The last installment of the Storage Migration Tools series covered RoboCopy, a command line copy utility and also its GUI add-on.  This one is for the GUI lovers.  Let’s get started.

What is Rich Copy?

Rich Copy is a utility that allows files to be copied via a GUI interface.  Some IT Professionals are command line guys, some are not.  If you are not, this tool might be your best free option.

This utility was featured in an Utility Spotlight in TechNet Magazine in the past but I thought it might be a good idea to get my hands on it and see just how it works.

When the utility starts you are presented with a simple working interface, a box to enter the source path and destination path and a dropdown for the copy options as shown in figure A.

 

Rich Copy

When you specify source and destination files, you can simply click the start button and the selected profile of options will copy the files.  The progress of the operation is shown in the bottom pane(s) of the interface.

Copy and Paste it ain’t

Here are two features of Rich Copy that are high on my list and they are not terribly fancy:

• Simple Interface – the simple pane of glass and easy appearance of the software is really refreshing
• Piles of options – because I can create copy profiles specifying options for different scenarios to use via a drop down box, the power of the application remains easy to use.

The options available are configured in an additional screen, shown in figure B, and can be saved in separate profiles.

 

Options available for Copy Jobs

The table below outlines the options available for use in a copy profile.

A quick note about source consolidation

The option to consolidate multiple sources is an interesting one.  If the option is not checked and multiple sources are specified, the source directories are copied into the destination.  Figure C shows a simple example of this scenario.  If the option is turned on, the directory structure from the source is created in the destination when files are copied.  Figure D shows an example of this scenario.

Note: Both images are provided from the Rich Copy help from Microsoft

Figure C

 

Consolidation Off

Figure D

 

Consolidation On

After using the Rich Copy and looking into it for this post, the copy profiles feature is really great if you copy files using similar options frequently.  For example, you might configure and save a profile for a backup job for the My Documents folder on your PC which might schedule it to be off loaded to removable media.  Using a profile allows you to configure it and re-use it as needed.

What’s My Take?

I like the feature set and functionality that Rich Copy brings to the table.  If you are a GUI user it is definitely worth a look.  Support for this utility can certainly be found within its help documentation and on the Internet, even though it is not officially supported by Microsoft.  The utility is very full featured and a breeze to use, as with any software, I can merely suggest that you give it a try and see its features for yourself.  I am very pleased with Rich Copy where I have used it.

© derek for Gestalt IT, 2011. | Storage Migration Tools: RichCopy
Read more posts categorized as Storage

Now that I have the storage in place and turned on, the planning of just how to cut it up can begin.  Because we are an all Windows shop, CIFS will be the method of choice for file systems.  I will likely keep a small section of disk for iSCSI just for opportunities sake.

What now?

Next comes moving the existing data to the Celerra.  This is where I am currently planning and determining how to proceed.  The goal of this series is to look at a few of the tools available to help with data migration and some of the planning that might go with moving data.

As this moves forward I will discuss planning of a migration and what you might consider when looking to migrate data as well as a few of the tools available to accomplish a migration.

Because things are still coming together for these posts, if there are things you want to see or know about, please let me know.

© derek for Gestalt IT, 2011. | Storage Migration Tools: A look at what’s around
Read more posts categorized as Storage

In this post I am going to look at using RoboCopy to migrate information to new storage.

Featured Tool: RoboCopy

RoboCopy is a command line tool from Microsoft that allows for multi-threaded file copying.  It functions similarly to Copy.exe or XCopy.exe but has a few of its own nuances which will be look at here.

Using RoboCopy is quite straight forward, specifying the source, destination, files to be copied,and any options you wish, for example:

robocopy “c:\myfiles” “d:\newstorage” blogpost.docx

Note: Examples in this post will use simple paths on my local machine, but these can be changed to accommodate any storage.

In the above example, the utility will move the blogpost.docx file from the C drive to the D driv

e.  If the file exists in the destination, it will be skipped without prompt.

If a more robust feature set is needed to act on files during the copy operation, robocopy supports the following options:

With the amount of options available for use with RoboCopy, it is an extremely robust tool.  If you are comfortable with the command line it might be the best choice for a data migration.  With a little scripting knowledge you could schedule copies and use the Windows Task Scheduler and options in RoboCopy to move/migrate piles of data.

While researching and playing with RoboCopy, I also discovered a GUI add-on for the utility, details on that can be found here. I highly recommend testing it for data migration, you might be surprised with what you get that you don’t need to pay for.

© derek for Gestalt IT, 2011. | Storage Migration Tools: RoboCopy
Read more posts categorized as Desktop, Server Virtualization, Storage

Because the unit is new and I decided to get it setup all by myself, asking questions where needed, some things are not as rosy as I had hoped they would be.  The biggest issue I have right now is domain joins.  It seems they fail all the time. I am working on this issue and hope to have it resolved this week.

The next issue that finds me a bit troubled is migration.  Sure there is copy and paste, but that smells of inefficiency to me.  I am trying to chase down some of the migration tools I have read about but the EMC-Copy utility doesn’t seem to get the job done (or I am using it wrong).

If all goes well, the users will be presented with the new storage in a week or so and then it is on to home directory “stuff”.

To move or let them move… that is the question

I am on the fence when it comes to Home Directories.  Yes we need them, yes they need to live on the Celerra, but who gets to be the one to put them there.  My initial thought was to shove all the data over in a migration and not worry about it, but that is not effective use of storage.  Keeping whatever is out there for as long as whenever is not a good move.  I am planning to e-mail the user community and let them know that they need to clean up their rooms by <insert deadline here> so that the useable data can be migrated.

This will save initial storage at the outset and allow everyone to be under their quota.  Users under quota are a good thing, because that way the hard limit wont hit right away and can actually be enforced.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

I am leaning toward a set amount of storage per user, across the board.  This means that my co-workers need to reduce what is stored.  That should make for an interesting few weeks.  Some will have no problem as they do not use much now, some will have limit issues right away.

Either way, I think that will suit us best until we can determine needs and usage to allow additional shelves to be installed.

© derek for Gestalt IT, 2011. | Getting acquainted with storage
Read more posts categorized as All, Storage

It is not to say that there was no planning ahead, we did also purchase some HP Proliant DL 380 G7s for the upcoming virtualization of server workloads, but given the amount of disk we are consuming just for files (non-deduped files at this point) the opportunity to tackle everything at once is thankfully in no way possible.

Data growth will happen

I like to think I am a realist when it comes to my job.  Sure it is cool to have the latest greatest infrastructure, but if the gear in place today is getting the job done why change?  We are storing our information on a Windows Storage Server appliance with direct attached disk configured for hardware RAID 5.  The useable storage available in total is about 675 GB, which isnt too bad considering that we have used about half of that disk space over the five year life of the device.

Some users, consume way more than they should and all have a surely plausible business reason for their usage.  Because there havent been huge spikes in the growth in other areas, this is ok.  Until the data begins to saunter across the Ethernet to the NX4.  When it arrives, there will be limits in place for the user and deduping going on to help the limits be realistic.

Sure we went to the current storage server because I needed some type of disk space in a hurry on the cheap, but it was admittedly poorly thought out because it requires forklifting to grow the storage.  Because more data is being consumed and many end users assume that IT is in charge of what they consume, many things, even those from 2001 need never die. While this might be true, it isnt practical, especially in a small business.  Keeping old data forever because it has never been thought to clean it out is just bad management.  Both by me, the storage admin, and the user.

Because of this, capping or quotas or <insert limit buzz word here> will happen when we transition.  Sure there will be exceptions, but certainly not for backups of itunes libraries and photo albums.

Figuring out what is reasonable

Determining accurate growth certainly is a science and plain dumb luck.  Because we have had our current file server for five or so years and have just passed the half way mark 20% growth is more than reasonable.  I didnt hire a crack team of scientists to determine this, I purely looked at current use versus total available to see what would be left over.  Then tried to find a target quota amount for the users home directories.

Some users will be giving up some disk space, but I think this is good for everyone.  Sure we can get more shelves and we likely will in the future, but slowing the growth to a trickle is something that will hopefully get people to be more mindful of what they keep.  If the newest Justin Bieber CD in the itunes library wont fit because you havent the space to keep it, should you cull your library or store you collection elsewhere, or remove data needed to do your job?  I think the choice is obvious and can recommend great small form factor disks for iTunes storage, but it is ultimately up to the user (or their supervisor) to ensure they store the correct information.

I think the move to scalable storage was definitely correct for this situation because data needs will only get more complex as the world moves forward and with virtualization becoming more and more popular, the savings brought about by “less with more” or at least less compute space for more compute power will be very well worth the slight bit of upfront and transition costs incurred by SMB.

Changing over to SAN storage was a very big shift for the business side of the house, especially since they have not started using this hot new thing as of yet.  When planning our storage needs, I was concerned with growth, but included server consolidation to reduce the amount of servers (read “four letter words”) that were in the data center (back room closet).  Doing this seemed to appeal to everyone, even though we are quite a ways out from actually virtualizing any workloads.

What now? The discussion begins

There was a lot of prep work that went into getting the new equipment ordered and there will be a lot more work in ensuring it works to meet the needs of the users now and in the future.  I expect it will grow considerably much sooner than the business side will anticipate, but when it does, the long term savings on power and other areas will be well worth the initial investment.

Implementing guidelines to help users make better decisions about what they keep and where they keep it might be a good move, at least for my organization.  It will help keep things that need to be kept and remove things (or store them for less time) that are not as important.  Some times things will get done to ensure (or at least try to ensure) timed growth, like quotas and deduping, and other things will be done with the direct involvement of the user and place the responsibility on them.

The best thing I have learned in preparing this new storage is that there is a good deal of work and consideration to do before letting the users loose on the thing once I get that far, or just before… I will have more to say here.

© derek for Gestalt IT, 2011. | Moving to a SAN and managing data growth
Read more posts categorized as All, Featured, Storage

CommVault introduces an updated version of their all-encompassing Simpana suite

CommVault is one of those enterprise IT companies that likes to go their own way. A spin-out of AT&T’s famed Bell Labs, CommVault’s Simpana software integrates many aspects of data management, from backup to e-discovery, under one umbrella. Last year, the company impressed me by adding cloud storage as a backup target equal in status to disk and traditional tape. Now the company is doing the same for storage-based snapshots, accelerating data protection for virtual machines.

Simpana 9: A Broad Update

Nearly every aspect of CommVault’s Simpana 9 is refreshed, though development and unveiling has been an ongoing process throughout the year. Following Simpana 8 by two years, the new software integrates work done integrating cloud storage and virtual machine backup over the last year or so. The “data management” portion of the product (including backup, archiving, and replication) was detailed this week, and one expects more information about the other half (“information management”) to be forthcoming.

Simpana 9 is available as of October 5 from OEMs, resellers, also direct from CommVault. Pricing is simplified this time around with CommVault using a capacity licensing model. Cost is based on the largest backup or archiving job, though the old licensing model still still available. A “circuit breaker reset” allows the system to go over the licensed level temporarily in a pinch.

Pick Your Target: Tape, Disk, Cloud, or Snapshot

There has been a long-standing back-and-forth discussion in the enterprise backup community regarding snapshots as backups. My stance has been that, while snapshots are certainly a more-effective mechanism for copying data than dump-to-tape, it takes more than data to have a useful backup. Any system worth using must schedule, manage, organize, and recover data. Therefore, although snapshot-based backup is a good idea, it wasn’t ready for prime time until it was integrated with a solid backup management system.

Elevating snapshots as a first-class backup target is exactly what CommVault is doing. Just as their earlier releases added cloud as a backup target, Simpana 9 makes snapshots just another option. Commvault recognizes that needs change over the lifecycle of a backup, and the location of data should change, too. A snapshot makes an excellent “operational recovery” target, allowing frequent copying and quick restore, but is sub-optimal for long-term archiving. Conversely, tape is a poor frequent target due to its linear nature but has proven itself for long-term offline archive.

Simpana 8 supported HDS and Dell for snapshots, now Simpana 9 adds volume leaders EMC and NetApp, along with HP, IBM, LSI, and Sun. Data is indexed and cataloged, and these are stored with the data on disk, tape, or cloud for later access. Speaking of cloud, Simpana 9 supports Amazon, Azure, Nirvanix, Rackspace, Iron Mountain, EMC Atmos, Dell DX, and HDS HCP.

You might also want to read CommVault Gives Cloud Storage A Seat At The Adult Table

VM Backup Acceleration

CommVault was demonstrating their abilities to back up machines using VMware VADP at VMworld. There, they took just 17 minutes to back up 500 machines using snapshots on an IBM XIV storage array. I imagine most of the supported platforms could do just as well.

Simpana 9 automatically discovers running guests using VMware vCenter. This allows for daily movement of machines since they are located each time and the backups are coordinated for universal, consistent coverage. No machines will be missed, either. In fact, given that many snapshots work on a block level, it would be impossible to not backup up clients sharing the same LUN.

On the back side, Simpana uses an ESXi proxy to grab snap content and catalog the virtual machines contained there. It then moves the data off to disk, tape, or cloud just like any other backup content.

CommVault is also working on Hyper-V support, using VSS rather than VADP.

Universal Dedupe

The third element of Simpana 9 is integrated source and target deduplication. Simpana’s client software deduplicates local data on its own before sending it to the server. These deduped blocks are then checked against the universal set on the server before being stored, potentially bringing a “best of both worlds” solution to the source-versus-target argument.

Migration to Simpana 9 From NetBackup and TSM

One of the long-standing criticisms of Simpana is that it was just too far-reaching for easy testing, migration, and uptake. It has been seen as an all-or-nothing proposition, requiring a commitment that is hard to win and harder to back away from in the event of trouble.

Simpana 9 addresses part of this concern with a so-called “Fast Pass” migration system that allows configuration to be pulled in from more-traditional backup products for a seamless transition. The Simpana data connector talks to NBU 6.0, 6.5, 7.0 and TSM 6.1 master server, discovers backup policies, and imports these (clients, schedule, history, etc) into the new configuration. Then automatic install software pushes CommVault agents into place and takes over operations, leaving the old system running for historical recoveries only.

Stephen’s Stance

I love the idea of promoting data from operational snapshots to tape or cloud for archiving. And I love the idea that end-users can choose the combination that fits their needs within a unified package. I’ve long been a fan of CommVault’s products, and this upgrade makes them that much more compelling. I’ll leave it to wiser minds to debate their implementation and effectiveness, but it sure looks good for me. The simplified licensing and purchasing model is welcome, too – backup is a thorny combination of pricing models.

The idea of migrating seamlessly from old to new is interesting, but I wonder how well it will work in practice. My time as a backup consultant taught me that these environments tend to be complicated, finicky, and outdated. It’s nice that CommVault can read in a TSM 6.1 configuration, but what about older versions? The same goes for NetBackup. And will it correctly handle the weird rule sets found there? But a greater issue is whether it should import the old settings at all: Perhaps migrating to a new backup system is a good time to revisit the assumptions behind your configuration!

All in all, Simpana 9 looks like a compelling update for CommVault lovers or those disaffected by their current platform. Organizations having difficulty meeting backup windows should also give it a look, since the snapshot technology should be a big help there. And anyone looking at cloud storage as a backup and archiving target should start with CommVault. Others will certainly be intrigued, but I am not sure that they will be compelled to upgrade by these features alone.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2010. | CommVault Simpana 9 Takes Backup To A New Level
Read more posts categorized as Server Virtualization, Storage

All of these features reduce the amount of money that we have to pay for our spinning rust; this is mostly a capital saving with a limited impact on operational expenditure. But there is more to life than money and capital expenditure; storage needs to become truly efficient through-out its life cycle; from acquisition to operation to disposal. And although some operational efficiencies have been realised, we are still some distance from a storage infrastructure that is efficient and effective throughout its life-cycle.

Storage Management software still arguably is in its infancy (although some may claim some vendor’s tools are in their dotage); the tools are very much focused at the provisioning task. Improving initial provisioning has been the focus of many of the tools and it has got much better; certainly most provision tasks are point and click operations from the GUI and with thin and wide provisioning, much of the complexity has gone away.

But provisioning is not the be all and end all of Storage Administration and Management and it is certainly only one part of the life-cycle of a storage volume.

Once a volume has been provisioned, many things can happen to it;

i) it could stay the same

ii) it could grow

iii) it could shrink

iv) it could move within the array

v)  it could change protection levels

vi) it could be decommissioned

vii) it could be replicated

viii) it could be snapped

ix) it could be cloned

x) it could be deleted

xi) it could be migrated

And it is that last one which is particularly time-consuming and generally painful; as has been pointed out a few times recently, there is no easy way to migrate a NetApp 32-bit aggregate to a 64-bit aggregate; there is currently no easy way to move from a traditional EMC LUN to a Virtual Provisioned one; and these are just examples within an array.

Seamlessly moving data between arrays with no outage to the service is currently time-consuming and hard; yes, you can do it, I’ve migrated terabytes of data between EMC and IBM arrays with no outage using volume management tools but this was when large arrays were less than 50 Tb.

We also have to consider things like moving replication configuration, snapped data, cloned data, de-duped data, compressed data; will the data rehydrate in the process of moving? Even within array families and even between code levels, I have to consider whether all the features at level X of the code are available at level Y of the code.

As arrays get bigger, I could easily find myself in a constant state of migration; we turn our noses up at arrays which are less than 100 Tb which when we are talking in estates which are several petabytes is understandable but moving 100s of Tb around to ensure that we can refresh an array is no mean feat and will be a continuous process. Pretty much once I’ve migrated the data, it’s going to be time to consider moving it again.

There are things which vendors could consider; architectural changes which might make the process easier. Designing arrays with migration and movement in mind; ensure that I don’t have to move data to upgrade code levels; perhaps consider modularising the array, so that I can upgrade the controllers without changing the disk. Data-in-place upgrades have been available even for hardware upgrades; this needs to become standard.

Ways to export the existing configuration of an array; import it onto new array, perhaps even using performance data collected from existing array to optimise layout and then replicate the existing array’s data to enable a less cumbersome migration approach. These are things which will make the job of migration more simple.

Of course, the big problem is…..these features are not really sexy and don’t sell arrays. Headline features like De-Dupe, Compression, Automated Tiering, Expensive Fast Disks; they sell arrays. But perhaps once all arrays have them, perhaps then we’ll see the tools that will really drive operational efficiencies appear.

p.s I know, very poor attempt at a Tabloid Alliterative Headline

© Martin for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Managing Migration Makes Martin Mad!
Read more posts categorized as Storage

So let’s say a customer decided to purchase a new V-Max system from EMC today. What would they get?

• They would get a freshly-designed cabinet, controllers, and firmware with more cache RAM, faster CPUs, larger disk drives, and support for all of their existing Symmetrix DMX features. Beta customers actually had both components late last year, and customer orders are proceeding. So it is safe to say that the V-Max clustered array itself is currently shipping. Note that the maximum configuration is 8 engines, each with a quad-core CPU, 128 GB of cache RAM, and 16 each of host and drive channels.
• Like the DMX before it, the V-Max supports a variety of disk drive types, from flash to Fibre Channel to Serial ATA. The larger so-called enterprise flash drives (EFDs) also appear to be shipping this quarter.
• Automatic provisioning with templates and management is available now as well.
• Virtual provisioning (thin provisioning and non-disruptive relocation) are enabled and shipping, but they’re mutually exclusive (see more below).
• PowerPath/VE and vSphere Storage plug-ins are shipping, even though VMware vSphere 4 was just released.

So our V-Max customer would be able to buy and deploy a solid, scalable, next-generation enterprise storage array that does everything they expect from existing systems and a little more. This is more than many new or re-engineered storage products can boast.

But our customer does not get everything that has been talked about regarding the V-Max architecture. What don’t they get?

• Future protocols like 10 GbE iSCSI and FCoE and 8 Gb Fibre Channel are not shipping yet. No surprise there.
• One of the most important components of V-Max is its fully-automated storage tiering, called FAST by EMC, which will not be fully realized for years. This technology is a major departure for the Symmetrix, which has long had the capability to manually move volumes but lacked the sub-LUN granularity needed to truly take advantage of the newest storage technologies like flash SSD. Although EMC plans to release “FAST v1″ during the second half of this year, this functionality merely automates the existing LUN relocation capability of all current Symmetrix arrays (for non-thin-provisioned LUNs) and is nowhere near the promise of FAST. Full FAST will not ship until 2010, and we suspect it might be well into that year.
• True Virtual Matrix mode, where multiple V-Max array “clusters” link together virtually to form a system larger than 8 engines. EMC has also talked about extending this mode over distances, creating a geographically dispersed array. None of this is coming any time soon.

So the answer to the core question of whether the EMC Symmetrix V-Max is shipping is yes. Customers can go out and buy one. But they will not get all of the functionality discussed and presented by EMC and its representatives last month.

Not So FAST

Fully-Automated Storage Tiering (FAST) is one of the most significant capabilities of the V-Max platform. As described, FAST will not be available for a year or more. This is not a secret or a scoop – EMC is the first to admit that FAST was pre-announced and is “Coming Next”!

V-Max's FAST technology "automates movement and placement of data based on changing needs" (illustration courtesy of EMC)

What is FAST? It is an automated tiered storage technology that can place data on different tiers of storage based on requirements. High-performance data on flash, bulk data on SATA, and so forth. EMC V-Max marketing materials, and the launch content, spent much time focusing on this technology, telling us that it automatically adjusts tiering of data, not just volumes, and reacts as needs change, rather than statically placing data. We’ve reported some confusion about just how FAST accomplishes this in the past, but we all agree that this would be an awfully nice way for an array to manage data.

At the core of FAST is EMC’s recently-introduced virtual provisioning technology. Why is FAST so much better than VP, and other competing automated storage tiering technologies? According to EMC blogger, Barry Burke, FAST has five key benefits:

1. Change RAID protection types as LUNs and volumes are relocated
2. Relocate a large number of LUNs and volumes concurrently
3. LUN and volume relocation is very quick
4. LUN and volume relocation has low performance impact on the array, and on the applications using the data being moved
5. LUN and volume relocation is done without disrupting replication

Let’s give EMC some credit for its FAST vision, as well as the pieces that have already been shipped. But we’re still quite a way off from seeing this FAST vision realized in production technology:

1. Current DMX and V-Max hardware allows customers to use multiple drive types, including flash SSD EFD, for over a year. Many other vendors are just now getting around to shipping flash disks. No one would claim that this is “FAST”.
2. Current DMX and V-Max also allows thin provisioning (a component of EMC’s Virtual Provisioning). This isn’t FAST either.
3. Current V-Max software allows customers to non-disruptively relocate volumes between disk and RAID types (another component of Virtual Provisioning). This is very nice to have. But this is not fully automated storage tiering. It’s just easier storage tiering. And it doesn’t apply to thinly-provisioned volumes.
4. FAST V1, which EMC plans to ship in the second half of 2009, will automate the selection and migration of volumes to different disk and RAID types. Although this is technically fully automated storage tiering, it does not quite live up to the promise of FAST as described by EMC at the V-Max launch. And it still won’t support thin (Virtual Provisioned) volumes!
5. Finally, EMC claims that they will fully realize the FAST vision with FAST V2, which will ship in 2010. This would enable granular (sub-volume) tiered storage for thinly-provisioned volumes.

Why does it matter that EMC won’t ship FAST V2 until next year? Simply put, anything less than FAST V2 will still not effectively utilize the expensive EFD capacity paid for by EMC customers. Even FAST V1 will take up expensive high-performance flash capacity with the entire contents of a LUN, including empty space! Customers wishing to conserve EFD capacity will use virtual provisioning to only store “used” data on flash. But these cannot be easily relocated if demand does not meet expectations, and not all of that used data requires high-speed flash storage. EMC also lacks thick-to-thin (or thin-to-thick) technology, though we suspect they’re working on that.

So customers have a choice: They can either use their EFDs more efficiently with thin volumes, or move data between EFDs and disks as needs change. They cannot have both.

An open question is how much EMC will charge for FAST V1 and V2. Assuming they are like Apple with the iPod Touch, and their history affirms this, EMC will charge for FAST as each major new capability is delivered. EMC has always charged for major new features. This is due to accounting rules which prohibit a company from charging customers ahead of releasing major features. The only way around this would be for EMC to recognize V-Max revenue as recurring over time, as in the case of the iPhone at Apple. Fat chance of that! Note that EMC is also talking about bringing FAST to CLARiiON and Celerra, but those timetables are not disclosed.

How Big Is Your Virtual Matrix?

Many have wondered about EMC’s choice of a name for this new storage system, some speculating that since the “V” stands for “virtual”, the V-Max was designed for server virtualization environments. EMC CEO Joe Tucci’s comments at the V-Max launch seemed to indicate this as well.

However, while it certainly is targeted at VMware vSphere and similar systems, the “V-Max” name actually has a very specific, and very different, meaning. “V-Max” is actually a reference to EMC’s new “Virtual Matrix” architecture, which allows V-Max engines to combine into a scale-out array with a virtual matrix of interconnects. Like FAST, the Virtual Matrix Architecture is the real vision of revolutionary storage from EMC. And like FAST, this vision is nowhere near being realized.

V-Max is so far being sold as a stand alone machine, not a scale-out cluster. At current GA, EMC is only offering 8 engines that are part of the same system cabinet (physically connected through MIBE and SIB), but there is nothing available that would connect 2 of these system cabinets, where instead of 8 engines you are now running 16 or 32 engines, forming a real V-Max. 

The V-Max name refers to the Virtual Matrix architecture of the array cluster (illustration courtesy of EMC)

EMC’s “vision” clearly extends well beyond 8 engines and a single V-Max.  EMC’s design allows for a federated set of V-Max machines that can all be managed as a single entity, and the company alluded to this in their product introduction.  They suggested that these separate V-Max machines wouldn’t even have to be in the same place, physically.  

Although the vision articulated at the product’s introduction talked about massive scaling in multiple locations, EMC’s maximum current configuration for the V-Max is 8 engines with up to 128 Xeon CPU cores, 1 TB of RAM, and 128 each front-end and back-end storage interfaces linked to 2,400 disk drives. This is no tiny system, to be sure, easily doubling the current DMX-4 array’s scalability as well as besting the competition. In fact, EMC can rightly claim that a V-Max can be configured today to be the largest integrated enterprise storage array available.

But 8 engines linked by local RapidIO connections in a single data center isn’t a revolution. The revolution happens when EMC realizes its vision of linking “dozens” of engines, thousands of ports, and tens of thousands of drives into a geographically dispersed system. Former EMC executive, Dave Donatelli, now controversially linked to HP, claimed that the V-Max can support up to 256 engines in a product launch video that has now been removed. IDC analyst, Benjamin Woo, talked about EMC’s ability to support a “single namespace” across geographies during his launch coverage. EMC’s Chuck Hollis says that “the overall architecture can eventually grow into literally thousands of ports, thousands of processing cores, tens of thousands of disks, and many terabytes of cache memory — all operating as a single, tightly-coupled array.” EMC’s Barry Burke also suggests that future revisions to the Virtual Matrix architecture could scale well beyond anything hinted here.

Again, in that same post, EMC’s Hollis tells us that the architecture delivers four key benefits in terms of scalability (bulleted for your pleasure):

1. “The difference between the two?  The V-Max can grow and grow from that modest starting point — still capturing the economics of mid-tier arrays and linear cost scaling.
2. Second, the V-Max array isn’t limited to a single cabinet with short wires.  Think in terms of multiple cabinets, separated by many meters or — in the future — longer distances using optical connections – all behaving as a single, giant array.
3. Third, the scaling is utterly linear and modular.  As more building blocks are added, the array gets bigger and bigger, and there’s no need to replace the frame, buy a bigger cabinet, etc. — nothing gets thrown away.
4. Fourth, there’s no assumption that all the building blocks are exactly the same.  Some may be big, some may be small, some may be old, some may be new.”

So a reader would look at this and think to himself, “this new V-Max starts as cheap as a competing midrange array and can scale out with different building blocks to span my entire data center, or even my entire enterprise.” This is a great promise, and awfully near to the holy grail of enterprise storage.

The problem is that none of this is possible today.

1. The V-Max starts at “about $250,000″ for a single engine. This is much, much more expensive than competing midrange arrays. It has to be, since a single V-Max engine has a lot more horsepower and componentry than any midrange array!
2. All V-Max connectivity is currently done with RapidIO connections in “a single cabinet with short wires.” Perhaps you could define “cabinet” differently and claim that the V-Max uses multiples, but no one (especially an EMCer who wants to keep his job) would suggest that the V-Max engines can be “separated by many meters or … longer distances.” When Chuck says this is “in the future” he means it!
3. V-Max scales to 8 engines, and initial reports are that scaling is indeed fairly linear. So this is a fair statement. But what if EMC replaces RapidIO with InfiniBand or datacenter Ethernet? Would there really be no need to “throw away” components?
4. There are no “big”, “small”, or “old” V-Max building blocks. They’re all new, and they’re all identical, and you can have up to eight of them. EMC says you will be able to mix and match once new building blocks come out, and we expect them to live up to this promise.

So even today’s V-Max system does use the Virtual Matrix architecture. It’s got a virtualized matrix interconnecting the engines, after all. But it’s nowhere near the scale-out promise of the Virtual Matrix concept. That’s quite a ways off still.

Conclusion: V-Max Is Not Overtaking The Future Yet

It is important to note that EMC sales literature does not claim capability beyond what’s currently on the truck. The V-Max data sheet, for example, makes no mention of FAST or scalability beyond 8 engines. And EMC’s Dave Graham is characteristically straightforward listing what’s in the box. In fact, EMC’s official web site and literature probably errs on the too-cautious side: A casual visitor might well ask himself, “where’s the beef?”

Why might an average storage buyer think there is more “beef” to be had? One only needs to watch EMC’s V-Max launch, and the surrounding coverage. Indeed, EMC’s own theme for the launch was “Overtake the Future!” EMC’s customers expected a revolution, and a revolution is what the company promised.  This isn’t anything new, unexpected, or even out of place. Companies often tout the theoretical future capabilities of their new products but don’t deliver on those promises for some time. Many have accused Microsoft of using this tactic to combat Windows competitors, for example. And let’s not forget the industry’s fascination with legendary vaporware products!

But the company’s boosters seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too. They’ve poured on the verbiage describing FAST, and used this future capability to declare victory in the battle against the likes of HDS, 3PAR, and Compellent. EMC’s Hollis tells us that “there’s nothing remotely like V-Max in the marketplace today”, and other EMC folks have made similar claims. As Wikibon points out, “EMC’s pre-announcement of Fully Automated Storage Tiering (FAST) is an admission that without FAST the answer is essentially no, EMC can’t compete on cost.” In other words, EMC was forced to prematurely unveil their FAST vision to keep their customer base from jumping ship to competitors already offering similar functionality. The same is true of the scale-out capability of the Virtual Matrix architecture.

For now, EMC has merely introduced a solid next-generation enterprise storage array. V-Max without FAST and scale-out is a nice-to-have refresh of the Symmetrix DMX-4. EMC should be especially respected for leaving all of the core Engenuity features like TimeFinder and SRDF intact, since this must have been no small feat. V-Max with FAST V1 is a more attractive proposition, but does not go that far beyond the capabilities of Symmetrix Optimizer. The same can be said of the 8-engine V-Max limit – it’s larger, but nothing to get too excited about.

V-Max with full-on FAST V2 and multi-site heterogeneous scale-out is the real revolution in EMC storage. If everything plays out, you could have several V-Max systems in the same data center, or perhaps even different data centers, all being managed as a single entity.  Then layer FAST on top of that (at the block level), and you have something unlike pretty much anything else on the market today. The question is, when can they achieve this, and will some of the other vendors catch up in the meantime?

This is what observers, analysts, and customers were looking for. And this is what they might think they saw. But in reality, we’ll all just have to wait another year or two and see what develops.

© Gestalt for Gestalt IT, 2009. | EMC Symmetrix V-Max: When Does It Get FAST and Virtual?
Read more posts categorized as Exclusive, Featured, Storage, Top Story

We often talk about trying to make capital acquistions cost neutral in less than eighteen months; a reduction in Opex to offset the capital cost. Vendors are often complicit in this, as I mentioned in my previous entry, inflated maintenance costs mean that is often cheaper to refresh and take the bundled maintenance offered with a new system than to continue to pay maintenance on the legacy kit.

However, if I examine the failures that we tend to have; it is generally the moving parts which fail; you know those things which spin at speed? Yes, the spinning rust. And if there is one thing which has fallen in cost; it is spinning rust.

Okay; with the very much older disks, vendors simply can’t get new drives that small but I assume that most of you are aware that a large number of maintenance replacements are not actually new components? They can be previously failed and reconditioned components or perhaps pulled from arrays which have been migrated to the latest and greatest technology.

Maintenance in the IT industry is a fantastic example of Voodoo Economics…but hey it’s green, well they are recycling and re-using! But remember, there is a third part to that; REDUCE!

Vendors don’t have any real incentive to reduce maintenance costs; it firstly enables a constant upgrade treadmill because if you really had to evaluate the value of the new features, life would be a lot more complex but if you don’t upgrade, maintenance is a very nice and high margin activity.

Actually EMC should be thanking companies like HDS and IBM; it enables people to keep their legacy arrays around for a lot longer and hence keep paying EMC high maintenance! And no I’m not saying that EMC’s maintenance charges are especially high, there are much worse offenders out there!

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

There are a few reasons why we were coming to this conclusion; firstly spinning rust in the Enterprise is probably at it’s peak and actually anything over the current maximum size of a spindle has potentially limited use i.e anything over a 1-2 terabyte drive is not especially useful for shared storage infrastructure. Please note, I say shared storage infrastructure!

Larger drives may still have a place to play in your archive tier but even that is debatable. And if you look at most Enterprise end-user desktops; they often have rather small local drives. It is the home-user and their insatiable demand for storage which really drives the size of spindles now.

We also know that the performance of the spinning rust is probably not going to improve dramatically. So what does change? Well, yes we have the introduction of SSDs and a couple of things mean that a four-five refresh cycle for that technology is probably sensible. And then there are the storage controllers themselves; these don’t especially wear out but technology does move on. 

But the current designs of arrays mean that when we refresh; we are forced to refresh the lot. We are also forced to refresh by overly inflated maintenance costs. Let’s be honest; most refreshes are justified by cost savings on the OpEX i.e maintenance. Even if I go to a virtualised infrastructure as espoused by HDS or IBM; these maintenance costs still mean it is often more attractive to refresh rather than sweat the asset.

However the current economic climate means that we are now more closely beginning to examine the model of keeping things for longer and examining our maintenance budgets very carefully. Dropping maintenance for software which is now stable and at terminal releases; potentially talking to third-party maintenance organisations who are much more willing to support legacy kit at a reasonable cost.

And we are considering strategies which enable us to continue to make use of kit for longer. VMWare’s announcements today allowing replication and thin-provisioning at the hypervisor layer for example.  So funnily enough, EMC have come round to external storage virtualisation; you just buy it from VMWare as a software product.

It’ll be interesting to see what other traditional storage related functionality makes its way into the hypervisor. And at what point EMC realise that they are actually selling ‘traditional’ storage virtualisation but as a software product and at which point that they do become a software company.

Funny old world, as EMC slowly catalyzes into a software butterfly selling storage virtualisation, Oracle becomes a hardware grub. And in the space of a week; EMC ‘kill’ DMX with V-MAX, then they kill V-MAX with vSphere. Now that’s what I call progress!

© Martin for Gestalt IT, 2009. | Investment Strategies and Virtualisation
Read more posts categorized as All, Storage