Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat

This is part of an ongoing series of longer articles I will be posting every Sunday as part of an experiment in offering more in-depth content.

Many storage challenges focus on correlating high-level uses of data (such as applications) with the nuts and bolts of storage infrastructure. These discussions often revolve around the conflict between data management, which demands an ever-smaller unit of management, and storage management, which benefits most from consolidation. Developing data management capability that is both granular enough for applications and scalable enough for storage is one key to the future of storage.

Continue Reading »

Reports are filtering in today that Western Digital has reached an agreement to purchase Fujitsu’s hard disk drive development and manufacturing assets. Already the world’s second-biggest drive manufacturer, Western Digital would edge closer to market-leader, Seagate, with the acquisition. The move would give WD even greater manufacturing capacity in Japan, the Philippines, and Thailand, and would potentially open up greater access to the laptop OEM market, where Fujitsu has performed well over the last few years.

Let’s take a look at the two company’s product lines and market positions as we determine the impact of this deal.

Update: Fujitsu is denying the deal, even though the market loves it, but it still makes sense for WDC to pick up either Fujitsu or Hitachi’s disk drive business to better compete with Seagate.
Continue Reading »

Based on Floral Matryoshka by BrokenSphere/Wikimedia Commons

My February 2003 column for Storage magazine focused on the surprising difficulty of measuring storage utilization. I wrote:
 

“A true measurement of utilization would reflect every layer of usage metrics - from raw disk in a shared array to used storage within files. Raw storage for each new frame of reference is contained within the used storage measured above it, so low utilization is compounded as we move deeper into the stack.”

In that column, I suggested that utilization of any resource was based on just three metrics:

1. Raw
2. Usable
3. Used

But this is confounded by the frame of reference being measured. It’s trivially simple to determine the raw, usable, and used capacity for a storage array, server, or database. But what happens when one tries to measure storage utilization all the way through the stack? Continue Reading »

It’s all over the industry news - HP will acquire LeftHand Networks for a reported $360 million in cash. The last funding press release I could find was dated September 8, 2005, when Valhalla Partners led a $25 million round, bringing LeftHand’s total funding to $75 million. This is a very nice payday for the boys from Boulder, and I hope everyone benefits from it.

Of course, many were quick to compare this move to Dell’s acquisition of EqualLogic late last year for $1.4 billion, as well as HP’s acquisition of PolyServe. Does the price disparity reflect the relative strength of EqualLogic’s offerings, or is the market to blame? LeftHand has definitely benefited from Dell’s move, which both validated their products and offered a new market of disaffected users. The bigger question is how HP will integrate LeftHand’s software with its own line of storage systems.

This is part of an ongoing series of longer articles I will be posting every Sunday as part of an experiment in offering more in-depth content.

Although many discussions in the storage industry focus on the relative merits of one protocol or another, the conversation occasionally turns to the core issue at hand: We continue to patch together a system based on outdated concepts. Most storage protocols continue to mimic direct attached storage, and most of our so-called networks act as point to point channels. An ultra-modern virtualized storage infrastructure with all the latest bells and whistles still holds the concepts of block and file at its core. Whenever the storage industry has tried to bring about real storage management they have been stymied by a lack of context for data.

No amount of virtualization, and no new protocol, will fix this. Put simply, we need a storage revolution. Continue Reading »

In an article for Enterprise Storage Forum, Paul Shread comments on the positive reviews that various deduplication technologies got at Storage Decisions from analysts and end users. He suggests that less than 10% of attendees were using deduplication already, but that others were inspired by their experience and would be using it soon.

Paul goes on to quote me, saying I “didn’t think primary data de-duplication technology was ready for prime time just yet.” I absolutely did say these words, but I am not sure if my point came across.

I’ve recently expounded about the benefits of deduplication technology, but have warned that it might not be all it’s cracked up to be in primary storage environments. By “primary” I mean those storage environments serving mission-critical applications. Although dedupe works great for backup and archiving, the random I/O, low latency, and high throughput of primary storage (and especially virtualized servers) might be too much for current systems. And as of now, only NetApp, Riverbed (soon), and startups greenBytes (see my story) and Ocarina (more on them another time) were willing to go on record with me as supporting deduplication of primary storage.

So what I meant was that deduplication is not yet ready for prime time in primary storage applications. No one should hesitate to use the technology for backup or archiving at this point, but make sure you do a thorough evaluation of the specific product you are selecting to make sure it delivers the performance you require!

Another Storage Decisions has come and gone, and 2008’s New York show did not disappoint. TechTarget always recruits an excellent set of conferencegoers, and not even the Wall Street crisis could dampen attendance. Even Spike Lee, Richard Gere, Dian Lane, Keira Knightley, John McCain, and Sarah Palin made appearances at this year’s show! (No, seriously, they were really there!)

Although my email archiving session always attracts a smaller crowd, they are all a dedicated bunch. One pertinent suggestion from an attendee was to ingest PST files into a special separate archive in order to ensure that messages recovered from it are treated with the proper skepticism. Questions after the session focused on the trick of engaging legal and business people in the decisions around email policy, truly a challenge. I suggested that an on-site mini-seminar for the relevant folks might help to break the logjam and illustrate the issues, something that I would be happy to arrange!

My storage virtualization session was once again placed in the main room, and a much larger group attended it. I was interested to hear just how great the impact of VMware’s VDC-OS had been. In just a week, a dozen or more folks in the audience had heard, comprehended, and strategized about the concept. It’s really that big! Others were very interested in the topic of green metrics for data center usage. How does one monitor and report the real “green” savings (power, carbon, cooling, space) for a virtualized environment? Although storage greenness is debatable, the savings from a virtualized server environment are real, and these often bundle in some of the storage numbers, too.

These topics are top of mind to me as well, and I will continue to investigate (and speculate) about them in the coming year. If you missed the show (or the handouts), I will be posting them here soon! Get my email address or head to LinkedIn by clicking the links in the sidebar (at top left).

Watch this space, and consider coming to my virtualization seminar in Charlotte on October 21 or to the Storage Decisions show in San Francisco, held November 17 to 19.

This is part of an ongoing series of longer articles I will be posting every Sunday as part of an experiment in offering more in-depth content.

I am not the typical enterprise storage user. In fact, I am not an enterprise storage user at all - I am a consultant focused for over a decade on assisting enterprises with their storage architecture and strategy, working with businesses of all sizes. My background is both a blessing and a curse - I have seen far more enterprise storage environments in much more detail than most people, but I am unable to truly empathize with my corporate storage compatriots since it’s not really my gear and data that I am working with.

Based on this experience, what does the future hold? Where is enterprise storage heading? Read on for my thoughts.

Continue Reading »

Hopefully, VMware's three pillars (vCloud, vClient, and VDC-OS) are a little more solid (not to mention closer) than the Three Pillars of Creation in the Eagle Nebula

VMware packed a lot into their 2008 VMworld conference, including an outline of their “three pillars” strategy, focused on vClient, vCloud, and something they are calling the Virtual Datacenter Operating System. While it is debatable if this last item really is an operating system, it’s certainly a major strategic change in messaging.

VDC-OS is divided into four “vServices” (Management, Cloud, Application, and Infrastructure), and one core Infrastructure vService is vStorage. Since my focus is enterprise storage, I thought I would take a moment to examine the current and future status of vStorage.

EMC’s Chad Sakac has taken up the challenge of communicating vStorage to the world, in a post to his blog, a pair of YouTube videos (multipathing, I/O dedupe), and (apparently) a session or two at VMworld. But I’m not sure it’s really entirely clear just what vStorage is and what this means to existing and future VMware storage developments. So let’s dive in and take a look.

Continue Reading »

Paul Maritz of VMware dropped a bomb on Las Vegas today, introducing their Virtual Datacenter Operating System concept. But is VDC-OS a nuclear strike at the heart of the data center, scattering everyone from Microsoft to Cisco to (big daddy) EMC? Or is it just more hot air, conflating the latest big thing into a mirage of an operating system rather than a real challenger?

It could be big. There is no denying the effect VMware has had on the modern data center - nearly everyone I talk to in the IT industry considers server virtualization a fundamental element of modern infrastructure strategy. And server virtualization has done more for the deployment of enterprise storage and other high availability technologies, than any other movement, from green computing to services-based infrastructure. And it has encompassed these movements, becoming the way, not just a technology.

But is VDC really an OS? And will it conquer the data center? And would this be a good thing? There’s the rub.

First, the obligatory description. Virtual Data Center effectively re-badges lots of things VMware (and the server virtualization industry in general) have been working on as “vServices”. They divide these up into Application vServices, Infrastructure vServices, Cloud vServices, and Management vServices.

These four elements, in fact, do sound like a post-modern definition of an operating system, much more so than Google Chrome. VMware includes the ability to share resources, execute applications, and store data in a managed way. And the cloud component is reminiscent of how the old client/server architecture has evolved into our modern connected world. In this way, VDC really is an operating system for the enterprise data center, and extends it into a cloud beyond those doors.

This is the most compelling and realistic post-datacenter world I have heard of, thoroughly trouncing shared infrastructure, the (Amazon/Google) cloud, SaaS, Java or Linux everywhere, Sun’s containers, and Microsoft’s world of Windows. For the first time, we are talking about an infrastructure that could actually be built, wouldn’t require a forklift (or shipping container) or the migration to an entirely new software environment, and reflects the diversity of modern IT systems.

Certainly, VMware has heavyweights in their corner. Cisco provides the connectivity, EMC provides the storage, Intel provides the CPU, Dell provides the servers, and so on. But it’s not that simple. Like Microsoft, VMware will have to manage the “input” from every networking, storage, CPU, and server provider, not to mention the vast ecosystem of software components. It’s much more like Windows than Macintosh in this respect, with VDC being a loosely-federated OS rather than a closed monoculture.

I predict that how well VMware handles the divergent parties trying to play in their OS will determine the future not just of VDC, but of VMware itself.

Oh, and VMware also introduced View, perhaps the future of the desktop.