) is a fairly simple offering: A server-based PCIe flash card that acts as a read cache with no integration with storage arrays or hypervisors. But EMC’s entrance into the host-based flash storage market is a powerful demonstration of the wave of disruption caused by flash-based storage and high-performance computing. Although I am not all that impressed with the product itself, I would be distressed if EMC had not introduced it.

VFCache illustrations are copyright EMC Corporation and are used here with permission

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2012. | EMC VFCache (aka “Project Lightning”) Is One Small Step, But an Important One
Read more posts categorized as Server Virtualization, Storage

I am anxious to get my hands on this file system and play with the features that it will bring to the table.  I do have the Windows 8 preview and will get into it further soon, but from what I have read and previous discussions with Microsoft this seems very very interesting.

Things I like so far:

• Live.  Microsoft is working to engineer ReFS to handle corruption and corrections live, without the need to offline the file system.  This will reduce the time needed to maintain the filesystem.
• Better data integrity as a whole.  Because the file system can manage and mitigate corrupt files and handle much of the repair process online, there will be less need to reboot to take care of maintenance tasks, like following check disk runs.
• Checksums on metadata.  Being able to ensure a file integrity has not been compromised at will without a process run by the user is great.
• Shared Storage Pooling.  This will allow storage across servers to be pooled and shared amongst them creating a load balanced configuration to allow for better resource an file availability.

I cannot say that I am surprised these changes are coming and this makes up for the Metro UI a bit for me, but I do want to see more of that is planned for ReFS and get my hands on it a bit more.  One of these days I will get another Windows laptop and get Windows 8 running on it to get a closer look at the file system and its tools.

For more information on ReFS check out these links:

• http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsofts-killer-windows-server-8-feature-refs/17757
• http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-goes-public-with-plans-for-its-new-windows-8-file-system/11666
• http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/01/16/building-the-next-generation-file-system-for-windows-refs.aspx

© derek for Gestalt IT, 2012. | ReFS – a new and improved approach
Read more posts categorized as Server Virtualization, Storage

The release you see here today is the first release of the tool that provides log file visualization as well as real-time monitoring of the PCoIP WMI counters.

The PCoIP Log Viewer and the Log Parser can be downloaded from the following website: http://mindfluxinc.net/?p=195 Instructions on how to parse the logs ready for the Viewer should also be available on that link.

Now you have the tool, I guess you’d like to know how to make use of it? As I mentioned, I’ve been using it extensively to help me troubleshoot poor PCoIP performance. To help myself remember and to enable others to understand all of the PCoIP counters better I have put together a PCoIP Troubleshooting page. This should have all of the information you need to make the most out of this brilliant free tool.

© Simon for Gestalt IT, 2012. | PCoIP Log Viewer 2.0
Read more posts categorized as Desktop, Server Virtualization

Today’s announcement of the E-Class storage array is an important milestone for Nimbus Data and solid-state storage in the enterprise. Until now, most solid-state storage arrays have been fairly small-scale, focused on point performance rather than enterprise-wide capacity. But the E-Class, which scales to 500 TB and sports a redundant, multi-protocol interface, is the first all-flash array to go toe to toe at the top of the market.

The State of Solid

No one would deny that solid-state storage is making a huge impact on the market. With mind-bending performance and reduced power requirements, flash memory matches up nicely with modern data center requirements. But the one missing element has always been capacity: NAND flash is more expensive than magnetic disks on a gigabyte by gigabyte basis.

Check out my 4 Horsemen series for more on the issues of disk!

The solid-state enterprise storage market started with point products targeted at specific needs within the data center. Companies like Texas Memory Systems and Violin have long supported the most challenging database applications with their external arrays, while Fusion-io, Virident, Micron and others stashed flash within the server. These companies were able to sell expensive storage into performance-hungry niches, but have found it difficult to address the capacity needs of the broader storage market.

Technology has the answer to this challenge, as demonstrated by Pure Storage, Nimbus, SolidFire, and others. Thin provisioning makes up much of the difference in cost, and deduplication or compression can even bring parity on a per-capacity cost basis. And even with these features turned on, solid-state storage arrays absolutely murder spinning disks in terms of random I/O performance.

Accumulating Nimbus

Unlike Whiptail, Pure Storage, Kaminario, SolidFire, and the rest of the startup crowd, Nimbus Data is not a new company. Founded by former TrueSAN wunderkind, Thomas Isakovich, Nimbus began as a disk storage startup before transitioning to an all-flash lineup two years ago. The company has steadily improved its product line over the years, adding NFS and SMB for a unified storage experience as well as InfiniBand for extreme performance.

Unlike most other companies in the space, Nimbus builds their own flash memory modules from raw NAND. This allows the company to avoid some of the tricky engineering required to qualify and adapt to the peculiarities of existing consumer or enterprise SSD modules. It also gives the company greater control and better flexibility to launch new capacity points when they are ready, rather than when their suppliers give the go-ahead.

Nimbus is rolling out a dual-PCB SSD module which doubles performance and capacity

The E-Class includes a new dual-PCB module which stripes data internally for better performance and capacity. This bumps each Nimbus E2000X enclosure to 20 TB, twice the capacity previously achieved, in just two rack units. And each of these enclosures draws as little as 100 W, allowing them to be stacked tall without exceeding the power capacity of typical datacenters.

E Is for Enterprise

The real innovation in the Nimbus E-Class is a brand-new “dual active” redundant controller architecture. Most previous solid-state arrays had a single controller, requiring users to mirror two entire arrays for high-availability. In contrast, most enterprise storage systems feature multiple active controllers with no single point of failure.

Read Multipath: Active/Passive, Dual Active, and Active/Active to understand what I’m on about here!

The E-Class introduces a new controller architecture for Nimbus. Each controller services all access to a LUN or volume until a failure is detected, in which case the alternate controller immediately comes online. But both controllers can have active storage at once, in what I call a “dual active” scenario. Although not truly “active/active”, the E-Class is in a different league from older single controller arrays.

Interestingly, the performance of Nimbus’ solid-state enclosures is high enough that the controllers do not need to mirror internal cache or hash tables. They simply write them out to SSD to be picked up in the event of a failure. This simplifies engineering for a dual controller system, and may lead to additional controllers added in the future.

Straightforward Pricing

Solid-state storage provides much more performance per dollar than spinning disk, but most customers still pay on a raw capacity basis. Rather than rocking the boat with alternative pricing models, Nimbus sticks to a straightforward method: $25,000 per controller, plus $100,000 per 10 TB enclosure. A minimum E-Class configuration includes two controllers and one enclosure for $150,000 with no extra cost for software licensing or features.

This seems fairly expensive for 10 TB of storage, but is actually quite competitive even with disk-based storage systems in the high-end, high-feature enterprise market. Thin provisioning increases the usable capacity of the E-Class, and the all SSD architecture means performance will not suffer. Unlike PCIe solutions, the E-Class is a shared, networked device and can be used by many servers at once.

Features and More Features

Speaking of features, Nimbus includes just about anything you could ask for in a storage array:

• In-line thin provisioning and deduplication
• Snapshots and synchronous or asynchronous replication
• 10 Gb NFS (2, 3, and 4) as well as SMB (CIFS/SMB1 and, SMB2)
• 10 Gb iSCSI
• 8 Gb Fibre Channel
• 40 Gb QDR InfiniBand

Although it has not yet been announced, Nimbus has added VMware VAAI support to the HALO operating system found in the S- and E-Class arrays. The company will support the major block storage components for vSphere 5: Block zeroing, atomic test and set, and full copy. Tom told me that Nimbus found the T10 interfaces fairly straightforward to implement but are still working on the NFS primitives. Although Nimbus does not yet have a vCenter plug-in, I expect that one is in the works.

Tom also tells me Nimbus is a “hypervisor hugger“, in that they intend to support features there rather than try to add them to the array. This is a smart choice for a smaller company, and I am glad to see Nimbus embracing the server virtualization market. I imagine an array like the E-Class would totally demolish any competing disk-based array in a virtual infrastructure deployment!

Stephen’s Stance

Nimbus has always been an interesting company, with a longer history in the storage world than most startups. Their switch to all-flash architecture was perfectly timed with the market shift, and the new E-Class comes just at the right moment. Boasting 500 TB of maximum capacity, a fully redundant “dual active” controller architecture, massive performance (even InfiniBand), and complete feature set (once VAAI is released), Nimbus may have hit on their hands.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2012. | Nimbus E-Class: The First Big, Redundant, All-Flash Enterprise Array
Read more posts categorized as Storage

Stepping out of a subway car is an entirely different matter when it's moving!

Mobility of virtual machines is a sticky wicket. As open systems infrastructure becomes increasingly virtualized, administrators and managers wish to use the technology to balance workload, ease migration, and provide better availability. Although technology is improving, actually moving virtual machines is not always a piece of cake. Let’s lay down a baseline of information so we may begin a discussion on the true nature of virtual machine mobility.

Mobility of What?

Let us consider first the question of what exactly is being moved. Systems administrators often focus on “the machine”, which encompasses the operating system and configured state of the virtual machine itself. But the true “mass” of the system is its stored data. Hypervisor vendors have come up with different techniques of moving these two essential elements, reflecting the unique characteristics of each.

• The virtual machine is an instance of an operating system along with its state and configuration. Mobility of virtual machines requires all of this to be preserved, along with any I/O channels. Live migration of virtual machine requires that any active network sessions be maintained, along with RAM content, registers and buffers, and so many other elements.
• The virtual machine image (commonly referred to as “storage”) is the static content addressed by a virtual machine. Typically a VMDK or similar virtual disc image, it must be accessible to the virtual machine at all times. Live migration of a virtual machine image is tricky, but perhaps not quite as complex as live migration of a running operating system.

VMware, Microsoft, and others recognize these 2 distinct elements to be migrated, and have come up with a variety of complementary technologies for each:

• vMotion is VMware’s virtual machine migration solution, and has continually evolved with each iteration of the hypervisor. DRS leverages vMotion to automate mobility. VMware has also created Storage vMotion and Storage DRS as complements to handle mobility of virtual machine images.
• Microsoft Hyper-V Live Migration is conceptually similar to vMotion, though newer and less full-featured. With Hyper-V 3.0, Microsoft will introduce Storage Live Migration as a complementary technology akin to Storage vMotion. Most other virtual machine managers also support some form of live migration, though live migration of storage is less common.

Mobility in What State?

One of the key benefits of virtual machine technology is the ability to “run anywhere” on dissimilar hardware. From the very beginning, hypervisors have provided the ability to create a universal virtual machine image that would run on a variety of supported platforms.

This leads to one of the key values of server virtualization in the data center: Disaster recovery. The ability to take a virtual machine image and system state and bring it online after a disaster is a true revolution for open systems IT. The benefits of the single usage of server virtualization technology easily justify the investment to many businesses.

But this sort of “cold” migration seems passé when compared to the live or “hot” migration possible with technologies like VMware vMotion. Live migration is much more difficult, since active client sessions must be preserved in activity must not be greatly interrupted.

This is the second great question that must be asked when considering virtual machine mobility: In what state will the virtual machine be moved? Will it be a cold, powered down image of the system? A suspended or paused operating system image? Or a full, running machine?

Mobility to Where?

Once we have decided whether we are discussing virtual machine migration or movement of storage resources, we must consider the scope of the movement. The ability to move a virtual machine from one member of the cluster to another has now become fairly common. But what about systems that are not related in a cluster? Or that are spread over great distances?

• The nice thing about clusters is that they share resources before and after a virtual machine is moved. It is practical to move the running virtual machine, its storage, or both independently and to expect that performance will not dramatically suffer as a result. The cluster can also preserve network connections, and even I/O state, without much impact on clients or other external elements.
• It is a bit more difficult to move systems within a data center, since one must maintain the I/O connections that might be interrupted. It is fairly trivial to configure an IP network and storage array to allow multiple machines to access the same iSCSI or NFS storage resources. It is a little more difficult to configure Fibre Channel (and, by extension, FCoE) SAN’s to handle this sort of dynamic movement, but it is not impossible. Although moving a running machine from one network port to another could cause client access to be interrupted, technologies like VXLAN allow these sessions to continue, and improved network switching technology should reduce performance impact.
• Moving the machine to a different data center is another matter entirely. Stretching a layer-2 Ethernet LAN or Fibre Channel SAN across a metro or greater distance, while possible, will always be problematic. IP routing is flexible, but it takes time for changes to propagate when live machines are moved. And it is difficult to keep storage in sync over long distances due to the amount of time it takes for information to transit. Again, all of these challenges are being addressed in various ways, but they’re still hard!

Stephen’s Stance

Moving cold virtual machine images from system to system, or even across great distances, is one of the main selling points of server virtualization. But it becomes much more difficult to manage movement of virtual machines that are still running, especially outside cluster or across WAN links. When talking about virtual machine mobility, it is important to consider what is being moved, the state it is in, and where it is going.

Note: This discussion is part of “Building Virtual Infrastructure”, my new seminar series with Truth in IT.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2012. |
Virtual Machine Mobility: Of What, and to Where and in What State?


This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Features, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you’d like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2012. | Virtual Machine Mobility: Of What, and to Where and in What State?
Read more posts categorized as Storage

How could a company as mighty and diverse as HP have had so many issues with executive management?

HP stumbled mightily in 2011, and it had nothing to do with product or people. Even sales remained strong, though the PC business is changing. HP’s mighty stumble was a crisis of confidence due to a chain of shenanigans at the very top. This culminated with the short reign of Léo Apotheker, leaving HP to reassure the market of its strategy.

HP And the Enterprise IT Industry

Sometimes, it’s hard to get a sense of scale when talking about very large things. How big is the solar system? How far away is the nearest star? The same is true of earthly things, exemplified by popular misconceptions about the global financial crisis. It’s difficult for people to understand just how much money a trillion dollars is.

In my little world of enterprise storage, it’s difficult to reconcile “big storage” players like EMC and NetApp with “big storage and everything else” players like HP, Dell, Oracle and IBM. Sure, EMC and NetApp lead the pack in terms of market share, but they’re nowhere near as large as the integrated players. HP has more than 7 times the revenue of EMC, which makes 3 times more than NetApp.

This old slide might need updating, but you get the picture…

HP is an incredibly diverse company, dominant in the PC, printing, and blade server market and top 5 just about everywhere else, including networking, services, and enterprise storage. And HP has nearly 325,000 employees, all working to move the company forward in one direction or another.

NetApp is a motorcycle, with one drive wheel pushing it forward at high speed; HP is more like NASA’s shuttle crawler-transporter, a 16 motor mammoth. Single-purpose companies can be agile, but they can also be derailed by market downturn or technological shift. Storage specialists like NetApp continually try to innovate and acquire to keep themselves vital, while larger companies like Cisco and EMC try to diversify while maintaining market leadership. HP doesn’t need to try; it is diverse.

HP Is a Very Large Thing

I watched HP's rise in the server market of the 1990's

HP has long been synonymous with innovation, high-technology, and silicon Valley. I have been an HP customer as long as I have been in IT, and watched as they integrated technology from Apollo and Convex in the 1990’ s. The server products that resulted became the dominant UNIX platform, but HP’ s innovative storage concepts didn’ t take the market by storm.

After HP merged with Compaq (which brought Tandem and Digital Equipment Corporation), the company vaulted ahead in the Wintel market and also gained valuable storage expertise. Throughout the last decade, HP was firing on all cylinders and dominant in nearly every arena. The company owns half the blade server market, is tied for first in servers, leads in PCs and printers, and is a contender in networking and storage. It’s simply impossible to say what HP is in a single sentence.

HP storage has an extremely broad product range, which management is working to reconcile. Acquisitions of LeftHand, Ibrix, and 3PAR gave HP storage shot in the arm to be sure. An injection of startup mojo has energized the marketing and product groups within HP just when the company needed it. HP’ s market share has grown somewhat as a result, though not as much as the hyper-focused NetApp. HP networking similarly took on 3Com, bedeviling Cisco in the Ethernet switch market.

The Executive Soap Opera

It takes a lot to bring a mammoth to its knees, but a shot between the eyes usually does the trick. While the many engines of HP push it forward, the company’s upper management has seemed, at times, suicidal. Business schools could design an entire curriculum around the folly of Patricia “I spy” Dunn and Mark “penny-pinching” Hurd. Who would think that HP management could top this?

From August 2010 through September 2011, HP dominated IT headlines in completely the wrong way. The board wanted a change, and selected Léo Apotheker to transform HP. But it was a soap opera from the very start, with Oracle hiring Mark Hurd and sending Apotheker into hiding among accusations of corporate espionage while at SAP.

The new CEO didn’t seem to understand HP at all, though he was intent on steering it in a new direction. Apotheker set about dismantling HP’s consumer and end-user businesses, killing Palm/WebOS and threatening to sell off the PC business. The company was to focus instead on enterprise computing, but these drastic moves spooked the entire industry.

It wasn’t long before HP’s board struck again, with a shake up at the hands of Ray Lane and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman brought in to replace Apotheker. The first order of business for the new HP executive team appears to be reassuring the entire world that management has not gone completely insane.

Stephen’s Stance

To an outsider like me, the most disappointing thing about HP’s mighty stumble is that it has nothing to do with the people who really make the company what it is. I have met many creative, hard-working individuals in HP’s storage, server, networking, and printer groups, and they could not be more different from the executive soap opera. I only hope that this new board and CEO will bring some stability and let HP cruise forward once again.

Disclaimer: HP has sponsored the Tech Field Day events which I organize, and has on occasion invited me to attend events at their expense.  But I do similar work with nearly every company in the IT industry, and this piece is my own opinion.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2012. |
HP’s Mighty Stumble


This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Gestalt IT. Each of my categories has its own feed if you’d like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2012. | HP’s Mighty Stumble
Read more posts categorized as Storage

I Promise Not To Quote That Old Annoying Dell PC Slogan

I’ve been buying Dell computers for decades, but not really because I loved them. Sure, my XPS laptop was awesome, but it burned out its motherboard and I never really touched the RMA replacement, having bought a MacBook Pro in the meantime. Enterprise buyers seem to have the same ambivalence about Dell. They buy it, but I’m not sure they really “buy” the company as an IT partner.

I’m sure you’ve heard the same comments as me: “Dell just assembles off-the-shelf components and sells them in volume” or “Dell’s a follower, not an innovator.” There seems to be a great deal of respect for Dell’s ability to produce competitive products and sell them at reasonable cost. Truly, most of their competitors would love to have this kind of reputation. But most of their competitors also have a reputation for partnership, innovation, and solution selling.

Dell Is Making An Effort

It seems clear that Dell would like to change this attitude, and they are investing serious resources to make it happen. While acquisitions like Compellent and Force10 raised eyebrows in storage and networking, it is the activity I see behind the scenes that paints the clearest picture. Dell isn’t just buying into new markets, they’re investing to change the company.

When Dell acquired EqualLogic in 2008, many assumed it was a tactical investment to increase margins over the (resold) EMC storage equipment the company was then pushing. Pundits were similarly dismissive of the acquisition of Perot Systems in 2009, calling it a “me too” effort after HP acquired rival EDS. Regardless of the motivations, however, Dell was becoming more of a serious challenger to HP and IBM every day.

After failing to acquire 3PAR in 2010, then picking up Compllent shortly after, accusations that Dell was “mini me” to HP were rampant. But HP stumbled mightily in 2011, and many in IT quickly lost confidence in that company’s management. All the while, Dell moved forward, increasing in-house IP and expanding enterprise offerings.

What Is The Result?

Today, one sees a very different landscape than just last year. Dell’s acquisitions focused on some of the ripest spots in storage and networking, and no one would disagree that the company has the ability strongly to push these products. Compellent and Force10 went from interesting startups to serious contenders overnight.

Dell really pulled out all the stops to tell us they are "Fluid by Design"

More importantly, Dell has retained much of the innovation these companies offered, from employees to support programs. Last week, I attended the Dell Storage Forum in London, an event initiated by Compellent prior to the acquisition. At the event, I talked to many Dell employees who came to the company through acquisition but had now been given power to challenge the status quo in their respective areas.

If Dell really intended only to push product, why retain marketing personnel? Why invest in the Dell Storage Forum? Why continue Compellent’s beloved Co-Pilot support program?

Then there are the products. Dell leveraged its investment in Ocarina Networks to create a deduplicating backup appliance, the new DR4000. They salvaged file system startup ExaNet and are beginning to bring scale out technology to market. The latest revision of the Compellent software finally brings it to parity in terms of VMware support. And Dell is really working to sell their DX Object Store.

This is the sort of activity one would expect from a contender, not a “box pusher”.

Stephen’s Stance

In the words of Malcolm Reynolds, my days of not taking Dell seriously are certainly coming to a middle. Dell is investing in product IP, innovative marketing and PR events, customer support, and personnel. This does not mean that Dell is instantly a player in the enterprise storage and networking markets, or that all this work will pay off. But I don’t laugh when I hear Dell boast that they intend to be a “top three” enterprise storage company in a few years. It could happen.

Disclaimer: Dell sponsored two Tech Field Day events in 2011, paid me as a speaker at two DX events, and paid for my trip to Dell Storage Forum in London. But no one can buy a post on this site, and I did similar business with IBM, HP, Cisco, and many other companies. This is my opinion.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2012. |
Why Should Anyone Take Dell Seriously in Enterprise Storage?


This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you’d like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2012. | Why Should Anyone Take Dell Seriously in Enterprise Storage?
Read more posts categorized as Storage

When designing VDI environments, a couple of things that you should consider are the .vswp file and the GuestOS paging file. In this article I am going to focus on the Paging file and hopefully in the not so distant future I will write a post about the .vswp file in a VDI environment.

What is point of the paging file (also known as the pagefile.sys)?

RAM is a limited resource. Virtual memory was introduced to help remove that limit.

Most modern operating system now use Virtual Memory. Virtual memory is a memory management technique. Applications running on a GuestOS reference memory using virtual memory addresses which are then automatically translated into RAM addresses by the hardware. These virtual memory address spaces are divided in pages or block, usually of 4KB.

If RAM resource is exhusted, the operating system will move 4KB pages of the virtual memory onto the computers hard disk to free up the physical memory (RAM) for other processes. In Windows operating systems, these pages are stored in the pagefile.sys.

A good way to think of this is;

Imagine a restaurant that has just open for the evening. When customers (Processes) arrive they get allocated a table (RAM) to sit and eat at. As the night goes on the restaurant get busier and free tables (RAM) begin to run out for the new customers (Processes) coming through the door. To free up spare tables (RAM) the waiter asks customers (Processes) who have finished eating if they wouldn’t mind moving to the bar (Virtual Memory) where they can continue drink.

Without the paging file, if the physical memory becomes full, applications including the operating system will have to waiting until physical memory becomes available before it can be stored in RAM ready for the CPU to process. As you can imagine this causes massive performance problems.

In summary, you NEED to have a paging file.
Read the rest of this entry »

© Simon for Gestalt IT, 2012. | VDI Paging Files – Big? Small? Or Non At All?
Read more posts categorized as Desktop, Server Virtualization

It's not going to be this easy to bridge Fibre Channel and Ethernet!

Before the holidays, I posed a question on Google+ that generated quite a bit of interest and feedback. Now that it has settled down a bit I’d like to summarize the unresolved elements to make FCoE truly a world-class storage interconnect.

Setting the Stage

FCoE has been a controversial topic in both storage and networking, and for good reason. No one would deny that Ethernet is not an ideal transport mechanism for block storage I/O. “Porting” Fibre Channel to run on Ethernet networks has been a supreme technical challenge, and many companies and individuals have labored long and hard to make FCoE a reality.

Now that FCoE is specified in the standard and has been deployed in production environments, the question turns to its future. Will it take off and seize the mantle of dominance currently held by what I like retroactively to call “Fibre Channel over Fibre Channel?” Will they coexist for the next decade, with FCoE mainly deployed in “block” environments such as Cisco UCS? Or will FCoE ultimately fail to catch on, displaced by some other storage protocol like plain FC, iSCSI, NFS, or something entirely different?

The data center needs a flexible new protocol to meet the needs of virtual environments, and convergence of storage and data networking makes a great deal of sense in these environments. This was the root of my question, and I ask it in all earnestness.

My question: What elements remain unresolved to make FCoE truly world-class? What should the vendors be prioritizing? Here are the answers I received.

Technical Considerations

Link Aggregation on CNA’s

Converged network adapters (CNA’s) allow multiple protocols to access a single Ethernet connection, but some also include multiple ports that can be aggregated. In traditional Ethernet networks, link aggregation is a respectable approach for performance and availability. But storage networks have traditionally relied on host-based MPIO software, and these features are mutually exclusive. The zeitgeist seems to be a recommendation to avoid link aggregation on CNA’s that are used for storage networks.

How Do You Handle Virtual Machine Mobility?

As I described recently, virtual machine mobility is a major technical challenge for existing networks. The VMware proposal, the VXLAN, seems to be gaining traction right now. But this is only a solution for data networking. How will FCoE SANs handle virtual machine mobility? This remains unresolved as far as I can tell, though Ethernet switch vendors have come up with their own answers. Brocade demonstrated just such a solution at Networking Field Day 2, and I know that others have answers as well. But will there be an interoperable industry solution?

How Should FCoE Be Implemented Over Longer Distances?

Fibre Channel has traditionally relied on routers and other protocols (FCIP and iFCP) to span distances, but FCoE raises the possibility of native traversal. While it is certainly possible to span distances with FCoE, this is definitely not a recommended or supported idea. Without TCP/IP, or any routing mechanism, it’s just a bad idea. But I imagine that it won’t be long before vendors decide to give it a go anyway.

Implementation Considerations

Is TRILL Required for FCoE Networks?

This has been one of my own questions since the very beginning. Clearly, edge only FCoE works just fine without TRILL. But as networks become more complicated, and virtual machines move, it seems an awfully good idea to have some protocol to alleviate East-West routing concerns. I feel much better with TRILL (or some similar Ethernet fabric technology) in a complicated FCoE network.

Should All Switches Be Full FC Forwarders?

There are number of ways to implement FCoE on Ethernet network, and not all involve building a full Fibre Channel stack in each switch. While many (including myself) assumed that FCoE implied Fibre Channel forwarding in all switches, this is clearly not the direction taken by vendors, at least initially. Perhaps the current “Ethernet forwarding” approach is only a stepping stone, or perhaps it will emerge as the dominant FCoE standard.

How Will OpenFCoE and LoM Be Used?

OpenFCoE is a software solution allowing FCoE to be run without a CNA. If this became popular, it wouldn’t be long before data center architects began looking at LAN on Motherboard (LoM) and even 10GBASE-T as a potential SAN alternative. Will this be used in the long run? It could happen, but it’s certainly not something that’s here at the moment. But OpenFCoE is a real player, especially with Intel’s backing.

How Will Technologies like Zoning Interoperate?

Many networkers are just now beginning to see the true complexity of Fibre Channel SANs. Although interoperability of higher-level Fibre Channel functions between vendors has never been a priority in “FC over FC” SANs, Ethernet could change things. I would not be at all surprised to see a groundswell of customer support demanding greater levels of interoperability from FCoE than from FC, and zoning and VSAN is the likely first beachhead.

The Big Question: When Will We See the “Killer App” For FCoE

Just about everyone agreed that the real challenge for FCoE is market acceptance. Customers aren’t yet demanding FCoE, and vendors are finding it hard to articulate a compelling case to move from “tried-and-true” FC. Convergence, cost savings, and performance have all been put forth, but customers aren’t biting. Perhaps they just need a little time and a little more proof.

This post relies extensively on feedback from a number of people, including Ivan Pepelnjak, Tony Bourke, J Metz, Dmitri Kalintsev, Derick Winkworth, David Hardaker, Juan Lage, and Corey Hines.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2012. |
Eight Unresolved Questions About FCoE


This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Everything, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you’d like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2012. | Eight Unresolved Questions About FCoE
Read more posts categorized as Storage