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.

There has been a lot of discussion in the storage industry about Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE), making it the toast of Storage Networking World, but this technology remains relatively unknown to end users. Like so many storage protocols before it, the $10,000 question is whether FCoE will take off like iSCSI or fizzle as a niche product like FCIP, DAFS, and so many others.

If it does succeed, another critical question is what this means for iSCSI, Fibre Channel, InfiniBand, and to a lesser extent AoE, expanded SAS, and other options for SAN storage. The enterprise data center is poised for a complete change in server connectivity, with 10 Gb Ethernet converged network adapters (CNAs) and new core switches carrying both network and storage traffic, and this holds promise, especially in virtualized environments. But CNAs do not equal FCoE, and iSCSI, conventional Fibre Channel, and other protocols are roaring ahead. What impact will FCoE really have?

Continue Reading »

The pistol shot heard this week was the starting gun for FCoE, not the execution of iSCSI

To hear this week’s storage industry news reports, one might think that Wagner’s fat lady came to Storage Networking World (SNW), singing her song as the iSCSI world collapses. Storagebod wonders what iSCSI’s death will look like. Chris Mellor at The Register says “Game Over” as NetApp, QLogic, Emulex and VMware join EMC and Cisco in singing the praises of Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE). Mellor suggests that the protocol will devalue Dell’s EqualLogic investment, as if HP’s acquisition of LeftHand wasn’t enough, even as fellow Register-ite, Bryan Betts disagrees.

But The Register didn’t invent the “FCoE kills iSCSI” meme - it’s just natural to imagine that these two protocols would be in a fight to the death. And if it’s a duel, then this year’s SNW conference would seem to be the first volley, as EMC introduced a FCoE Connectrix switch (based on Cisco), NetApp announced the first native FCoE array, and everyone qualified Emulex and QLogic adapters. However, despite these announcements, it’s way too early to bury iSCSI!

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.

Cisco’s new product announcements this week got me thinking about our little storage pond.  Sure, VFrame isn’t breaking any new ground compared to Scalent, HP’s Opsware, and BladeLogic, but it’ll be a revelation to Cisco’s customers.  Remember, all the iPod had going for it was Apple’s brand name, customer base, and flawless execution!

The point is, VFrame makes no differentiation between storage and networking, just like Cisco itself.  Look across the rest of Cisco’s storage product line and if you squint hard enough you might be looking at their network line!  This was Cisco’s big contribution to the storage industry: bringing along everything they learn about networking.  For some reason, the rest of the Fibre Channel equipment makers were unable to take the lessons from networking and apply them to storage until Cisco came along.

Cisco’s new switch hardware continues to blur the line between storage and networking.  Although storage products are still separated from network equipment within the company, it’s clear that there’s a lot of technology sharing going on.  I wonder if the advent of 10 gigabit Ethernet will cause the two product lines to come even closer.

Clearly, it’s difficult to differentiate the products - just read the Byte and Switch article about Cisco’s announcement and watch James Rogers “seamlessly” blend Fibre Channel and Ethernet!  Yeah, yeah, like I’ve never made a mistake before!

Edit: Yup, I guess Raffo and the rest are alive - Byte and Switch swapped out the references to “4 gbit/s Ethernet”…