StarTech 2-in-1 Mini-USB and Micro-USB Combo Cable

Perhaps sensing my cable fetish, StarTech offered to mail me their latest invention: A T-headed cable with both mini USB and micro USB connectors. The tiny cable arrived in a massive box, and I immediately went about plugging it into just about everything I could find.

Sure enough, it’s a cable. You plug things into it, and it connects to them. There’s really nothing special at all about this tiny cable apart from the fact that it includes both micro- and mini-USB connectors. Unfortunately, the micro-USB side does not include any of the special resistors required by devices like Novatel’s MiFi routers.

Retractable USB Cables

The StarTech cable is really an awful lot like my previous solution: A retractable mini-USB cable from Emerge. I’ve had a whole pile of retractable cables in the past, and they always fail me. They either fray and break at the ends or the retraction mechanism stops locking. Higher-quality cables from companies like Emerge and Belkin seem to last a bit longer, but I’m not sure if their high price is really justified.

I do like the fact that retractable cables sit neatly in my bag, however. And I’ve picked up a few adapters along the way, including a mini-USB to micro-USB adapter from Motorola. Sadly, this won’t power a Novatel MiFi either, so I have to carry the bulky Novatel power brick wherever I go.

The Accursed Apple Dock Connector

I have a lot of devices from the Cupertino Fruit Company, and they all seem to use proprietary cables of various sorts. My bag currently includes both fixed and retractable Apple dock connector cables as well as both 1 Amp and 2.1 Amp supplies for the iPhone and iPad, respectively. I even have a dual USB 2.1 Amp car charger left in the outlet by the previous renter.

Probably the coolest solution to the Apple dock connector conundrum comes from Apple itself by way of European Union regulations requiring mobile phones to use a standard micro-USB cable. This little guy is only available in EU countries currently, but I’ll definitely be dropping £8 on one the next time I am in the UK.

Stephen’s Stance

Cables are the bane of my existence as a business traveler. They’re always getting misplaced or lost, and you can never find the absolute perfect one for the job. The StarTech has earned a spot in my bag since I can’t lose the tip, but I’ll keep looking for a cable that will charge my Novatel MiFi. What’s your favorite cable?

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | In Search of the Perfect USB Cable
This post was categorized as Apple, Personal, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

HP's new 564XL cartridge isn't so "XL" as before - it's got 1/3 less ink!

If there is any area of the electronics market more prone to shenanigans than mobile phones it is the fabulous world of printers. Although not exactly a “razors and blades” market, the world of printers is all about maximizing profits on the purchase of supplies, especially ink cartridges. Although HP’s games with expiring inks (and whole printers) last year gave me pause, I decided to buy another HP printer. Now I’m not sure I made the right move.

The Ink Racket

HP’s printer ink business is one of their most profitable, and ink is real “black gold”, far more expensive than blood, oil, or penicillin. And printers are constantly asking for replacement ink cartridges, even when a substantial amount remains inside!

My new HP PhotoSmart C410a came “starter” ink cartridges, and these didn’t last long. I decided to buy a full set of replacement inks at the same time, including an “XL” black cartridge. This is the printer racket: Keep the customer coming back for ink!

Annoyingly, like every printer I’ve owned, the new PhotoSmart stops printing when the ink is low and asks you to replace the cartridge. But there is still some ink left, as you can plainly demonstrate by overriding the warning by pressing “ok”. In my cast, my printer is still going a week after asking for new black ink!

Many techies realize this and won’t replace the ink immediately. But casual computer users would run out and buy a new cartridge and replace it right away. So HP sells more ink than gets used – I bet they love that!

XL Means What Exactly?

I was interested to see that the new PhotoSmart printer used HP’s “564″ inks, which include a line of “XL” cartridges with extra capacity. I did the math and found that, assuming HP’s yield numbers were trustworthy, the XL was indeed slightly cheaper per page than the regular 564, though this didn’t hold up after taking into account the “Staples Rewards” $2 per cartridge recycling rebate.

Fast forward to this week. I went to buy a replacement black cartridge, since the printer was asking for more, and grabbed the 564XL black pack off the shelf. I immediately noticed a major price reduction – the price was $22.99 rather than the $34.99 I paid previously. Could HP have actually reduced the cost of ink?

Read the fine print: "Smaller size cartridge, lower ink volume"

No way! It turns out that this new 564XL pack (part number CN684WN) has “lower ink volume” than the old 564XL pack (part number CB321WN)! The old cartridge was good for “800 pages”, but the new one will only do “550 pages”, according to HP. That’s a nice way of saying “no longer all that XL after all!”

Bait and Switch?

There is a lot of anger online over this, with many Amazon customers reporting they ordered a CB321WN and got a CN684WN. I feel for those folks – that’s definitely “bait and switch”, and should draw an investigation from Amazon.

Were it not for two facts, I’d be all up in arms over this:

1. I noticed the difference in the store before buying anything. The low price seemed too good to be true, so I inspected the packaging and saw HP’s truthful statement, “new lower price, smaller size” emblazoned in red. And I noticed that it said “up to 2x more pages” rather than the “3x” the old package claimed.
2. I did the math and the new 564XL is actually a better deal than the old one! In fact, the old black 564XL was actually more expensive per page after the Staples rebate than the regular 564! But the new one is cheaper than both in all cases.

Stephen’s Stance

Although HP reduced the size of their “XL” ink cartridge without telling anyone, it really is a better deal for the consumer. They’re upfront about the change, too, though I wish they had used a different part number. Rather than redefining “XL”, HP should have called the new size “564L” or used some other name.

But HP and Amazon simply must do something about the sales there. It’s unconscionable for customers to order one part number and receive a different, smaller product. Even though these are sold through a third-party, Amazon is the merchant of record and it they have the power to fix this situation!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | When Does XL No Longer Mean “Extra Large”? HP’s Printer Inks, Of Course!
This post was categorized as Apple, Deals, Everything, Personal, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

The Eye-Fi promises simple connectivity for digital cameras, but does it really work?

One reason the smartphones like the iPhone are gaining ground on purpose-built cameras is their instant connectivity: Take a photo and you can immediately share it on Twitter, Flickr, Facebook, or other popular sites. Wouldn’t it be great if your SLR or digital camera could do the same? This is the promise of the Eye-Fi card: It adds Wi-Fi connectivity to most popular cameras, enabling you to transfer photos directly to your laptop or the Internet. If only it worked.

Introducing the Eye-Fi

The Eye-Fi card is a marvel of engineering. Now in its second iteration (X2), the Eye-Fi is a standard SD card with a built-in Wi-Fi radio and smarts to handle connecting and transferring images. It’s really amazing to think that that tiny card has a whole computer with Wi-Fi inside it!

Check out my follow-on post to see just what lurks inside the Eye-Fi X2!

But the Eye-Fi is more than a card. It’s also an online service (Eye-Fi View), software application for Windows or Mac (Eye-Fi Center), and app for iOS or Android that enables photo sharing. The card is useless without these applications and services.

The Eye-Fi card is compatible with most cameras that take SD media, and many (including my Sony NEX-5) have special support for the card. My NEX includes an on-screen icon showing card status, and will keep the camera powered on while images are being transferred.

The X2 Generation

Last year, Eye-Fi upgraded the hardware in their Eye-Fi lineup. These new X2 cards are a huge upgrade, as you will soon see, and were enough to finally push me off the fence and buy one. I purchased a Connect X2 card at Wal Mart, which sells them for a reasonable $39, as does Amazon.

Earlier Eye-Fi cards required a known Wi-Fi network to do anything at all, limiting their usefulness. But the new X2 series (including the Connect X2 I purchased) has a “Direct Mode” capability, allowing the card to act as a limited hotspot to transfer photos to a laptop, tablet, or phone when no network is in range.

Eye-Fi Features and Services

All Eye-Fi X2 cards offer the same features and services – for a price. Even my lowly Connect X2 can be upgraded to match the Pro X2′s geotagging and public Wi-Fi support. The only really Pro-exclusive feature is RAW file transfer. But none of these added features is actually worth that much, as you will see. I recommend the base Connect X2.

Eye-Fi inexplicably leaves the Geo X2 off their comparison table. And they’re not exactly generous with the information. So here’s my own Eye-Fi comparison table, and I’ve included about the nicest regular SD card I could find.

	Patriot 32 GB SDHC	Eye-Fi Connect X2	Eye-Fi Geo X2	Eye-Fi Mobile X2	Eye-Fi Pro X2
Speed	Class 10 (10 MB/s)	Class 6 (6 MB/s)
Connectivity	SD Reader	SD Reader, 802.11 b/g/n Wi-Fi with Direct Mode
Capacity	32 GB	4 GB		8 GB
RAW compatibility	Manual import only				Yes
Sharing	Manual	Automatic to Flickr, Facebook, etc
Geotagging	No	$29.99 option	Yes	$29.99 option	Yes
Hotspot Access	No	$29.99 per year			First year free, then $29.99 per year
List Price	$84.99	$49.99	$69.95	$79.99	$106.99
Street Price	$50	$40	$70	$72	$90
Price With Geo	N/A	$70	$70	$102	$90

Direct Mode

This is the real killer feature of the Eye-Fi X2 line. When the card isn’t in range of a known Wi-Fi hotspot (and has photos to transfer) it will create its own ad-hoc network for local devices. Once connected to this network, laptops, tablets, and phones can transfer photos at Wi-Fi speed directly from the card.

I’ll write more about it in a follow-on post, but suffice to say that Direct Mode is the only feature worth paying for and it’s included free on all Eye-Fi X2 cards!

Geotagging

Geotagging seems like an awesome add-on for a digital camera, and it is surprising more don’t already include it. Sites like Flickr and applications like iPhoto make great use of location tagging, and the iPhone automatically tags all photos.

But the Eye-Fi has two major strikes against it when it comes to geotagging, and these combine to reduce the value of this feature:

1. The Eye-Fi cards don’t have a GPS receiver, so they have to triangulate location based on nearby Wi-Fi access points. This gives innacurate location data at the best of times and is completely worthless off the beaten path.
2. The Eye-Fi doesn’t tag photos when they are taken but rather when they are transferred by the Eye-Fi software. This means that any images imported directly off the card won’t have geotags.

The limited functionality of Eye-Fi geotagging means it’s simply not worth paying extra for. There goes the $69 Geo X2 from Apple, as well as the $29 upgrade for Connect X2 users.

Hotspot Support

Basic Eye-Fi models only recognize hotspots you program them for, but the top model can access a wide range of public hotspots automatically. This is also available as an extra-charge item, priced at $29.99 per year.

Hotspot access was very valuable in earlier Eye-Fi models, since there was no way to transfer photos without them. But the X2 cards, with their Direct Mode, offer a better alternative at no cost. It’s definitely not worth buying a Pro X2 card for hotspot access, since it only includes one year of service.

SDHC Class 6 and Wireless-N Speed

The Eye-Fi X2 features two performance and compatibility improvements over previous models:

1. SDHC Class 6 compatibility means the card can now keep up with today’s fast shooting and megapixel-heavy cameras. This is more important for HD video, but some cameras (like my NEX) can tax Class 4 (40 MB/s) cards in speed shooting modes, and Class 6 (6 MB/s) might not even be enough. In fact, I did encounter some “cannot write” errors when using the Eye-Fi card, and I attribute this to the card still not being fast enough!
2. The new X2 cards support Wi-Fi “N” networks. This is more about compatibility than performance, since the card can’t transfer fast enough to tax a “G” network anyway. But folks like me who have “N-only” networks at home appreciate it, however.

Neiter of these features are deal-breakers, and neither adds much to the Eye-Fi experience. But both are welcome updates and keep the cards from becoming obsolete in today’s world.

Which Eye-Fi Card Is Best?

Normally, I have to waffle a bit when recommending a purchase. After all, some people might need to drive a Ferrari, right? But the Eye-Fi is a special case, and a single answer will do:

If you decide to buy an Eye-Fi card, get the cheapest Connect X2 model and don’t bother with any upgrades.

Seriously. The added features in the upscale Eye-Fi cards are worthless in real-world usage. Don’t buy them.

1. Stepping up to 8 GB of capacity isn’t all that valuable in a connected card, and this is some seriously expensive capacity
2. Eye-Fi geotagging is just about worthless, so put it out of your mind and don’t be tempted
3. Public hotspot usage will just be frustrating, and Direct Mode allows the card to function without it

In my next post, I will discuss my real-world experience with the Eye-Fi card, and end with a disappointing recommendation.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Introducing the Eye-Fi X2 Card
This post was categorized as Apple, Personal, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Onboard microphones just won’t cut it in a noisy environment, but one can do pretty well with two simple external mics:

• A directional shotgun microphone for interviews and session recordings
• An omnidirectional lavalier microphone for narration

Azden SMX-10 Stereo Shotgun Microphone

The Azden SMX-10 is a compact portable stereo shotgun mic

A directional shotgun style microphone is very handy for mobile recording, since it can be used at close range for interviews or from afar. But many shotgun mics are far too big to be portable, and not all record stereo sound. I picked the Azden SMX-10 for its compact dimensions, low price, and stereo performance. I could not be happier with this microphone’s capabilities, bringing top-notch sound quality and portability.

Like all condenser mics, the Azden requires a battery for bias voltage. Happily, this microphone uses a standard AA battery that lasts and lasts.

The Azden SMX-10 comes with a reasonable “cold shoe” mount for use with a camcorder, as well as a foam wind protector. Unfortunately, none of my cameras feature this type of mount so it stays at home and I use the Azden handheld or lay it on my camera bag as a stand.

The main drawback of the Azden SMX-10 is the lack of a fitted case to protect it while on the go. I wish there was an inexpensive hard case, such as the one I use with my Zoom H1 portable audio recorder.

Although it lists for $100, the SMX-10 is fairly easy to find at one third off. I purchased mine from B&H photo in New York City for $65, and Amazon lists it for $66 with free shipping.

Generic OLM-10 Omnidirectional Lavalier Microphone

The OLM-10 lavalier mic is available through many sources and brands

There are times when the shotgun mic just won’t do, so I also picked up an inexpensive omnidirectional lavalier microphone. The OLM-10 is an inexpensive generic lav mic sold by many vendors. I found it at B&H photo for just $22, and Amazon lists the same kit for $27 with free shipping.

The OLM-10 is a condenser mic and uses a button cell battery for bias voltage. I find I often leave the microphone on accidentally, draining the battery and forcing me to locate a replacement just when I need it the most.

The kit includes a lavalier clip, tiny foam windscreen, and jack adapter. The cable is ridiculously long: I keep about three quarters of it permanently wrapped in a tight bundle to reduce tangles and bulk. But it’s better to have a cable that is too long than one that is too short!

Again, the OLM-10 lacks a case or bag. I repurposed a small velvet bag that came from some forgotten conference swag and consider this an absolute necessity to avoid a rats nest of tangles.

Audio quality from the OLM 10 is acceptable, though background noise is notable compared to be highly directional SMX-10. All things considered, this little cheap lav mic is a winner, but make sure you remember to turn off the switch!

Stephen’s Stance

This pair of microphones serves me well. I mainly use the Azden SMX-10 when recording videos in public, resorting to the OLM-10 when recording unboxings and such in quiet settings. Sound quality is decent and they’re small enough to fit in my bag. Considering that one can walk out of B&H Photo with both microphones and change for a $100 bill, I call that a win!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Azden SMX-10 Stereo Shotgun and Generic OLM-10 Lavalier Microphone Review
This post was categorized as Apple, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

I think this sentiment is just as valid today as when I posted it in 2008!

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.

Channels, Blocks, and Files

Most innovation in the 1980s and early 1990s focused on moving storage out of the server. SCSI allowed disk to exist in a separate cabinet, RAID allowed multiple physical disks to become a single virtual one, and these were mixed to become the prototype storage array. Although SCSI allowed one-to-many connectivity, it was never a true peer-to-peer network, even once it was mixed with network concepts in the form of Fibre Channel.

Even today, SAN storage is focused on providing faster, more flexible, and feature-packed direct-attached storage. A modern virtual SAN hides a complex arrangement of caching, data protection, tiered storage, replication, and deduplication, masquerading the lot as a simple, lowly disk drive. It is sad but true that all of our work as an industry has been dedicated to recreating what we started with.

Networked file-based storage is no better. Although NAS devices have all the advanced features of their SAN cousins, they must present a simple file tree to the host to retain compatibility. File virtualization merely presents a larger homogenous tree.

Inside the server, too, features and complexity are hidden to retain a familiar file system format. Volume managers can do anything a virtualization device can, but must present their output as a simple (though virtual) disk drive. File systems, too, have added features but still present a familiar tree of mount points, inodes, and files. Even ZFS, possibly the most advanced combination of volume management and file system technology yet, must present a simple tree of storage to applications.

The Metadata Roadblock

This outdated paradigm, of disks and file trees, is ill-suited to today’s storage challenges. Data must be categorized so actions can be taken to preserve or destroy it based on policies. Data must be searchable so users and applications can find what they want. Data must be flexible so it can be used in new ways. Our antiquated notions are not capable of meeting these challenges.

One simple problem is that we lack context for our data. Most file systems merely assign to a file a name, location, owner, and security attributes. The most advanced can contain extended metadata, but this is rarely seen in practice since many applications cannot agree on how to use this data. Microsoft’s Office suite can store and share extended file attributes, for example, but these live inside the file rather than in the file system. The promise of expanded Office attributes is only realized in conjunction with a content management system like SharePoint which lies above the lowly file system.

What if the storage system could keep this data instead? What if it could logically group files according to project or client, mining keywords and authors, and maintaining revisions? These concepts are not new, having been implemented in content management systems for years, and certain elements appeared in file systems, like Apple’s HFS and VMS’ Files-11, for decades.

Cut Down the Tree

File metadata would allow advanced features, but truly taking advantage of them requires a more fundamental shift in the way applications access files. Rather than sticking to a traditional hierarchy of directories in a tree (which was, after all, simply a primitive metadata system), we should remove the tree altogether. Allow files to become data objects, identified by arbitrary attributes and managed according to an overarching policy.

This future vision is decidedly different from our current notion of storage, but is not so far off. Many organizations now rely on central data warehouses based on SQL-language relational databases. As many storage managers have grumbled, databases tend to ignore storage management concepts entirely, managing their own content independently.

But not all applications need a database back-end, so another initiative seeks to provide generic object storage for wider use. Called content-addressable storage or CAS, these devices have traditionally been used only for archival purposes, since that was their first market application. As vendors break free of proprietary interfaces in favor of open ones like XAM, CAS could transform storage itself by eliminating both file and block storage at once.

Similar concepts are already at work in the so-called Web 2.0 world. Non-traditional databases like Google BigTable, Amazon S3, and Hadoop allow massive scalability for object storage. API-sharing initiatives with many Web 2.0 companies can be seen as similar prototypical object storage frameworks. Any of these could be leveraged to provide a new world of data storage, and many are gaining traction even now.

Stephen’s Stance

Although traditional block storage is here to stay for disk drives, and tree-type file systems are likely to remain the foundation of operating system storage, new object-based concepts could change the world in fundamental ways. As applications become “web aware”, they also become object aware, increasing the likelihood of such a storage revolution. For the majority of applications, this new world would be a welcome one indeed.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | We Need a Storage Revolution
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History, Enterprise storage, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Virtualization decouples physical infrastructure from logical resources

Virtualization of IT systems decouples physical infrastructure from logical resources, hiding complexity and enabling new capabilities. However, not all potential benefits of virtualization have meaningful value outside IT circles: Too many of our discussions revolve around the very complexity that virtualization technology should be hiding! True business value is derived from transformed virtual resources in the next-generation data center, not the incremental capacity gains of virtual servers. But how will we get there, and what will this future look like?

The Problem with Virtual Servers

Implementation of virtualization technology to date has merely delivered condensation of physical resources: 250 physical servers are condensed onto 20 physical servers, but 250 virtual server images remain. True, this does result in the reduction of data center footprint, from rack space to power and cooling, enabling moderate cost savings. But these are not examples of real consolidation, let alone business transformation.

Many have lamented this “virtual server sprawl” and suggested alternative methods of consolidating low-utilization applications into larger, more flexible “resource servers”. For example, numerous SQL servers can be combined on a single central server with more focused management. But these larger resource servers are not normally virtualized since their concentrated I/O demands can overtax current server virtualization platforms. Therefore, consolidation and virtualization remain separate.

This is the problem with conventional server virtualization. It enables us to condense data center demands for some systems, but delivers very little else apart from new backup and management headaches. Certainly we can provision servers more quickly, and we might be able to recover from a disaster more easily, but these are IT-facing benefits that other business entities care little about.

Storage and Network Virtualization

Virtualization of storage and network resources face even higher barriers. Where server virtualization has quickly delivered incremental “green” savings, these benefits are harder to come by in other areas.

Storage virtualization primarily delivers flexibility. SAN or NAS systems can be combined into larger pools, allowing existing resources to be better utilized or provisioned more quickly. But there is only a little cost avoidance to be gleaned from more efficient use of storage capacity. Real cost savings would require reduction of infrastructure, and constant data growth makes this extremely difficult to achieve. Other benefits, like enhanced data migration or heterogeneous replication, ought to be invisible to the business anyway.

Network virtualization lags even further behind. Only a few shops have attempted to use technology like InfiniBand to enable flexible virtual connectivity, though the future Converged Enhanced Ethernet concept is beginning to spark some interest. Here again, financial benefits from network virtualization technology are limited to a moderate reduction in future equipment cost.

Transforming the Data Center

In all three instances (server, storage, and network), the financial benefits are merely the sideshow. The underlying benefit from virtualization of IT infrastructure comes from the extension of IT systems outside the data center, a change on the order of the advent of minicomputers or the spread of open systems.

VMware recently laid out a serious and compelling vision of this future Virtual Data Center as VDC-OS. Their concept is evolutionary and radical at once, with the simple virtual server infrastructure of today augmented with increasingly uniform and flexible storage and network layers. This culminates in a truly virtual data center, where running server images can move from device to device, location to location, and even out to the cloud.

VMware’s brilliance is in leveraging what works today (virtual server images on ESX) to build a foundation for complete virtualization of physical resources. But virtual servers running on VDC-OS remain tied to the present: They run the same operating systems and will likely remain bound to the same “one (virtual) server per application” world view that pervades open systems today. This leads to exactly the same situation of server sprawl that has proven a management nightmare.

Others are extending the web hosting concept to enable custom applications to be run on the scalable, flexible, multi-homed servers that run the world’s biggest Internet applications. Google and Amazon’s visions are decidedly post-data center, with applications, rather than server images, being the primary unit, and database-style storage replacing conventional blocks and files. Use of these web-oriented application platforms has so far been limited to entirely new systems built from scratch to take advantage of them, limiting their appeal to current IT environments.

Where Is the Business Value?

Yet, most discussions of these virtualization strategies (mine included) fails when it comes to demonstrating real business value. We must move away from quickly-forgotten cost savings and focus instead on profoundly transforming how IT serves business goals. Virtualized infrastructure allows flexibility and scalability, changing how everything in IT works.

Whether it uses conventional operating systems and applications or re-engineered web-enabled solutions, virtualized infrastructure fundamentally changed our world. Organizations would be free to physically move their systems, even outsourcing or offshoring the infrastructure component entirely. They could move to an on-demand purchasing model for logical capacity, not just bits and bytes.

In the process, they would render current server platforms, operating systems, and storage devices irrelevant. Undoubtedly, attaining this future remains a while off, but IT professionals should consider its implications. Much of what we do is focused on making the “plumbing” work efficiently rather than serving the needs of the business. Where do we stand once the perennial issues of performance, availability, and scalability are solved?

photo by Roy Smith

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Where Will Virtualization of Data Center Infrastructure Take Us?
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

How granular is your storage? This question is just as relevant today as when I first published this article in 2008!

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.

Storage Management: Scaling Up

As I discussed in a previous Sunday Series piece, Turning the Page on RAID, the data storage industry has traditionally focused on reducing granularity. Disk capacity has expanded, and RAID technology has multiplied this by combining multiple physical drive mechanisms into a single virtual one. Storage virtualization technologies, from the SAN to the server, have also often been touted primarily as a mechanism to reduce heterogeneity. From a technical perspective, therefore, granularity has been an obstacle to overcome.

The core organizational best practice for storage management is the reduction of complexity and the enforcement of standardization. Consolidation of storage arrays and file servers is a common goal, as IT seeks to benefit from economies of scale. The goal of both initiatives is the creation of a storage utility or managed storage service. This mirrors efforts on the server and network sides to consolidate and virtualize hardware.

Although both technological and organizational factors have traditionally driven granularity out of storage, this does not have to be the case. Virtual pools of storage are ideal for providing storage on demand, as disk-focused RAID groups give way to more flexible sub-disk storage arrangements. And an operational focus on standardized storage service offerings has the potential to enable scalable management of these smaller units.

Filing Service

File-based protocols would seem to have more potential for granular storage management, but they have been undermined by the hierarchical nature of modern file storage. Whether the connection to a file server uses NFS, CIFS, or AFP, the key unit of management is actually the shared directory, not the file. All files in the share \\firefly\backups would be located on the same server and would be managed as a unit.

NAS virtualization can change this somewhat, as can more specialized NAS servers. Although Microsoft DFS enables consolidation and virtualization of NAS shares, it does not allow subdivision of shares below the directory level – all files in a directory must be placed on the same server. Tricks like stubbing and links allow for some movement, but these do not solve the core issue. Specialized virtual NAS devices from F5 (the ARX, nee Acopia), NetApp, BlueArc, Symantec, and others have the ability to move files individually, providing as much a virtualized storage environment as any block-focused enterprise array. Avere is also beginning to talk about granular file management.

But even an ideal virtualized file server lacks the kind of granularity demanded by users. They care about data, not files, and most applications consolidate their data storage into a few files. Consider a database, for example, where users want each record treated uniquely but storage devices see just a few much larger files. We need a storage revolution, where someone creates an ideal storage platform in which each individual record or object includes custom metadata and is managed independently. This would truly be a massive change, however, and it is not clear that all applications will follow the object storage model of Google and Amazon.

Small is Beautiful

Barring a revolution in data management, our best hope is to allow greater granularity in storage management. As mentioned above, virtualization technology has the potential to enable management and protection of any unit of storage, right down to the individual block or record. But the reality of storage virtualization has not matched its promise.

What is needed is greater integration. Each layer of virtualization (file system, volume manager, hypervisor, network, array, and RAID) also hides necessary details from lower layers. Consider the case of a virtual server snapshot: The application and filesystem must be in a quiesced state to allow a snapshot to be taken at the storage level, but the storage array has no intrinsic information about how its capacity is used. A given LUN might contain dozens of servers on a shared VMFS volume, so all must be snapped together.

Integration can be enabled by sharing more information through APIs. VMware leverages Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) integration for shared storage so a VMFS snapshot can call the operating system and even applications (Windows Server 2003 only, for now) to prepare the data. Similarly, VSS can communicate directly with supported iSCSI and Fibre Channel arrays, calling a snapshot at the right moment. And Microsoft is, no doubt, enhancing VSS as we speak.

As virtualization technology matures, expect this type of integration to improve. We hope to see more APIs exposed by VMware and Microsoft, allowing communication up and down the stack to break through the information barrier. Imagine a future where a standard API like VSS can pass a message through VMware, Xen, and Hyper-V to the underlying storage array to initiate a snap. I predict that this kind of integration-enabled granularity is not too far off.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Granularity: The Hidden Challenge of Storage Management
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

It's like a MiFi, only way better!

Amazon is offering the PHS300 for just $79 with free shipping available. This is $100 off the retail price!

My PHS300 has been a constant companion for me for two years, providing Internet access for me and my friends wherever I go. I’m using it right now, in fact!

The PHS300 is a battery-powered box with a USB port and Wi-Fi radio. Attach almost any 3G or 4G modem or smartphone (other than the iPhone) and you’re online and sharing. It’s better than a MiFi: You can customize the experience, it’s faster (in my experience), and it scales to support way more users.

I love my Cradlepoint PHS300 router, and I love saving money. If I didn’t already have one, I’d be all over this deal!

Note: Some of these links include affiliate codes that help pay for this blog. For example, buying an Amazon Kindle with this link sends a few bucks my way! But I don't write this blog to make money, and am happy to link to sites and stores that don't pay anything. I like Amazon and buy tons from them, but you're free to buy whatever and wherever you want.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Get a Cradlepoint PHS300 Portable 3G WiFi Router For Just $79!
This post was categorized as Deals, Everything. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Amazon looks like the cheapest place to buy Dragon Dictate

I write a lot. Recently, two of my prolific author friends (Greg and Curtis) decided to try voice dictation to help accelerate their writing process. I’ve been trying it, too, using the Microsoft Speech Recognition engine bundled with Windows 7 to write my Network Computing columns. But Microsoft’s engine isn’t that great, and I’m a full-time Mac user.

I’ve been wanting to pick up a copy of Dragon Dictate for Mac for a while, but it’s an expensive proposition at $199 (list price). Amazon has been marking it down to $149 regularly, but even that’s fairly expensive. As a paid writer I can justify the cost as a business expense. But as a bargain hunter, I hoped that some day Amazon would drop the price further.

That day is today, February 23 2011. Today only, Amazon has listed Dragon Dictate 2.0 for Mac for just $129, the lowest price I’ve ever seen for the full package with (wired) microphone.

This is the latest version of the product formerly known as MacSpeech. The formerly PC-only Dragon engine was grafted into the Mac application for better recognition. Although reviews are mixed, I have high hopes for the package and feel it’s worth the money at this price. My copy is in the mail (and fast, thanks to Amazon Prime!) I’ll let you all know what I think once I’ve had a chance to test it out!

Note: Some of these links include affiliate codes that help pay for this blog. For example, buying an Amazon Kindle with this link sends a few bucks my way! But I don't write this blog to make money, and am happy to link to sites and stores that don't pay anything. I like Amazon and buy tons from them, but you're free to buy whatever and wherever you want.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Get Dragon Dictate 2 for Mac, Just $129 Today Only!
This post was categorized as Apple, Deals, Personal. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Desktop NICs Won’t Work

Most of the network interfaces you will find at retail simply won’t work. Realtek is the dominant provider of Gigabit Ethernet controllers for motherboards and add-in cards right now, but none of their chips are natively supported by VMware ESX. The number-two slot seems to be Marvell’s Yukon chips, with Intel’s desktop controllers close behind. None of these will work, either.

Although it is possible to get a non-supported NIC to work in VMware ESX, it’s not a good idea. First, ESX won’t install unless it finds a supported NIC in the box. Then there’s quite a bit of fiddling to get the driver up and running. And you’re left with a potentially-weird configuration that might not support advanced features. It’s a much-better idea to locate and purchase a supported NIC.

Here’s what not to buy

Many inexpensive Ethernet cards and motherboards have a chip with the Realtek “digital crab” logo. None of these will work for VMware ESX.	The big “psychedelic M” identifies a Marvell controller. Skip these, too.

Selecting a Functional Home/Lab NIC

My “home/lab” network card criteria are simple:

1. They are specifically listed on the VMware ESX HCL for version 4.1 with no hacks or trickery involved
2. They cost less than $100 US
3. You can easily purchase them at retail from major online vendors (Newegg and Amazon)
4. They use PCI or PCI Express bus and have 1 or more RJ45 Gigabit Ethernet ports

It’s really amazing how few cards meet these criteria: There are really just a few cards to consider in this range.

Here’s what to buy

PCI Adapters
	The Intel Pro/1000 MT server adapter should work, and the dual-port is cheaper on Amazon (Newegg)
PCI Express (PCIe) adapters
The Intel Pro/1000 CT desktop adapter is a cheap and functional PCIe NIC (Newegg)	The Intel Pro/1000 PT server adapter is a little more expensive but potentially better-supported (Newegg)	The HP NC112T also appears to be well-supported and affordable

Although some have reported success with the very-cheap Intel Pro/1000 GT desktop adapter, I can’t recommend it. I’ve heard many negative reviews of folks trying and failing to get this adapter to work in the latest versions of VMware ESX. I think it’s worth the money to step up to the CT or PT instead!

Note also that I have not personally tried the specific adapters listed and linked here. I intend to purchase one or more over the next few months and will update this post when I do, but I welcome feedback on your experiences with them!

Stephen’s Stance

VMware ESX seems especially picky about network adapters, and the fact that it will not install without a supported NIC onboard is a real stumbling block for users. I definitely recommend picking up a well-supported NIC like the Intel Pro/1000 MT (PCI) or CT/PT (PCIe) or the HP NC112T.

My home/lab machine has two PCIe slots and two PCI slots. I had intended to use a PCI NIC, but will probably buy a Pro/1000 PT card instead. It’s affordable and called out specifically as supported in the VMware ESX HCL. Sounds good to me!

If you have a suggestion for a NIC that fits the criteria above, please do let me know. I’d love to have more choices in this list!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | The Best Network Card For VMware ESX Home Lab Machines
This post was categorized as Everything, Personal, Terabyte home, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.