A Compelling Product

At its core, Compellent is a storage software company. Their Storage Center software creates a “virtual storage array” from standard building blocks. The resulting storage product is one of the most flexible and (excuse the pun) compelling midrange storage systems on the market. Consider the following roundtable discussion from our recent Tech Field Day event in Seattle, which includes a discussion of Compellent’s products and technologies by independent voices in the industry:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 8:59 — 102.7MB)

Compellent’s Storage Center scales up, adding additional storage capacity to existing arrays without disruption and integrating this added bandwidth and capacity seamlessly. Compellent also has an impressive tiered storage and thin provisioning story, since data blocks are virtualized and can be moved between tiers dynamically. Full-featured integrated snapshot technology completes the picture, adding data protection credentials.

Compellent’s scale-out story is impressive as well, but is more about replication and virtualization than the clustering technology used by others, including Dell’s EqualLogic. Compellent’s newly-introduced Live Volume can be thought of as a volume manager for virtual servers, allowing their storage to exist simultaneously on two different storage arrays. Supporting VMware vSphere, Microsoft Hyper-V, and Citrix XenServer, Compellent claims that Live Volume enables a “grid of Compellent arrays”, but it’s not the sort of scale-out grid one would get from EMC’s recently purchased Isilon, HP’s LeftHand, Dell’s Compellent, or NAS specialist Panasas. It’s more of an active-active mirror of storage than a true cluster. Learn more about Live Volume in the following video by Rodos:

Let’s also take a moment to consider the hardware Compellent currently uses: They deploy and sell this software on SuperMicro servers with Xyratex disk enclosures, and Seagate hard disk drives, and connect everything with QLogic, Emulex, and Brocade storage networking gear. This is all pretty much standard-issue for storage vendors: Most no longer produce their own controllers or disk enclosures, and the standard components Compellent uses can be swapped from other sources if needed.

Compellent’s Mid-Market Strategy

Compellent has not traditionally competed in the stratosphere of enterprise storage dominated by EMC’s Symmetrix V-Max, the HDS/HP USP/VSP, and (to a lesser extend) the HP 3PAR InServ. Instead, the Minneapolis-based company has been happy to sell into the fat middle of the market, and has gained a loyal following in smaller-but-still-impressive enterprises. Nowhere is this more evident than at Compellent’s annual “C-Drive” customer conference: It’s amazing, really, for a smallish storage company to have such a devoted user base!

Although they offer two NAS front-ends, Compellent is a block storage player through and through. Their “Storage Center with NAS” offering is decidedly low-end, employing Windows Storage Server 2008 on a 1U server for SMB and NFS connectivity. The newer and more-impressive zNAS is based on the OpenSolaris operating system, including ZFS a friendly interface “co-developed” with Nexenta. Neither product is an in-house Compellent design, nor are they competitive in the high-end “big data” market touted by NAS leaders EMC, NetApp, and BlueArc.

Compellent’s Fit Within Dell

Assuming the acquisition goes through, attention will turn to the fit for Compellent’s Storage Center technology and marketing within Dell. What will Dell get for three quarters of a billion dollars? What will it mean to the enterprise storage market as a whole?

Dell’s EqualLogic acquisition, though expensive, is now widely seen as a success. The Round Rock management team allowed EqualLogic the freedom to develop and compete, while bolstering their hardware and manufacturing story with commodity components. The combination has become a dominant plater in the mid-market iSCSI storage space, and Dell is likely to attempt a repeat of that strategy here. It was widely rumored that 3PAR management preferred Dell’s to HP’s offering based on a promise of similar autonomy.

We assume Dell would replace the EMC-sourced CLARiiON with Compellent in their midrange storage arsenal, replacing the SuperMicro servers. Although Compellent would likely be allowed to develop and grow within the Dell umbrella, there is substantial overlap with the existing EqualLogic line. One would expect Compellent to focus more on Fibre Channel and FCoE (which they recently delivered), though iSCSI support is unlikely to be dropped. A longer-term strategy would see EqualLogic and Compellent combining their midrange storage IP and management team within Dell.

Considering their success selling CLARiiON block storage, Dell’s acquisition would strap a rocket to Compellent’s sales. Once the Dell hardware is grafted in, profits will grow substantially as well. This is a major win for Dell, which needs the kind of margins that only in-house IP can drive. The price is right, the market is ready, and the fit is solid.

What Comes Next

Some are suggesting that this is the end of the storage acquisition parade, but many holes remain. Dell still lacks enterprise NAS, data deduplication, and cloud storage success, and companies like Oracle have only just begun to bulk up their storage strategies. Dell’s acquisitions of Ocarina and Exanet have yet to pay dividends, likely driven by the immaturity of those products. One would not be at all surprised if they continued shopping in the storage space: Panasas, BlueArc, Sepaton, FalconStor, and Overland all look ripe for purchase. Although Compellent is a win for Dell, it is not likely to be their last acquisition.

Disclosure: Compellent sponsored and presented at Gestalt IT’s Tech Field Day 3.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Thoughts On A Dell Acquisition Of Compellent
Read more posts categorized as Exclusive, Featured, Storage, Top Story

Then they added some of their best sales people to the mix including engineers and then went knocking on the doors of every large company in the world in a “no large customer left untouched” blitzkrieg of one on one marketing.

So What is Acadia made of ?

Acadia is offering a package of actual products (not PowerPoint releases) from EMC, Cisco and VMware using a marketing strategy called Vblock. At Boston Gestalt IT Field Day, we received an excellent presentation on the details around the Vblock package from Ed Sai and Scott Lowe that sparked a heated response. I felt that the key issues were around two points:

• Why are the Vblocks so Large ?
• What happens if you exceed the operational parameters of a Vblock ?

Because there was much discussion about why the Vblock that have some strict limitations, I wanted to look into why these limitations exist and why people would object so vehemently to them. And also talk around the question for why Vblocks are big. Too big for most people to buy.

Comprehending the Limits on the joint venture

Acadia is not a merger (yet) of EMC and Cisco, but a partnership focused on the Data Centre. The partnership only promotes selected product groups from each company and even specific products within those group. For example, a Vblock does not include a Nexus 7000 switch, only the Nexus 5000 / 6000 / 2000 as the edge switches. ( You would use your own backbone to connect to your Ethernet network and legacy FibreChannel network ). VMware does not offer VDI solutions. EMC offers CLARiiON in Vblock1, and Symmetrix in Vblock2.

These limits may mean that your choices are limited. Some people regard this as as major concern. I regard this as a reasonable trade off – good service, easy marketing against lack of choice and flexibility.

Other Companies

It’s worth remembering that the joint venture is not exclusive. Both EMC and Cisco are free to pursue partnerships with other companies, and both are actively seen partnering in the market with other companies. Thus recent Cisco / NetApp and EMC/IBM announcements could create a confusing picture for some people who don’t understand these dynamics. That said, from what I’ve seen the Acadia partnership seems to be a “big deal” for both sides with a lot of passion, commitment and, most importantly, significant amounts of cash that fund expensive marketing campaigns. In this case, marketing that seems to actually be relevant and useful.

Selected Products

Acadia only works with selected products from both Cisco, EMC and VMWare. That is, they only offers products from the Data Centre Business Unit from Cisco, selected products Centerra and Celera at EMC and VMWare vSphere. The product is positioned in the market as a private cloud so any technology not relevant to that message isn’t going to be considered eg. No firewalls, no edge routers, no wireless, no backup software, no deduplication,.

My perception is that clear business goals drive this logic:

• Market clarity – limiting the product set allows Acadia to have a highly targeted product message, especially with the “cloud” buzzword attached.
• Technical capacity to deliver an effective sales force
• Leaves space for ‘other partners’ to have similar relationships with customers and not ‘upset’ the reseller marketplace
• minimise the business impact if the project fails
• customer want guarantees that it will work which should get better sales results.
• Acadia has to deliver the solution and deliver the support promise. Not easy when so many technologies are involved, with so many competing interests

I particularly want to focus on the Technical Capacity and Customer Guarantees elements of the argument. If you figure that EMC, Cisco and VMware are bringing a group of vendor engineers together, think about the problems you might have: engineers may have little or no expertise outside of their own company or worked in a cross-functional team. To overcome these problems I would go for a narrow product selection and then expand it over time.

Remember that large companies create significant opportunities for ineptitude and incapacity. Layers of management can create indirection and misalignment just as easily as they can create opportunity and focus. Bringing together teams from three large companies could easily go wrong (case study – HP and it’s many divisions that are rarely coherent).

There are other topics, such as upsetting the resellers, market clarity are all pretty obvious and shouldn’t need discussion.

What are Vblocks ?

The Vblock components are the cumulative permissions of what the marketing and business limitations will allow. There are no technical limits to what equipment could be in a Vblock except for the ability of Acadia to provide a good level of support. These limits are somewhat onerous but not entirely unreasonable. There are currently two Vblocks defined (and more are planned) – known as Vblock 1 and Vblock Two, they are designed, tested and (as is the fashion) certified to within certain, rigidly defined performance levels.

Basic Components

The Vblock architecture is reduced to five layers of physical infrastructure and roughly shown in this diagram taken from “Vblock Infrastructure Packages Reference Architecture” released in 2010.


Outline Bill of Materials

From this, you can see there is a fair amount of variation within the Vblock parts list to cater for your specific requirements. To quote Acadia :

A Vblock consists of a minimum and maximum amount of components that offer balanced I/O, bandwidth, and storage capacity relative to the compute and storage arrays offered. Each Vblock is a fully redundant autonomous system that has 1+1 or N+1 redundancy enabled by default.

In practice, Vblock 1 storage is scaled to deliver from ~42 TB/41000 IOPS (Min) to ~68 TB/ 50000 IOPS (Max). Vblock 2 storage is scaled to deliver from ~140 TB/92000 IOPS (Min) to ~211 TB/140000 IOPS (Max). The hardware is selected to match your performance requirements.

Other flexibilities

Some other quotes from the Cisco / EMC / VMware reference architecture guide:

For Vblock 1, there are no hard disks on the B-200 series blades as all boot services and storage are provided by the SAN. Hawever a snall hard drive may be installed if local page memory is required for vSphere.

For Vblock 2, each B-200 series blade module has 72GB SATA drive for page memory purposes. If required, these can be removed to reduce power and cooling overhead, increase MTBF or save costs.

The MDS9506 switches are recommended, but may optionally be changed for 9509 or 9513 to scale capacity or reduced to an MDS 9222i is less density is required

Inflexibilties

For Vblock 1, there are no hard disks on the B-200 series blades as all boot services and storage are provided by the SAN. Hawever a snall hard drive may be installed if local page memory is required for vSphere. If the local disk is user for main storage or operating system storage, it is not considered a Vblock and is a custom implementation at this point.

It is also acceptable for operating system and applications to be run directly on the B-200 series blades. It should be noted that other hypervisors are not supported by Vblocks and invalidate the Vblock support agreement (my emphasis)

The Limits are arbitrary, practical and mainly marketing

At the Boston Tech Field Day, we saw a number of questions on why there are limits, and what happens if you exceed the solution parameters. I believe it is a simple marketing reason – simple products, simple factors, easy to comprehend makes for a product that is easy for sales to sell, and even easier for customers to buy. Pricing is clear and unambiguous, and sales peoples will attempt to focus the customers away from price onto other topics. Like low power, special UCS features, ease of operation, etc etc.

The key factor is that the Cisco UCS server will be perceived by many as unproven. You can be sure that HP / IBM / Dell are going to work that Fear / Uncertainty / Doubt in a competitive situation.

Exceeding the Limits – You Certainly SHOULD

If you choose to exceed the offered the solution, then that is a simple choice. It’s not something to be particularly concerned about. Currently, we all build stacks of servers, storage and networks and provide our own support. Why would buying a guaranteed stack make any difference ?

These limits are to ensure that service guarantees can be met. The service guarantee exists to help customer to buy these products., it does not exist to make the products work. However, when the CIO is about to approve a purchase order for half million pounds they will be looking for a comfort level that it’s going to work. Those Cisco UCS servers are new and you want some assurance.

So once the system is working, feel free to head out in your own direction. Meeting the requirements of your business is more important that having a an end-to-end guarantee in overall picture. Remember, Cisco / EMC / VMware is still going to support each product using the same process that we have today.

The Fear of Lock In

My concern with the Vblock bundle is fear of lock in. The Cisco UCS product is a closed solution within the racks. Across the backbone of the Data Centre will also be Cisco Nexus 7000 switches for “best compatibility”. All server components must be purchased from Cisco who will be able to arbitrarily set the price. All and any server upgrades, and extra server must come from Cisco.

All storage vendors are an effective lock in today. The so-called “certification programs” ensure that EMC and other “chosen few” are restricted to the supply of drives and accessories.

If Cisco / EMC achieves a dominant position then they have the ability to control pricing. Since both companies are already dominant in their respective markets, and tend to “reassuringly expensive” price models, this is a well founded concern.

What does a Vblock physically look like ?

While every Data Centre is different, every rack looks pretty much the same. During my research, I have realised that a Vblock takes very little space in the data centre. In fact, it’s not until you see the amount of space that you realise the impact to

Vblock 1 – Racked

This is a front view of the Vblock 1 with storage, servers and switches.

Caption Text.(Click for a full size image)

And this is the rear view. Notice how few cables are used for physical connections here.

Caption Text.(Click for a full size image)

Vblock 2 Racked

A Vblock 2 is quite a bit larger and needs more storage. The server blades are larger (more CPU, more RAM per blade). I believe that the increased IOPS for the storage subsystem means that bigger storage units are needed. I think five racks is at the smaller side of the Vblock 2 possibilities.

Caption Text.(Click for a full size image)



Realising the dream – no cables

Caption Text.(Click for a full size image)

Vblock expansion

Even though the Vblock is modular, you can bet that Acadia has a nice little pitch around expansion. Sure enough, it is spelled out in the Architecture Reference:

Caption Text.(Click for a full size image)

As Vblocks are adde, the capacity of the Vblock scales either as an aggregated pool, whereby any ICS blade can access any storage disks n the SAN or as an isolated silo. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to aggragte to Vblock 1′s to provide capacity for 6000 VMs that can share common storage capacity… As long as storage capacity is added in conjunction with compute capacity to maintain balanced performance as published within the Vblock, the system does not require any additional validation .

Heh, you bet they want to sell you lots more so of course there is an answer for this. Once you have made the first purchase, you are likely to come back for more. Lets make it easy for the customer to do that.

So, Why are vBlocks so Large ?

A Vblock 1 is expected to support from 800 to 3000 VMs, and a VBlock 2 is expected to support 3000 to 6000 virtual machines. Since I started writing this post, a Vblock 0 has been announced that supports 300 to 800 VMs.

You might think that 800 is a lot of VMs. You might think that the price of a Vblock is too much. In which case, you aren’t someone who is going to buy it. If you can’t scratch together the several hundred thousand in single purchase order, you do’t understand the question. Today, many companies buy infrastructure as part of the project. If a project needs a server and a switch then that is funded. If a project needs a data centre, then a data centre is built. If a project needs fifty servers, then they MIGHT consider using VMware. Mostly we wait a few years and then have a big project to clear up the mess created by project funding of infrastructure.

Cisco and EMC don’t want to sell this product to small business. Cisco in particular wants to establish themselves in the marketplace as quickly as possible. Therefore selling to big companies, who are doing the “big cleanup project”, who are taking the time to evaluate the whole cost of ownership cycle, implementing with a full cycle approach is what Cisco wants. This is important.

Why ? Because Cisco wants to be able to produce white papers claiming the “huge cost reductions”, and “radical operations alignment” and “enabling technologies” etc etc. These white papers have real impact on the analysts and customers who figure that if they buy the product they will get those benefits. All these great stories, so loved by ‘journalists’ convince the middle sized market to buy Cisco servers.

What does EMC get ? EMC gets to move into the mid-sized market right alongside Cisco. EMC has been targeting the high end of the market, and they need new markets. A move down into the mid-sized market must not damage the high end products and branding (since this could affect profits), and attaching to a “differentiated” product will keep the premium marketing message intact.

EtherealMind View

Basically, I view the Acadia partnership as an upmarket fancy marketing campaign with extensive tie-ins. It’s “dressed up with a little black dress and killer set of heels” and well funded to boot. This type of thing normally makes me distrustful as many of these initiatives have turned out to be one night stands with an uncomfortable and unhappy morning after.

On the other hand, both Cisco and EMC have attached their corporate goodwill to this program in a major way. If Acadia fails, both companies will suffer significant image loss. It’s not marriage, but they are definitely living together.

The Challenge to the Status Quo

One of the most exciting (to my mind) aspects of the Vblock concept, is the potential to change the purchasing cycle of IT Projects. Many companies fund new purchases from projects only. This tends to create an inherently failed infrastructure buildout where each project buys what it needs. Project “cost controls” mean that infrastructure is rarely purchased to outside the project requirements. That is, buying additional disk drives or edge switches is easy, but buying additional arrays or core switches is almost impossible.

A Vblock could represent a “once a year” purchase of server infrastructure. Much easier than endlessly integrating, and reintegrating a hodge podge of servers, memory, disk drives and accessories into some sort of complete system. Compare this with the HP C-Class chassis concept which requires endless upgrades to scale into new and more useful configurations.

Most importantly, once engineers are freed from mundane tasks of installing memory and disk drives, they can move to focussing on the management platforms and dramatically enhancing the business value of computing. Tasks such as automating software and OS deployment, automated failure responses, performance analysis and

Cisco needs to buy EMC

Ultimately I remain convinced that Cisco must and will buy EMC to compete with HP and IBM. The Acadia joint venture looks a lot like a trial or temporary position while the market reaction is gauged. EMC has a marcap of USD$34 billion and revenue of USD$14 billion while Cisco has marcap of USD$154 billion on revenue of USD$35.5 billing. Cisco appears capable of acquiring EMC and is believed to have sufficient cash reserves to make a substantial cash rich offer. EMC probably has pretentions to be a lot bigger and don’t want to be bought right now. EMC egos are well known for their ‘capacity’ and they work hard at that. Combine that with a Wall Street that is anti-acquisition at the moment, and Cisco can’t make a move right now.

Public Clouds are not ready for the Enterprise

Public Clouds are fine for people that are not conducting serious business today. Dot Com startups, marketing pushes, publicity campaigns and other low vitality requirements could be considered for cloud infrastructure due to their trivial nature, but serious business applications are unlikely to move into the cloud with the current level of capability.

However, private clouds are practical today. To me, Vblock looks like an early mover in the Private Cloud space for IaaS. The option for a corporate IT department to build a three rack system that hosts between 300 to 700 servers is an exciting development. If I can reduce the amount of time my operations teams spend doing trivial and repetitive tasks and move them into systems automation on the management platforms, then we are moving to better place.

Technology Acceptance

There are no technology issues in this stack. In general, people perceive that Cisco and EMC are market leaders in their respective spaces, and the corporately the two companies fit well together. Unlike other stacks, there doesn’t appear to be a product that is less than excellent. In this sense, few people will dismiss the Acadia solution on technology grounds.

Conclusion

Convincing IT Management to take on the change put forward by Cisco / EMC is going to require a lot of marketing and sales. And that’s exactly what Acadia is all about. The technology takes care of itself here, Acadia is just marketing exercise, but a good one.

© Etherealmind for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Market positioning Acadia, EMC, Cisco and the whole vBlock Idea
Read more posts categorized as Cloud Computing, Featured, Networking, Server Virtualization, Storage, Top Story

In VPLEX, do we see the future of EMC storage? Or more accurately, do we see the future of Symmetrix? Is it the beginning of the end for Symmetrix and more importantly, Enginuity. The final break from the past?

It’s certainly an interesting thought; firstly despite regular denials from EMC; bushfires regularly break out between the Clariion and the Symmetrix camps. Should all the development efforts be focussed on Flare or Enginuity? Some people might say that at times, there have been more than bushfires. This is to be expected, when development teams are competing for finite resource, this sort of thing happens. But this never really gets resolved, especially when you have two successful products like Symm and Clariion.

Perhaps what is needed is a break from the past? Could VPLEX be this break? Well certainly from what has been announced so far, probably not. But if we look at the various EMC blogs where it is suggested that they might add things like snaps, clones etc; this seems a possible way forward.

VPLEX as an array controller may well be more interesting long-term as opposed to this ‘new category of storage device’; a device which has a much looser coupling with it’s back-end disk than the current range of storage arrays. There are reasons why EMC might want to do this or at least customers might be interested in such a device.

I posit that array controllers are actually changing quicker than the back-end disk these days; sure, disks are getting bigger but this is not entirely beneficial to especially the Enterprise storage market but if I want to take advantage of the latest greatest features of EMC’s latest greatest array; I have to rip out both the array controllers and the back-end disk.

What if I didn’t have to do that any more? What if I could upgrade the array controller completely separately from the back-end disk? What if this was a completely non-disruptive upgrade? What if in order to do a migration, I didn’t have to temporarily have twice as much disk on the floor as I do in normal operation?

Perhaps at that point EMC have actually built a truly modular storage array?  And what if EMC can finally head towards a unified code-base for block storage? Yes, they might have to live with three code-bases for a period of time but it might actually be a worthwhile investment for them or perhaps they are happy to continue with a multitude of code-bases.

Just thinking what I might do in their situation…

© Martin for Gestalt IT, 2010. | EMC VPLEX: New Device or Future Array?
Read more posts categorized as Storage

Iomega’s new ix12-300d brings EMC’s SOHO company into the data center

EMC’s Iomega unit today released the 12-drive rack-mount storage product we have all been waiting for. It was never a question of whether Iomega could produce such a beast: The EMC LifeLine software and Iomega hardware were definitely up for it. The question was always if EMC would direct Iomega to fill the gaping hole in their storage lineup between the 4-drive ix4-200r and the entry-business AX4 arrays. The new ix12-300r packs 12 drive bays, scaling from 4 TB all the way to 24 TB, and backs it with quad gigabit iSCSI, redundant power, and everything else the small data center needs.

Stepping Up

The ix12 is a big step up. Although they sold multi-drive RAID systems even before the EMC acquisition, this new device is unlike anything we’ve seen before from Iomega. This slim (2U) chassis is all drives up front, with 12 hot-swap slots full of 3.5″ SATA storage. Under the hood is a dual-core 3 GHz Intel Core2duo E8400 “Wolfdale” CPU, a major horsepower upgrade from the single-core Celeron in the ix4-200r. It also has double the memory (2 GB) compared to that 4-drive product.

If you’re concerned about performance after trying out a desktop ix4-200d, you needn’t worry. The desktop unit has a lowly 1.2 GHz Marvell 6281 and just 512 MB of RAM. While this might be enough for a desktop user, it could never handle the pounding of servers in a shared networked configuration. The ix4-200r, with its 3.2 GHz Intel Celeron D 352 “Cedar Mill“, offered much better performance even though its name was just one letter different. And the ix12’s CPU is three times faster still, though it remains a single-controller system.

More significant changes lurk around the back of the ix12. Dual redundant power supplies, a frequent request in this class, and variable-speed fans, surround four Ethernet ports. Each sports gigabit speed and the set supports Microsoft Windows MPIO, can be aggregated with 802.3ad, or used in VLAN configurations with up to 4 VLAN tags per port. The ix12 speaks just about every language, from NFS and SMB to AFP and iSCSI, and now adds WebDAV and DFS support, too.

A few limitations separate this new ix12 device from its enterprise-grade brothers, however. As noted, a single controller manages all access, so redundancy and parallel processing are limited. Although the ix12 sports 12 drive bays, it only has four SATA channels internally; each bay shares a channel with two others using SATA expanders. Don’t expect to push wire speed over all four Ethernet ports at once, even with all this newfound CPU power.

A Wall of Drives

Base ix12s ship with 4 drives installed, but we were disappointed to learn that additional drives must be purchased in 4-disk packs from Iomega. Although this decision is understandable, the ix series remains a holdout amid growing legions of bring-your-own-drive competitors. At least the company supports mixing and matching drive sizes, including 1 TB and 2 TB at present. We suspect that the unit uses the same reliable 5900 rpm Seagate Barracuda LP drives as the ix4-200d.

Iomega added a few tricks to the LifeLine software to take advantage of a possible 12 drives installed. First up is the addition of dual-parity RAID-6 for improved data protection. The company (and this reviewer) suggest this over RAID-5 once more than 5 drives are combined in one set. Don’t worry, though, because RAID configuration can be changed online and any unused drive can be used regardless of its location in the array. The ix12 also adds drive spindown, saving power when the RAID set isn’t in use.

Like the ix4, any portion of a RAID set can be carved out into an iSCSI LUN for Ethernet-connected hosts. Iomega claims that LUN provisioning times have improved with the added horsepower and software tweaks, and we hope this is true. A maximum of 256 LUNs can be configured in this way, though even 12 drives are unlikely to drive much performance to that many storage users.

Where to Use It?

Although not listed yet, Iomega promises that the ix12 will have a place on the Exchange ESRP, Windows Server and Hyper-V logo list, and VMware Compatibility Guide this month. It’s already the first Iomega product to be “EMC E-Lab Tested”, meaning it is on the EMC Support Matrix; this fact alone speaks volumes of EMC’s expectations for the unit. My own experience shows that Iomega iSCSI is fine for smaller VMware and Hyper-V deployments.

Clearly, the ix12 is a new kind of Iomega array. If the 200d and 200r were a sign that the company wanted to move out of the house, the ix12 is a demonstration that they have graduated. Starting at US $5,000, the ix12 is all business and its resume ought to impress in interviews. It can’t quite boast the scalability and redundancy of established arrays (including its brothers from EMC), but it ought to be an easy acquisition for companies looking for a little more storage here or there.

One is left with questions, though: How big will EMC let Iomega get? If 12 drives are acceptable, what about 24? Is SAS off limits? What about 10 Gigabit Ethernet and even Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) eventually? Can we dream of dual controllers? At some point, the Iomega lineup could even threaten the CLARiiON!

Then there is the competitive landscape. Iomega leapfrogged the 8-drive Data Robotics lineup and landed squarely in competition with the likes of the revitalized Overland Storage but at a much lower price. We also have Netgear, HP, Dell, and Promise, and there is an attractive D-Link box packing 15 drives and 10 GbE. Iomega also has to worry about its own big brother, the Dell/EMC AX4, starting around $12k. It’s a competitive market, and Iomega is in for a fight as even more vendors wake up to the possibilities in this market.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Iomega Graduates and Goes to Work with the ix12-300r
Read more posts categorized as Storage

The beginning is actually somewhere in 1979 when the founder of Seagate Technology, Alan Shugart, created the Shugart Associates Systems Interface (SASI). This was the early predecessor of SCSI and had a very rudimentary set of capabilities. Only few commands were supported and speeds were limited to 1.5 Mb/s. In 1981, Shugart Associates was able to convince the NCR corporation to team up and thereby convincing ANSI to set up a technical committee to standardize the interface. This was realized in1982 and known as the “X3T9.2 technical committee” and resulted in the name being changed to SCSI.

The committee published their first interface standard in 1986, but would grow on to become the group known now as “International Committee for Information Technology Standards” or INCITS and that is actually responsible for many of the standards used by storage devices such as T10 (SCSI), T11 (Fibre Channel) and T13 (ATA).

Now, in July 2001 the second revision of the SCSI Primary Commands (SPC-2) was published, and this included a feature called Assymetric Logical Unit Access mode or in short ALUA mode, and some changes were made in the newer revisions of the primary command set.

Are you with me so far? Good.

On Logical Unit Numbers

Since you came here to read this article I will just assume that I don’t have to explain the concept of a LUN. But what I might need to explain is that it’s common to have multiple connections to a LUN in environments that are concerned with the availability of their disks. Depending on the fabric and the amount of fibre channel cards you have connected you can have multiple paths to the same lun. And if you have multiple paths you might as well use them, right? It’s no good having the additional bandwidth lying around and then not using it.

Since you have multiple paths to the same disk, you need a tool that will somehow merge these paths and tell your operating system that this is the same disk. This tool might even help you achieve a higher throughput since it can balance the reads and writes over all of the paths.

As you might already have guessed there are multiple implementations of this, usually called Multipathing I/O, MPIO or just plainly Multipath, and you will be able to find a solution natively or as an additional piece of software for most modern operating systems.

What might be less obvious is that the connection to these LUNs don’t have to behave in the same way. Depending on what you are connecting to, you have several states for that connection. Or to draw the analogy to the CX4, some paths are active and some paths are passive.

Normally a path to a CLARiiON is considered active when we are connected to the service processor that is currently serving you the LUN. CLARiiON arrays are so called “active/passive” arrays, meaning that only one service processor is in charge of a LUN, and the secondary service processor is just waiting for a signal to take over the ownership in case of a failure. The array will normally receive a signal that tells it to switch from one service processor to the other one. This routine is called a “trespass” and happens so fast that you usually don’t really notice such a failover.

When we go back to the host, the connection state will be shown as active for that connection that is routed to the active service processor, and something like “standby” or “passive” for the connection that goes to the service processor that is not serving you that LUN. Also, since you have multiple connections, it’s not unlikely that the different paths can also have other properties that are different. Things like bandwith (you may have added a faster HBA later) or latency can be different. Due to the characteristics, the target ports might need to indicate how efficient a path is. And if a failure should occur, the link status might change, causing a path to go offline.

You can check the the status of a path to a LUN by asking the port on the storage array, the so called “target port”. For example, you can check the access characteristics of a path by sending the following SCSI command:

• REPORT TARGET PORT GROUPS (RTPG)

Similar commands exist to actually set the state of a target port.

So where does ALUA come in?

What the ALUA interface does is allow an initiator (your server or the HBA in your server) to discover target port groups. Simply put, a group of ports that provide a common failover behavior for your LUN(s). By using the SCSI INQUIRY response, we find out to what standard the LUN adheres, if the LUN provides symmetric or asymmetric access, and if the LUN uses explicit or implicit failover.

To put it more simply, ALUA allows me to reach my LUN via the active and the inactive service processor. Oversimplified this just means that all traffic that is directed to the non-active service processor will be routed internally to the active service processor.

On a CLARiiON that is using ALUA mode this will result in the host seeing paths that are in an optimal state, and paths that are in an non-optimal state. The optimal path is the path to the active storage processor and is ready to perform I/O and will give you the best performance, and the non-optimal path is also ready to perform I/O but won’t give you the best performance since you are taking a detour.

The ALUA mode is available on CX-3 and CX-4, but the results you get can vary between both arrays. For example if you want to use ALUA with your vSphere installation you will need to use the CX-4 with FLARE 26 or newer and change the failover mode to “4″. Once you have changed the failover mode you will see a slightly different trespass behavior since you can now either manually initiate a trespass (explicit) or the array itself can perform a trespass once it’s noticed that the non-optimal path has received 128,000 or more I/Os than the optimal path (implicit).

Depending on which software you use – PowerPath or for example the native solution – you will find that ALUA is supported or not. You can take a look at Primus ID: emc187614 in Powerlink to get more details on supported configurations. Please note that you need a valid Powerlink account to access that Primus entry.

© Bas for Gestalt IT, 2010. | The Assymetric Logical Unit Access (ALUA) mode on CLARiiON
Read more posts categorized as Featured, Storage

Like Ibrix, which was acquired by HP under better circumstances last year, and ONstor, similarly scooped up by LSI, Exanet was best known for clustered NAS software. Their ExaStore software, bundled with IBM and Xyratex hardware, put up impressive scalability and performance numbers. Dell will likely leverage this software with their own hardware as a NAS complement to their leading EqualLogic iSCSI line. Exanet’s Xyratex-sourced DX line of Fibre Channel storage devices is unlikely to be at all attractive to Dell.

Rumors of a white knight for Exanet were widespread last year. Fujitsu Siemens Computers was said to be the front-runner in May, and Exanet’s name came up mid-year as HP and LSI made their moves. Dell was apparently willing to put up some money to gain access to Exanet’s NAS technology later in the year but the company’s investors reportedly scuttled that deal. Plan B for the folks in Round Rock seems to have been to wait it out and secure the technology from the now-moribund company. If Dell keeps the doors open, Exanet’s R&D center will become their first such facility in Israel.

The acquisition gives Dell a retort when HP presents their invigorated Ibrix line to enterprise customers. It is likely that Dell will follow HP with a software/hardware NAS bundle possibly featuring their PowerEdge blades. Back-end storage could come from many sources: Dell’s own PowerVault MD line, their EqualLogic PS iSCSI gear, or the Dell/EMC CLARiiON AX and CX lines. Exanet is known as a higher-end scale-out offering (think Isilon or HP’s PolyServe) rather than a general-purpose NAS.

Two key questions arise from Dell-owned NAS software:

1. Would Dell reduce their reliance on Microsoft’s Windows Storage Server, as used in their PowerVault NX300 and NX3000 NAS devices? I suspect not, since Exanet is not a low-end product and Windows-powered NAS has typically sold into a separate market niche. Rival HP has certainly continued pushing Microsoft-powered gear since buying Ibrix.
2. What does this mean for Dell’s relationship with EMC? The company only started selling the EMC Celerra NX4 last year, and a homegrown Exanet/PowerVault solution is not a drop-in replacement. Dell’s relationship with EMC continues getting deeper, and a split is unlikely in the near term.

At this point, this looks like a vote for Exanet’s technology and a reaction to HP’s PolyServe and Ibrix moves, not a statement against EMC or Celerra. Indeed, considering that Dell was merely investigating an OEM relationship before this all fell out, it doesn’t look like a strategic move at all for the company. Exanet will likely become a new line item, but Dell’s storage roster will look largely the same.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Dell Scoops Up Exanet After All
Read more posts categorized as Exclusive, Featured, Storage, Top Story

Now it can ship Solaris/SPARC/Sun Storage stacks underneath its database and other middleware and use Solaris virtualization features. Where does that leave us, wanting as we do to sell storage and our software into Oracle shops?

I’ve had an exec group working on this for some months and I’m gonna let you in on our game plan.

For those Oracle shops that run Oracle software on third-party servers, it’s the same story as now, for now. We pich the UCS vBlocks against the servers there and our Symmetrix/CLARiiON/Celerra against the storage alternatives there; basically no change.

In the longer term, though, we have to weaken Oracle in those accounts because Ellison’s crew will be selling the integrated Oracle stack story, what I call blowing Sun shine up their asses. That cuts us out, it’s a door-closer. The first way we counter this is to start making friends with SAP and Microsoft SQL. We’ll look for joint-selling type deals because we now have a shared enemy so we better be friends, right? This is my kind of fun.

The second way is for us to extend vBlocks up the stack. Customers are going to want integrated stacks from their applications right through to their disk spindles and flash drives. Larry may be a weird west coast cookie with a taste for things outside normal family life but he’s no flake when it comes to business. He’s right on the nail over this integrated stack thing. We’re going to have to talk to people like SAP and SQL and Terradata and Netezza and say, let’s build our own integrated app stack, let’s build a SAP vBlock, a SQL vBlock, whatever. Integrate your software onto our vBlock hardware and let’s bite Larry in the ass.

The third thing we have to do is push our aquisition horizons up a bit more. Oracle buys Sun and heads our way. Okay Larry, you want a fight, you got a fight. Let’s buy into his middleware market core, let’s stick a stake right in his heartland. Could we buy SAP? Would this be a better idea than buying Dell? I’m having our acquisitions team look around Larry’s software territory and spy out the possibilities.

Where Larry sells Sun storage separately, into Oracle shops using third-party servers and into non-Oracle shops if that’s what he’s going to do, then we should do well. The 7000 is obviously not mission-critical and not tested for that kind of work in enterprise data centers. It was put together by too-clever Sun engineers with open source software, so how can you rely on it? That systems organization at Sun was run by a guy that couldn’t comb his hair and he reported to a guy with a pony-tail. These people were flakes, they still are flakes, and you can’t trust them or their products.

Now joke time; the mid-range and low-end Sun storage arrays are not even on the same planet as CLARiiON and Celerra. We’ve been busting their chops and will continue doing that. The hybrid storage servers, Thumper or whatever the thing is called, is probably doomed but I’m having a team look over the possibility of putting a few UCS blades alongside bladed CLARiiON stores into an appliance and then we’ve got a Thumper-buster if we need one.

What about the StorageTek tapes? Two words: Data and Domain. If that’s not enough we can do a deal with Spectra, as Belluzzo isn’t talking to us anymore. That’ll give us a big enough tape library until Atmos clouds can do the business.

Larry E is just a wildly successful big mouth who’s going to over-reach himself. His golden goose is his software profitability through commoditizing everything else. We’re going to chip away at that by doing deals with SAP and the others and cut this over-grown Silicon Valley playboy down to size. He’s disrespectful but we can’t yet make him an offer he can’t refuse. Trust me, we’re going to be working on it, and Larry’s going to regret the day that he ever let McNealy soft soap him.

© Don Joey for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Ellison Ain’t No Sun King
Read more posts categorized as Industry Confidential

As part of my work at Storage Fusion, I get to dig into the inner workings of storage arrays in a way most people don’t (either through inclination or time).  One interesting anomaly we discovered this week was the variability in capacities of CLARiiON disks.  What results from this is that the capacity you expect to see from a particular disk model may vary quite considerably.

520 Byte Sectors

It’s pretty well known that the CLARiiON array disks are low level formatted with a 520-byte sector size compared to the standard 512-bytes on most drives and on the disks you would install into your PC at home.  The additional 8 bytes are used for error checking and other additional information and are collectively known as DIBs – see Steve Todd’s informative post on the subject here.  This increased sector size effectively reduces the capacity of the drive by approximately 1.5%.

Low level formatting does, however offer another potential benefit; the drives don’t have to be reformatted to the original size specified by the manufacturer.  In fact, EMC choose standard sizes for each of their drive types, which are referenced by generic names, such as CLAR320, CLAR300 and so on.  The numeric part of the name represents the nominal size of the drive.  Having generic names enables EMC to substitute a range of drives from different manufacturers and so not be tied to taking disks from a single supplier.  It also means that the drives have been reformatted to a consistent capacity, usually lower than the manufacturer recommends – but not always.

Unlocking Free Space

Take for example the CLAR320 model.  This is typically a standard Maxtor ATA 320GB drive.  Navisphere commands indicate that these drives have a usable capacity of 304,169MB.  Based on the 520-byte sector, this represents an actual capacity of 308,922MB.  Now, a standard 320GB drive, which is quoted by the manufacturer as having decimal GB (1000×1000×1000) has a binary capacity (using 1K = 1024 bytes) of 305,176MB.  Magically the CLAR320 drive has an additional 3746MB or nearly 3.7GB of extra storage space!

Now compare to the CLAR300 drive.  A typical 300GB drive has a capacity of 286,106MB.  The CLARiiON model has a usable capacity of 274,845GB or taking into consideration the 520/512-byte blocks, 279,139MB.  This represents a shortfall of nearly 7GB on the capacity of the drive!

The obvious question is; how can there be more capacity on a drive than the manufacturer quotes?  Well, with the CLAR320 drives, that’s pretty easy to work out.  From the Seagate specification manual, the drive is configured with 2 platters and 4 heads, so 80GB per head (or recording surface).  In the same family, the 250GB model uses only 3 heads or 83.3GB per head.  Clearly the drives can achieve higher areal density and this is not fully utilised in the 320GB model.  Reformatting the drive at the low-level must unlock this reserve potential, resulting in a slightly higher capacity.

OK, in reality, although I said considerable, the potential capacity improvements aren’t huge and I’m not advocating that everyone go out and buy 320GB drives for their CLARiiONs.  However, what is interesting is how vendors will sell capacity of one size and the actual usable value can be less than you expect.  In this instance the difference between two similar drive capacities was 10GB.  Over thousands of drives, that can add up to a discrepancy which is difficult to explain to management.  At Storage Fusion, we’re working on ensuring we can help customers identify every scrap of their storage usage.

So, perhaps when you order that next EMC, HDS, IBM, HP array, you should ask exactly what the expected mileage will be…

© Chris for Gestalt IT, 2009. | Enterprise Computing: CLARiiON; Your Mileage May Vary
Read more posts categorized as Featured, Server Virtualization, Storage

FAST (FULLY AUTOMATED STORAGE TIERING)

FAST made a debut in the storage market yesterday (12/08/09). Finally after the market buzz we got a preview of the product in terms of its features, functionality, characteristics, possible shortcomings and use cases.

This blog post focuses on the features, the drawbacks and some applications around FAST.  By no means is this a comprehensive or an exhaustive list of the above.

After all, FAST makes a debut, (The previous post on FAST).

..

NOTE: Out of the box thinking by EMC, imagine the flexibility one would have with a large infrastructure and FAST moving data based on policy. Its all about the big picture.

..

..

Here are some features, highlights of FAST and how it operates.

• FAST will perform data movement based on IOPS, average I/O size and write percentage. This is currently true for the Symmetrix V-Max, Clariion CX4 and Celerra NS.

• Three elements that define FAST: Storage Type, FAST policies and Storage Groups.

• FAST is based on user defined – configuration policies.

• The configuration of FAST is typically done through FAST wizards (Symmetrix Management Console) on Symmetrix V-Max, FAST LUN Migrator for Clariion CX4 and Rainfinity File Management Appliance or VE for Celerra NS.

....

..

..

• User defined analysis period for FAST. That will enable FAST to recommend or perform data analysis and then a data move based on policy.

• FAST created policies will associate with Storage Groups.

• FAST policies will be configurable at a LUN / drive / drive type / speed etc level.

• Data movement will take place based on a time of the date policy called “COLD” move or on usage policy called “HOT” move.

• Data movement will take place between various drive types, various LUN types and LUN sizes. (LUN types, LUN sizes will need to be same for the source and destination LUNs). For example a 9GB FBA LUN being migrated from Fibre to FLASH will need similar source and destination LUN properties.

• FAST data analysis will be performed in the background.

• For Symmetrix V-Max platform FAST will perform all analysis without the use of Symmetrix Performance Analyzer. Understanding is there will be some sort of API plugin available on the Service Processor of the V-Max that will enable Symmetrix Management Console (FAST plugin) to interface with the Symmetrix through the SYMAPI interface.

• For Clariions, the performance data of the array will be monitored and collected by Navisphere Analyzer.

• Based on the source LUN analysis, FAST will recommend the user to move the data either a faster speed drives or a slower speed drives.

• FAST will enable roll back based on user preferences (automated).

• FAST will be configurable by Symmetrix Management console wizards or SYMCLI

• FAST configurable by Clariion Naviseccli and installed on a host connected to Clariion, Host software called FAST LUN Migrator.

• FAST configurable by Rainfinity File Management Appliance GUI or CLI for Celerra NS “out-of-box data” movement. This enables the Celerra to move data to another Celerra or Centera or Atmos.

• FAST configurable by Rainfinity File Management / VE (Virtual Appliance) for Celerra NS “in-the-box” data movement.

• FAST can be installed non-disruptively on all platforms.

• FAST will operate both at an FBA and CKD level supporting open systems and mainframes for V-Max.

• FAST will operate at a LUN level on Symmetrix V-Max

• FAST will operate at a LUN level on Clariion CX4

• FAST will operate at a file level on Celerra NS

• FAST v1 users will be able to purchase a FAST v2 upgrade when it’s released in second half of 2010.

• FAST can be purchased as a FAST suite or part of an ATSM (Advanced Tiering Storage Management) suite with bundled discounting prices.

• For a unified storage system like a front end NAS (Celerra) with a backend SAN (Clariion), FAST can coexists at both levels. But it is not recommended to deploy FAST at a Celerra LUN level.

• FAST integrates with Symmetrix Management Console and with Rainfinity GUI (Celerra) for simple management. Though Clariion implementation will need one to specialize in CLI.

.

FAST introduction by EMC

..

..

FAST Drawbacks

Here are some drawbacks of FAST as I see it today.

• Does not support Virtual provisioning. So the Virtual provisioned LUNs will not be FAST enabled. Sub-LUN expected in second half of 2010

• FAST is not free and is charged based on RAW CAPACITY of the Storage Array.

• FAST will only work with similar LUN types (example FBA LUNs can be migrated to FBA) and LUN sizes (9GB LUN can be migrated to a 9GB LUN) only.

• FAST will require Professional Services and is not recommended for customer self implementation at least for the Clariion and the Celerra platforms. EMC is making a claim that FAST can be self provisioned on the Symmetrix V-Max platform.

• FAST works only on current generation systems like EMC V-Max Enginuity 5874, Clariion CX4 Release 29 and Celerra NS.

• With Clariion CX4 and FAST implementation, requirement is to have Navisphere Analyzer.

• With Celerra NS and FAST implementation, requirement is to have Rainfinity File Management /VE or Appliance.

• With Symmetrix V-Max FAST implementation, requirement is to have Symmetrix Management Console (Not free any more starting with the V-Max)

• For the Clariions, FAST only analyzes Fibre drives and LUN movement has to initiate from Fibre channel to FLASH or Fibre channel to SATA drives only. Movement from FLASH to Fibre or SATA to Fibre has to be initiated manually.

• A customer implementing Virtual Provisioning on Clariion CX4 and Symmetrix V-Max that is using 50% Thick Provisioning and 50% Virtual Provisioning. FAST will not work with Virtual Provisioned LUNs. But the customer will probably pay for 100% of Storage Raw Capacity when it comes to paying for FAST either non-bundled or bundled in an ATSM (Advanced Tiering Storage Management).

• FAST does not support IBM System I platform currently.

..

..

Some real world FAST applications

• Acadia Service Model can now add granularity with offerings around on-demand resources using FAST at its core.

• On Demand application and workload needs can be met for OLTP, Data Warehousing, Mainframe compute and Virtual compute using FAST driven policies.

• Multi-tenancy with Private Clouds

• Move high demand data on faster drives while rarely used data goes on slower drives.

• Sell ITaaS based on SLA’s. Higher SLA’s can mean higher price. All automated processes controlled by policy.

• Higher transactions typically mean low overall cost; mean higher efficiency means higher profits all achievable through FAST policy engine.

Need to see some real world implementations of FAST now. In theory and on paper, FAST looks pretty compelling but practically will it do the magic.

..

..

Some unanswered questions today

• How does it prevent from LUNs jumping between Fiber, FLASH and SATA if the application has un-expected performance that day?

• Manageability of FAST interfaces.

• Usability of FAST interfaces.

• Granular configuration policies associated with analysis.

• Future upgrades.

• Current implementations and how long and how effective are those.

• Can you improve performance without using SSD’s. Example with Fibre and SATA drives only.

• With future upgrades from FAST v1 to FAST v2 what happens with current user defined policies.

• Would Symcli scripts change with FAST implementation?

• During lockout periods (Where Symmetrix configuration cannot change, eg before a BIN file change) would FAST still operate.

..

To read some of the answers to the questions, as commented by Barry Burke on the StorageNerve Blog

FAST is a bit of a new subject for me. Any experts please feel free to correct me if my understanding of FAST is incorrect at any level.

Stay tuned for a series of FAST posts over the next few days talking about various topics and how FAST plays within those areas.

© Devang for Gestalt IT, 2009. | FAST: Features, Drawbacks, Applications and some Questions
Read more posts categorized as Storage

So EMC has proved critics like me wrong and have introduced EMC FAST (Fully Automated Storage Tiering) as an offering in Dec 2009. There were many skeptics like me that saw this product release being stalled because of various reasons, here.

Truly this was one of the most awaited products of 2009 from EMC after the initial announcement by EMC back in April 2009 along with the release of Symmetrix V-Max.

I have dedicated a separate deep-dive section for EMC FAST on the StorageNerve Blog, here

Along with FAST, EMC has also introduced some new enhancements to the EMC Symmetrix V-Max, Clariion CX4 and Celerra NS platforms. Currently FAST will be available on the above 3 platforms at debut and will provide automated storage tiering “in-the-box” for Symmetrix V-Max, “in-the-box” for Clariion CX4 and “out-of-box” for Celerra NS platforms.

As expected EMC has not made this feature free but rather offers a pricing model based on bundled software. FAST will be an available feature within ATSM: Advanced Tiering Storage Management bundle and will be charged based on RAW Capacity of the Array (Symmetrix, Clariion and Celerra)

FAST will not be supported on EMC DMX-4 and Clariion CX3. In essence FAST is only compatible with EMC Symmetrix V-Max Enginuity Microcode 5874.xxx.xxx and Clariion CX4 Flarecode Release 29.

FAST is a software only feature and integrates with existing hardware / software on the associated platforms.

The following are some of the features FAST will support at GA on the EMC Symmetrix V-Max, Clariion CX4 and Celerra NS platforms.

EMC Symmetrix V-Max

• Volume / LUN based data movement (Automated Storage Tiering) for open systems and CKD – mainframe volumes.

• Management of FAST through Symmetrix Management Console or SymCLI

• Data Movement can be accomplished between FLASH, fibre channel and SATA drives within the V-Max platform. Data can move in any direction and on any type of the drives based on policy.

• Data movement within a single frame or serial number only.

• FAST suite can be purchased as a standalone software suite but will be available at a discounted price based on a bundled option with Symmetrix Optimizer, DCP: Dynamic Cache Partitioning and SPC: Symmetrix Priority Controls.

• Symmetrix Performance Analyzer is not required for FAST to operate on the Symmetrix V-Max platform.
  

EMC Clariion CX4

• LUN based data movement (Automated Storage Tiering)

• Management of FAST will be enabled through CLI only. Not supported as an integrated part of Navisphere today.

• Will work with Flarecode Release 29 (Clariion CX4) only.

• Unlike the Symmetrix, the automated data movement will only be supported between fibre channel drives to FLASH or fibre channel drives to SATA. There is no automation related to data movement from FLASH to fibre channel or FLASH to SATA or SATA to FLASH or SATA to fibre Channel drives.

• Data movement within a single frame or serial number only.

• FAST suite can be purchased as a standalone software suite but will be available at a discounted price based on bundled option with Navisphere Analyzer and NQSM: Navisphere Quality Service Manager.

• Navisphere Analyzer is required for FAST to operate.

EMC Celerra platform

• File based data movement (Automated Storage Tiering)

• Management of FAST can be accomplished through Rainfinity file management appliance GUI or CLI. Customers also have an option to purchase Rainfinity File management/VE (Virtual Appliance), which has some limitations.

• Data movement can be enabled to another tier “in-the-box” or to another Celerra or Centera or Atmos.

• Celerra FAST is most interesting as it enables out the system data movement, like to another Celerra or Centera or Atmos.

• FAST suite can be purchased as a standalone software suite but will be available at a discounted price based on a bundled option with Rainfinity File Management Appliance or Rainfinity File Management /VE.

Based on EMC heat index charts, a before and after picture of a FAST implementation would look like this.

A FAST implementation video

Here is a post, back from August 2009 on Gestalt IT describing how EMC’s Unified Storage vision and federation may work. It is good to see, some of those things come to fruition now, and at least FAST with Celerra proves it.

Stay tuned for a series of FAST posts over the next few days talking about various other topics and how FAST plays within those areas.

© Devang for Gestalt IT, 2009. | After all, FAST makes a debut
Read more posts categorized as Storage, Tech