HDS telegraphed that a big announcement was coming today. They even made it fun, with a (literally) cryptic blog entry to make sure we were all watching. But the announcement of High Availability Manager, a software product to manage existing HDS USP-V and USP-VM arrays, underwhelmed.

In fact, it’s difficult to tell exactly what High Availability Manager (we’re calling it HAM for now) really is. As noted by our own Chris Evans (USP-V – So Long And Thanks For All The Fish), HAM isn’t the next-generation USP-V with more-granular thin provisioning, automatic storage tiering, and expanded scalability. It isn’t HDS’ answer to the EMC Symmetrix V-Max and it’s forthcoming FAST technology.

So what is HDS up to here? For one thing, they’re not pre-announcing technology that won’t be delivered for some time. HAM appears to be in use at beta customers now, and will no doubt be generally available in short order.

As Storagebod tweeted, “it’s a teaser…the technology to move is part one but you need something to move to. New USP will be part two!”

This Can’t Be All!

Although I have no inside information, it is simple to speculate on what HDS will deliver soon. If I was the product manager for USP-V-II, here’s what I would demand:

1. The next-generation USP-V must be far more scalable than anything we’ve seen yet. This means it must surpass the 8 “engines” and 2,400 drives of the current V-Max from EMC.
2. It must also offer automatic tiering of storage from flash/SSD to Fibre Channel to SATA. In fact, HDS can one-up everyone else (except maybe IBM) by extending tiering to older, external, and even third-party storage arrays. Now that would be something!
3. It must include next-generation datacenter Ethernet support, including 10 Gb FCoE and iSCSI.
4. It must integrate with VMware vSphere and Microsoft Hyper-V, including native multipathing and full API support for snapshots and replication.
5. It must be an easy upgrade from current storage systems, especially USP-V but also third-party arrays.
6. Since it’ll be huge, it must have template-based management for hosts, LUNs, and HA features.

Ham It Up

My fear is that HAM will be used to provide some of these features in a not-exactly-integrated fashion. It will certainly be used for the upgrade path, but let’s hope it’s not the final word for the others. Consider that the “clustering” features of HAM would allow HDS to claim extreme scalability across geographies between multiple USP instances. Although this would not pass the sniff test of many who are hip-deep in enterprise storage, it would likely satisfy the sales-pitch one-upmanship needs when competing with EMC.

On reflection, all of the features mentioned sound exactly like what EMC announced last month! So HDS must have more up their sleeves. Even this USP-II can’t be all HDS has to offer!

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2009. | HDS’ HAM-Fisted Announcement Can’t Be All
Read more posts categorized as Exclusive, Featured, Storage, Top Story

The fact that Microsoft has embraced virtualization is an understatement. The fact that Microsoft has been slow to embrace other virtualization vendor’s capabilities to run Windows operating systems as guests is equally an understatement, but what if this wasn’t the case? That is, what if Microsoft abandoned the licensing strategy of anchoring Windows to physical hardware? What if the folks at Redmond recognized virtual hardware and virtual machines (VMs) as equals to physical devices when assigning licenses? Taking it a step forward, what if specialized versions of the various Windows operating systems and applications were specifically developed for VMs along with special licensing? Maybe it will never happen, but there have been a few signs recently that give one hope for the possibility.

Like crop circles, the following are some posts that caused me to wonder “what if?”.
 

First, there was a rumor about a virtualized version of Microsoft Office.
latoga labs – Rumor: Microsoft Office Virtualization Edition

“I heard an interesting rumor this week that Microsoft is planning on updating their licensing model in the near future for Microsoft Office to introduce a virtualization version. The way it was described to me is that if you want to migrate your physical desktops to virtual desktops and run Microsoft Office on them, you will need to purchase a special Office Virtualized Edition.”

Interesting no doubt, but the more I think about this rumor it really starts to sound like a reason to justify making companies pay for another Office license – as if the first Office license can’t P2V with the OS? I have not heard anything else since about “Virtualized Office”.

Next there was the  announcement that Microsoft has identified a market opportunity for a low cost version of Server 2008 designed to run on low-end servers. To fulfill this need, Microsoft released Server 2008 Foundation, which comes pre-installed on hardware when purchased through original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Paul Thurrott’s post Windows Server 2008 Foundation Preview explains Microsoft’s vision for this version:

“Microsoft saw a glaring hole in its product line, one that was not filled by the consumer-focused Windows Home Server or the overly-functional SBS. This year, it’s possible to purchase perfectly capable low-end servers for well under $1000. So it doesn’t make sense that Microsoft’s lowest cost infrastructure server, Windows Server 2008 Standard, costs $500. Clearly what the company needed was something that offered core Server features but came in well under that price.”

Which makes me wonder if Microsoft would ever create a similar edition for virtual instances of server 2008?

Finally, the biggest news about a virtual edition of a Windows operating system was XP Mode in the upcoming Windows 7.

Again a post from Paul Thurrott along with Rafael Rivera - Secret No More: Revealing Windows XP Mode for Windows 7

“XP Mode consists of the Virtual PC-based virtual environment and a fully licensed copy of Windows XP with Service Pack 3 (SP3). It will be made available, for free, to users of Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate editions via a download from the Microsoft web site. (That is, it will not be included in the box with Windows 7, but is considered an out-of-band update, like Windows Live Essentials.) XPM works much like today’s Virtual PC products, but with one important exception: As with the enterprise-based MED-V (Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Virtualization) product, XPM does not require you to run the virtual environment as a separate Windows desktop. Instead, as you install applications inside the virtual XP environment, they are published to the host (Windows 7) OS as well. (With shortcuts placed in the Start Menu.) That way, users can run Windows XP-based applications (like IE 6) alongside Windows 7 applications under a single desktop.”

My understanding of XP Mode is that it is a specialized VM edition of Windows XP.

What If?

Would it not be nice if a “Windows Server v12n Edition” existed? How about Windows Desktop V12N? Stripped of the extra drivers and applications. Licensed per virtual machine. Free to migrate between virtual hosts. Allow the hot add and remove of virtual RAM and CPU. Operating systems tweaked to be easily cloned for dynamic demand. Applications written so that they could be duplicated as needed with services that could self load balance. Able to leap tall buildings …

Is my head in the clouds, and, for that matter, are these crop circles just a hoax?

© Rich for Gestalt IT, 2009. | What If Microsoft Virtualization Editions Existed?
Read more posts categorized as All, Cloud Computing, Desktop, Featured, Server Virtualization

Although the technical details of VMware’s version 4 product (dubbed the vSphere family) were known ahead of time, the product’s licensing model came as a surprise. Rather than go with the “base product + options” approach used by many software products, VMware decided on a flat tiered pricing scheme. Both approaches have their fans and detractors, but the details of VMware’s system left many off guard. Has VMware pushed the tiered model too far, eliminating flexibility and forcing enterprise customers to purchase pricey top-tier licenses? The Gestalt IT staff put our heads together to think the matter through.

VMware's Simplified licensing for vSphere includes four basic tiers for the enterprise plus two more for small business

Consult VMware’s vSphere 4 Pricing, Packaging and Licensing Overview for yourself and let us know what you think! A poll at VM/ETC shows that readers are decidedly positive. Eric Siebert put together a nice overview of licensing options for TechTarget, as did “the other Scott Lowe” for TechRepublic.

Stephen

The more I think about vSphere’s new tiered licensing, the more I think it’s a big mistake. I understand that there are always compromises involved with licensing and bundling, but I think VMware might have pushed the tiered model to an extreme. Rather than a few tiers and lots of options (as in ESX 3), VMware has created a simple system with six tiers. Want fault tolerance with continuous availability? You have to buy Advanced or above, bundled with the new Data Protection and priced $1,500 more than Standard.

It’s a very typical predicament to anyone who has purchased a car: American makers often let buyers customize their vehicle down to the smallest detail, with dozens of factory option line items, while Japanese makers offer just a few trim lines with bundled features. Want a V6 in your Honda Accord? You have to buy the EX model at least, complete with a premium audio system and fog lights. Honda does this because it’s easier and cheaper to manufacture and distribute standard car models. But Honda is selling hardware, not software!

VMware seems to be copying Microsoft’s Vista: Offer a limited functionality version that appeals to no one apart from its price tag but make users step up to more costly versions to get essential functionality. But Microsoft made a mistake that VMware might also be copying: They restricted desirable features to the top-of-the-line Enterprise and Ultimate versions, resulting in reduced impact and appeal for the product.?When I bought Vista, I had to buy Ultimate in order to get Media Center, EFS, and RDP.

Now consider the VMware vSphere license tiers:?I can see people buying Enterprise Plus just for PSA/PowerPath or Enterprise just for DRA and wishing they didn’t have to step up.?Restricting exciting new technology like third-party multipathing to Enterprise Plus, for example, will greatly diminish its appeal, reduce the installed base, and discourage vendors from developing plug-ins for it!

Although I am glad VMware added a low-cost small-business tier, I think they missed out by not offering a functioning system (without support) for free. Right or wrong, Microsoft is making hay with their claim that Hyper-V is (financially) free, and VMware missed an opportunity to respond. It also makes it very hard for the smallest businesses to experiment with VMware by putting a base price on the system.

Note that the Enterprise level might be going away at the end of the year, forcing all businesses to upgrade to Enterprise Plus!

Martin

I can see the hand of EMC very much in this; ever since Diane was removed, VMware feels more and more like a part of EMC. Even more so than when they were actually part of EMC.

However, tiered license models where you pay for features is becoming increasingly common; we only have to look at what goes on with the desktop apps, you often have a Pro version which adds features and not just scale.

But, vSphere is not a desktop product; I would prefer a license model where you license the features that you require for the capacity that you require. Actually I would be happier with a model where all features are available and you just license for capacity. It simplifies the model, it could get very complex to manage.

For example; my development cloud might have different licenses to my production cloud but in my production cloud, I might have different tiers of app and will I need to actually segragate my production cloud into multiple tiers?

If VMWare are serious about positioning v-Sphere as an OS; they might be as well to look at some of the other enterprise OS providers and some of the experiments that they have tried. IBM in their lunacy stripped out X-Windows and C from AIX in one release and tried to charge for it…it didn’t take and it is part of the OS again.

This license model might have some interesting impacts; for example, smaller shops which want the features but do not want to pay, may look to alternatives…be it other products or public-clouds. Or perhaps third-party add-ons which replicate the functionality of the more advanced editions of vSphere and the support headaches that will bring to both VMware and the end-user.

I’m glad I don’t have to work this out…VMware is the best product out there today and it has an incredibly passionate and loyal userbase but there is competition out there and pragmitism may force people to look elsewhere.

Scott

VMware should have pushed VMotion down the stack. This would sweeten the comparison between VMware and other “free” alternatives that will include (Hyper-V R2) or already include (XenServer) live migration.

Host profiles don’t belong in Enterprise Plus. They should have gone into Advanced or Enterprise. Yes, large organizations will benefit the most from host profiles, but others want it too.

Third-Party Multipathing shouldn’t be an additional licensed fee. As I understand it correctly, you’ll still have to pay the third-party for the actual software (i.e., you’ll have to pay EMC for PowerPath/VE). So what is VMware giving us here? The “ability” to use third-party multipathing? Charging extra for that isn’t the best choice, IMHO.

What’s up with Advanced having a 12-core limit, but Enterprise having a 6-core limit? Because existing VI3 Enterprise customers will be grandfathered into vSphere 4 Enterprise if they have active SnS, this strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to extort more licensing fees.

Even though I clearly disagree with some of their licensing-related decisions, I can kind of see where VMware is coming from on this one. Since every VI3 Enterprise license with active SnS (Support and Subscription) will be grandfathered into a vSphere 4 Enterprise license, VMware needed some way to generate license revenue. So what’s the best way to handle this? How does VMware recoup its development costs? Increase SnS fees? There would be backlash against that as well. If we are going to make a big deal out of how VMware handled this and say that we disagree with it, then I think we also ought to be willing to provide suggestions on how it should have been done. It’s kind of like saying, “Don’t discuss the problem without also discussing a solution.”

Rich

It seems to sit better with me if VMware would offer vSphere hosts (classic and ESxi 4) for free and then license the features individually with editions of vCenter. This puts VMware more in line with the competition and hopefully helps recoup some development costs.

Personally, the argument I’m hearing from VMware (the podcast) is that no one else has these features. This is true, but it can come across to some as gouging. If the only gas station in town gouged on gas, what if everybody decides they are going back to walking for a while until somebody else opens up to compete?

Time will tell, and then will VMware customers have a bad taste in their mouth over this period?

Conclusion

We all agree that licensing is imperfect, and that there were bound to be flaws no matter what VMware decided. Yet we all see serious negatives in the specific implementation chosen by VMware for vSphere 4:

• Certain features like third-party multi-pathing and host profiles are misplaced in the stack regardless (See Vinternals post for more)
• We would generally prefer a base + options system over a tiered system
• The lowest-end product is still too expensive for labs and the smallest businesses
• Time will tell how customers react, and if the forced march to Enterprise Plus puts off business customers

VMware needs to make money on licensing, and they deserve it. They’ve put together an excellent product, after all. But they are risking their market position by relying on such strict tiers!

© Gestalt for Gestalt IT, 2009. | Is Licensing Turning vSphere Into Vista?
Read more posts categorized as Exclusive, Featured, Server Virtualization, Top Story

Although I give the various players a hard time; the industry doesn’t do everything badly and I try to see the positives as well as the negatives. So I was thinking about the perfect array and what features I would like to see! So a random stream of consciousness produced the following!

• Reliability – DMX-like reliability and robustness
• Scalability – DMX-like scalability for block, IBM SOFS for NAS
• Performance – DMX-like performance for block, BlueArc for NAS
• Flexibility – Support for all protocols in a common consistent manner like OnTap
• Thin Provisioning – 3Par’s thin provisioning
• Wide Striping – Genuine wide-stripping across ALL Spindles not just a proportion or across groups of spindles – Think 3Par
• Automated Storage Tiering – Think Compellant on steroids!
• Automated Optimisation – Think 3Par
• Dedupe – Dedupe at block or file level – not seen a truly great dedupe solution yet
• Scalable Heterogeneous Support – IBM SVC or HDS
• Minimal-performance impacting Snapshots – think NetApp or….Sun
• Writeable Thin Clones – think LSI’s DPM8400
• Synchronous Replication – think SRDF
• Asynchronous Replication – think of something which works without a huge amount of work
• Provisioning interface – think XIV, think 3Par
• Analytics – think Sun
• Monitoring/reporting – think Onaro
• Cost – think PC World (who are too expensive to but you get the idea!)

So a merger between IBM/EMC/HDS/NetApp/Sun/Compellant/BlueArc/LSI/3Par would be a great start. Let’s throw Cisco into the mix as well for a unified data-centre fabric and we’re done!

What features do you want to see? I’d love to know!

And vendors, without too much marchitecture, what are your killer features? The things that you are most proud of? I don’t want a big bragging list but what’s the one problem you think you’ve solved which you are most proud of?

© Martin for Gestalt IT, 2009. | Perfection…
Read more posts categorized as All, Storage

I loved this blog entry about Web 2.0 because the last paragraph is beginning to have relevance in our own world of storage.

“The lesson to take away is that, in this cycle anyway, the hard architectural problems have been solved to a “good enough” degree, now its about making them easier to use etc. Its like post war cars – once it was sorted out how they worked, where to put the pedals etc, it became largely a styling game for quite a while.”

Despite a lot of the huffing and puffing by the various vendors, I think that we are about to enter a cycle where this is true for array-based storage. Most vendors, if you have a serious and open conversation, admit that their competitors’ arrays are pretty much good enough for whatever you want them to do. Of course there are a few features which differentiate them, but they are all catching up with each other in this space.

It will get harder and harder to choose between vendors based on features; it is going to come down to useability, manageability and reliability.

The array is heading towards functional maturity and after this year is done, I’m expecting the battle-ground to move to the skies.

© Martin for Gestalt IT, 2009. | Arrays Now Good Enough?
Read more posts categorized as All, Cloud Computing, Storage

This is part of a series on Enterprise Data Migration Strategies:

• Data Migration Strategies – Part I
• Data Migration Strategies – Part II
• Data Migration Strategies – Part III
• Data Migration Strategies – Part IV
• Data Migration Strategies – Part V

I recently posted on the issue of migrating data from large Enterprise storage arrays. The post covered a summary of the migration steps, with some brief discussion on calculating costs. In this series of posts, I will discuss migration strategies in more detail, covering the major steps in developing and implementing an ongoing Enterprise Data Migration Strategy.

Why Migrate?

Understanding the reasons for migration is a great place to start in developing a strategy. Seasoned IT professionals will know that change for change’s sake is not a good thing; “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” – the old adage says, for good reason. Data migrations will introduce change into an environment and with change comes risk. However there are practical reasons to perform migrations. These include:

• Financial – as technology ages, maintenance payments kick in and over time, generally the older a storage array, the higher the maintenance costs. Storage vendors are keen to offer the latest, larger, faster array at a discounted cost if you move from their previous generation of technology. Hardware vendors will also offer significant incentives to achieve a vendor swap-out, giving huge discounts in order to displace the competition. Many organisations could replace their existing technology and see significant ongoing cost savings, justifying the expense of a migration effort.
• Environmental – Data centre space is always under pressure and as one of the largest users of space, power and cooling, storage is a target for rationalisation and consolidation. Whilst the cost savings in consolidation may be small, there may be larger cost avoid issues that justify migration to new technology, for example if a new or extended data centre is required at significant investment or where expansion is simply impossible. Data centre space is at a premium with many companies, who will look to make tactical changes while a longer term strategy is developed.
• Technology – storage technology continues to evolve; new features such as thin provisioning and data de-duplication can enable cost savings and increase competitive advantage. In addition, vendors may offer limited support for newer hardware (HBAs, switches, operating systems) against their storage arrays, forcing migration to new technology in order to maintain a supported position (without incurring additional cost).

Benefits

Understanding the “Why” is pretty easy to explain. However quantifying the benefits may be more difficult. In developing a strategy it is essential to be able to show the benefits that will be achieved in migrating. Some of these will be pretty easy; where the migration is being executed for purely financial reasons, the benefit is the reduction in the run-rate of operating the equipment versus the cost of migration. Environmental and technological benefits tend to be more difficult to quantify, however. Spend time in evaluating the impact of making the change. Identify the benefits and the beneficiaries and help them develop your migration business case.

Example: Due to a merger, growth in email is expected to reach 100% in the next 12 months. Migrating email servers to a new storage array will provide double the capacity at the same run-rate cost by using new and faster HDD technology. The business case justifies the purchase and migration effort versus the increase in cost of extending the existing hardware.

In summary:

1. Establish and document the reasons for migration.
2. Develop a business case, highlighting the benefits of making the change.

The next few posts will cover how to achieve migrations and avoid many of the common issues that are encountered.

© Chris for Gestalt IT, 2009. | Data Migration Strategies – Part I
Read more posts categorized as All, Storage