"FCoE vs. iSCSI" isn't a battle or cage match. Your choice depends on many factors, and is more a reflection of convergence than a religious conviction. (photos by Peter Tsai, @SuperTsai)

My presentation at Interop in Las Vegas on May 11, 2011, focused on the protocols that will underpin converged storage networking in the future. My topic, assigned by network computing editor Mike Fratto, was “FCoE vs. iSCSI – Making the Choice.” Although this sounds like a grand competition between the two protocols, my take on the subject is very far from that idea. Rather than a battle, the rise of FCoE and iSCSI is part of the ascendance of convergence of storage and data networking on Ethernet.

“The notion that Fibre Channel is for data centers and iSCSI is for SMB’s and workgroups is outdated. Increases in LAN speeds and the coming of lossless Ethernet position iSCSI as a good fit for the data center. Whether your organization adopts FC or iSCSI depends on many factors like current product set, future application demands, organizational skill-set and budget. In this session we will discuss the different conditions where FC or IsCSI are the right fit, why you should use one and when to kick either to the curb.”

I began my session by pointing out that I am neither a vendor nor protocol cheerleader and don’t really have a horse in the race in terms of a transition to FCoE, iSCSI, InfiniBand, SAS, or any other protocol.  Frankly, I don’t see this as a race, and I don’t care who wins if it is one as long as IT infrastructure progresses to a more flexible state.

Converging on Convergence

The important aspect of any discussion of FCoE is not the protocol itself but the underlying shift away from specialized storage networks converging on Ethernet. ISCSI began this trend almost a decade ago, and the Ethernet roadmap leaves Fibre Channel in the dust.

I see three key elements converging to bring, if you pardon the pun, convergence of data and storage networking:

1. The wholesale adoption of Intel compatible processing architectures
2. A shift toward open systems (Windows and UNIX) for application processing
3. And the widespread adoption of IP as an internetworking protocol.

None of these “trends” is surprising or even questionable: Intel compatible open systems servers using IP dominate modern data centers.

Given this dominant processing architecture, Ethernet is a logical choice as an interconnect. No other network protocol even comes close to the market share, compatibility, and support for Ethernet.

Then we must consider the factors that drive convergence of networking protocols. After all, we have long seen a variety of different protocols in niches such as storage, voice, video, WAN, clustering, and other areas. But virtualization of servers, the need for consolidation to reduce port count and cabling, and a continuing thirst for better performance makes convergence on a single protocol a logical step for these and other areas of IT infrastructure.

If we converge on Ethernet, much will change both inside and outside the data center. Server managers will see greater flexibility and mobility of virtualized servers and blades, as well as increased performance overall. Storage managers will shift from managing esoteric networking protocols to a focus on data management and array performance. But network managers will bear the brunt of the shift, with a wider sphere of influence and new headaches from workloads that do not behave like conventional LAN applications.

The Performance Picture

Turning back to the face of storage networking, we see that one major driver for convergence is pure performance. Although Fibre Channel has an impressive roadmap, with performance doubling again and again, it can’t hold a candle to Ethernet. With historical leaps of an order of magnitude and performance, Ethernet will soon leave Fibre Channel well behind.

When iSCSI first appeared, it was hitched to fairly unimpressive Gigabit Ethernet even as Fibre Channel networks made a transition from 2 to 4 Gb. But iSCSI made a quantum leap in performance this year, transitioning to 10 Gb Ethernet even as Fibre Channel networks moved to 8 Gb. ISCSI FCoE will continue benefiting from Ethernet performance improvements in the coming years, transitioning to 40 Gb and 100 Gb. This will make 16 Gb and 32 Gb Fibre Channel look slow by comparison.

One area that is often overlooked in terms of performance is latency of I/O operations. Although iSCSI over 10 Gb Ethernet can carry 50% more data than 8 Gb Fibre Channel (thanks to more efficient encoding), it also benefits from drastically lower latency. It can handle 50% more packets than 8 Gb Fibre Channel or 10 times as many as Gigabit Ethernet. In other words, in a shared virtual environment, 10 Gb Ethernet allows more systems to get more work done in the same amount of time.

Ethernet Enhancing Data Centers

But performance is only half the story of converged Ethernet. It also supplies server connectivity, reducing the all too frequent situation where configuration and location of servers is dictated by cable availability rather than application need. This will change the face of the data center, encouraging the use of blade servers, virtualization, and flexible (dare I say “cloud”?) infrastructure. It will encourage mobility of machines, especially virtual ones, and demand new networking protocols like OpenFlow.

Ethernet required a serious upgrade to handle this workload, however. Although iSCSI works fine over just about any network, thanks to TCP/IP, FCoE and similar protocols require flow control and guaranteed lossless data delivery. This led to the development of data center bridging protocols (DCB), including priority flow control, bandwidth management, and congestion management. With the first two of these now widely available and the third following shortly, Ethernet is ready to take center stage.

FCoE vs. iSCSI

With discussion of convergence out of the way, we can finally talk about making the choice between iSCSI and FCoE. There are four main reasons to choose one protocol or the other:

1. Data center strategy
2. Performance needs
3. Desire for compatibility
4. Cost concerns

Each of these is a valid reason to pick FCoE or iSCSI in any given situation, and none is a drop–dead decision-maker. There are cases where FCoE will be cheaper than iSCSI and vice versa, for example.

Regardless of the choice between these two protocols, one element remains the same: SCSI. Nearly every enterprise block storage protocol is based on SCSI, and it is one of the seminal technologies that enabled the development of enterprise storage as an industry. Every enterprise block storage protocol, including FCoE, iSCSI, SAS, and plain old Fibre Channel, is really a transport for SCSI.

This makes the selection of protocol less relevant to operating systems and applications, since all will “see” storage the same way. There are major differences between the three SAN protocol choices, in terms of routability, availability of host and initiator hardware and software, maturity, and the availability and selection of management tools.

iSCSI has a more robust support matrix than Fibre Channel over Ethernet, with hardware and software drivers available for nearly every operating system. It is widely supported with mature storage systems available from nearly every vendor. Green field SAN designs with no existing Fibre Channel infrastructure should look no further: iSCSI is a great choice for new storage networks.

The selection of FCoE, on the other hand, is more about evolution from Fibre Channel in enterprise storage networks. There is a threefold path for Fibre Channel architects: They can continue with end-to-end Fibre Channel, and Ethernet and FCoE at the edge, or attempt to build out an end-to-end FCoE SAN. This last option is only recently possible, and is by far the least popular model for Fibre Channel architecture at the present time but will become dominant eventually.

Making the Choice

There are good reasons and bad to pick one protocol over the other, and none rises to the level of religious conviction one might see perusing blogs and tweets on the subject.

FCoE is an evolutionary transition for organizations that already have a large installed base of Fibre Channel equipment, tools, and skills. These environments can incrementally adopt Ethernet as an edge protocol while they continue to leverage the enterprise Fibre Channel storage arrays they already own. Strategically, FCoE makes perfect sense for users of “blocks” or “stacks” from vendors like Cisco, EMC, HP, and NetApp. But FCoE remains somewhat unproven, and some supporting protocols, like congestion notification and so-called Ethernet fabric technology, are immature at best when it comes to interoperability.

One common refrain when comparing FCoE and iSCSI is the efficiency of the protocols. Packaging SCSI in TCP and IP can’t be efficient, can it? But an analysis of the protocols reveals that absolute bit efficiency is very similar between Fibre Channel, FCoE, and iSCSI. Tests by Dell’s Tech Center and others show that iSCSI is fairly efficient in terms of data throughput and CPU utilization as well.

Stephen’s Stance

iSCSI is an excellent choice in situations where Fibre Channel investment is nonexistent or badly in need of wholesale upgrade, while FCoE is likely to take over in high-end enterprise shops

iSCSI is an excellent choice in situations where Fibre Channel investment is nonexistent or badly in need of wholesale upgrade. It will continue to grow based on ease of use, low cost and high performance, and widespread support, in the transition to 10 Gb Ethernet could not be simpler. FCoE, on the other hand, is likely to take over in high-end enterprise shops. It is relentlessly promoted by major vendors, and it seems that they will force the upgrade eventually. But some areas are still not ready for prime time, and buyers should beware of grandiose promises at this point.

In counterpoint, one may ask the question of why we chose Ethernet at all. It required much work, and unnatural acts like DCB, to prepare Ethernet to become the dominant protocol for convergence. Why not use InfiniBand instead, since it already works, has widespread implementation, excellent performance and scalability, as well as interoperability and hardware availability? Price is one concern, but the major factor is far more basic: No one doubts that Ethernet will eventually ascend and overcome its obstacles. It is a foregone conclusion.

In retrospect, many alternative protocols might have been better suited to convergence, including ATM and even Token Ring. Although the topic of Fibre Channel over Token Ring (FCoTR) brings a smile to the faces of network and storage nerds everywhere, we all expect that fiber Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) and iSCSI will rule the day.

Photos by Peter Tsai

Watch the presentation from Interop (apologies for the poor camera angle and sound!)

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | FCoE vs. iSCSI – Making the Choice
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Everything, Features, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Converged Networking Adapters like this QLogic 8242 are all the rage, but which are supported in VMware ESX and which have the broadest coverage of DCB features?

VMware has one awesome hardware compatibility list. It’s not the breadth of it (in fact, ESX’s range of hardware support is astonishingly small) but the thorough, public way in which VMware shares this information. It’s really worth a look, and I regularly visit the list to see what’s changed.

But the thoroughness and detail of the VMware HCL can be daunting. It’s fairly easy to search for a specific piece of hardware, but it’s difficult to tell what’s supported in a general sense. This causes trouble for people who are shopping for hardware, since it’s hard to know what’s supported without an exhaustive search.

As part of the preparation for my Storage for Virtual Servers seminar series this year, I decided to do some research. I’ve boiled down certain key hardware categories into a general plain-english list of what’s in and out of the ESX HCL. In the spirit of openness, I’m presenting this data here for all to see, and I welcome corrections and updates. Indeed, I’ll try to keep this page up to date as new hardware is added!

Minimum Requirements

No one should run unsupported hardware in a production environment. So the very minimum requirement for every buyer should be a list in the VMware ESX HCL with the proper firmware, driver, and software.

FCoE also requires a flow control mechanism, preferably 802.1Qbb, and the DCBX protocol to enable communication between ports. I strongly suggest running 802.1Qaz bandwidth management as well, since it will allow you to get more performance from your CNAs than plain PFC.

Congestion management (802.1Qau) isn’t required, and I’m not sure about the state of affairs for interoperability. So that’s a “nice to have” at this point, though it will certainly become more desirable in the future.

You might also look for a CNA that supports other protocols over DCB, since iSCSI is an attractive alternative to FCoE in the data center, as is NFS. But that’s just my opinion!

FCoE CNAs for VMware ESX

Let’s kick things off with FCoE CNAs. I’m not a huge fan of FCoE in general, but I do see it as an increasingly-viable protocol for large-scale enterprise virtualization products.

It’s critical to have supported hardware, and I suggest researching specific models on the HCL before buying. But here’s the general state of affairs with regard to FCoE CNAs:

I was surprised to see that Brocade and QLogic list 802.1Qau Congestion Management (QCN) as supported. I didn’t realize anyone supported this spec yet, or indeed that there was such a spec!

It’s also puzzling to see that QLogic does not list 802.1Qaz Bandwidth Management (ETS) as supported for the (admittedly older) QLE8042 card. Perhaps that’s a error? But then again, Emulex doesn’t list 802.1Qbb Priority Flow Control (PFC) for the LP21000, and although FCoE doesn’t require Qbb, it’s a very good idea…

Update: Emulex tells me the LP21000 does indeed support PFC (Qbb).

Stephen’s Stance

If you’re shopping for networking gear and want to move to FCoE eventually, I hope this list will help you get started. Most OEMs supply the latest Emulex, QLogic, and Brocade CNAs with their own part number, and the long ESX HCL is testament to this fact. But, generally speaking, if you’re using a latest-generation CNA like the QLogic 8200 or Emulex OneConnect series, you ought to be fine. The Brocade CNAs look good, too, but are a little harder to find.

Emulex tells me they will add QCN support once it’s ratified, and I look forward to learning more about the Brocade and QLogic implementations. I’d also love some feedback on how well these features work, and if they’re all they’re cracked up to be. Is one vendor’s PFC or ETS as good as another’s? And does DCBX really work in practice? I believe most folks aren’t mixing HBAs widely and are instead sticking to one manufacturer. That’s probably a good idea out here on the cutting edge!

I was surprised that no Intel or Broadcom cards are listed as supporting FCoE in the HCL. The Intel X520 is impressive, and I’d taken their “open FCoE” claims to include VMware. But I guess they’re not there yet, and this seems to be a glaring omission for a major player like Intel! Similarly, Broadcom is only talking about iSCSI with VMware. Where is their CNA with VMware support?

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | VMware ESX FCoE CNA Compatibility in Plain English
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.

2011 will look pretty much like 2010 apart from the differences...

Prognostication is a perilous business, but pundits are drawn to the topic in the month of December. The fact that most predictions fall on their faces demonstrates the intoxicating mix of hope, dreams, and irrationality that mark both geniuses and fools. I am neither, so I like to make predictions after the fact! But this year I’ve been asked to look to the future, so I’ll stick with the safe road and pick current trends rather than guessing what I hope will come.

Five Trends For Everyone

1 – Ubiquitous Connectivity

I named mobility as the mega-trend of the last decade, noting that it’s hard to spot a trend from the middle and harder still from the start. But I feel vindicated on that 2009 call, and will take it one further: 2011 will see ubiquitous connectivity become mainstream. With “MiFi” entering the vernacular, a proliferation of “4G” networks and integrated wireless data, and free WiFi having already become passe, I’d say “online everywhere” is here. Although incredibly challenging from both a technical and business perspective, I expect everyone and everything to be online-capable.

2 – The iPad and Foes

Steve Jobs’ bizarre claim that the overgrown iPhone tablet was the most important thing he ever did is starting to look prescient. A new generation is coming of age without windowing GUIs, mice, and keyboards thanks to gaming consoles, smartphones, iPods, and (finally) tablets. 2011 will finally see serious Android, WebOS, and Windows tablets, but the iPad (and forthcoming iPad 2) are the platform to beat, and Apple is firing on all cylinders. This war will be all-consuming next year.

3 – Wave “Hi” to Kinect!

Microsoft has a serious hit on their hands with the Kinect add-on to the Xbox 360. The gaming system is the best thing to come out of Redmond in a long time, and it continues the “no controller” concept of the iPad, finally kicking the Wii to the curb. The massive success of the Xbox will lead Microsoft shareholders to abandon their calls for Ballmer’s head, instead asking for a spin-out or IPO of the gaming division. Expect PCs to include Kinect-like features in the coming years as well.

4 – Facebook Is the Internet

Now boasting a quarter of all web pageviews. Facebook is looking increasingly like AOL for the rest of us. 2011 will see Facebook’s gravity pull in content from everywhere, and its satellites sprout all over the Internet. It will become the single sign-on, the central “like”, the address book, and the meeting place. But fear not, Facebook-phobes: Nothing is permanent, and this too shall pass.

5 – The Internet Changes and No One Notices

The IP address space is exhausted, BGP and DNS security lapses rise, and net neutrality falls by the wayside but Farmville still works so no one cares. The Internet is changing, and controversies over key components are coming coming to a head. I imagine the network engineers will be busy keeping ahead of catastrophe, but they’ll manage somehow. I’m not sure if IPv6 will finally take off or if the carrier gambit will succeed, but I’m confident we’ll still have an Internet at the heart of the technology world!

Five Trends For the Datacenter

6 – Clouds Gather Quietly

“Cloud” was the buzzword of the last two years, but now it’s getting down to work. Traditional IT staff still won’t see much of it outside of blogs and conferences, but non-traditional systems are all heading that way. Look for major uptake of cloud platforms and services from the home to enterprise applications and everywhere in between. Ironically, the “c-word” itself will soon be dropped from these successful services just as it gains acceptance in IT shops.

7 – Virtual Everything

The impact of server virtualization hasn’t been as great as supporters claim, but widespread acceptance of hypervisor-centric data centers is here. There’s really no reason not to deploy every datacenter server as a virtual machine and lots of resulting benefits. Expect to see mission-critical apps finally move to VMware ESX and Microsoft Hyper-V in 2011. And expect to see the resulting infrastructure called “cloud”!

8 – Farewell, Fast Hard Drives

Storage I/O performance is now the realm of solid state, not spinning disk. SSDs have reached the level of performance, capacity, availability, and sophistication that we no longer need 15k rpm enterprise hard disk drives. You’ll use SSD if you want IOPS, but you’ll still need spinning platters for capacity and maximum throughput for a long while. Don’t expect hard disk drives to disappear, but the fastest will exit at the end of the year.

9 – Not-So-Converged I/O (Yet)

DCB ain’t ready, folks. Neither is FCoE. Although Ethernet will eventually sideline InfiniBand and Fibre Channel, that’s not a 2011 topic. I expect to hear a lot of noise about converged network and storage I/O, including high-profile customer adoption stories, but we’re still a few years short of actual impact and serious market share movement. Practical application starts in 2011, though, and it’ll get major coverage and big-money action in the vendor space.

10 – RAID is (Finally) Dead!

There won’t be much ink spilled in memoriam outside storage blogs like this one, but conventional mirroring and parity has finally met its maker. Today’s hard disk drives are too big to rebuild singly, and alternatives like wide striping, erasure coding, and touch-me-not disk packs are taking over.

And One More For Me

11 – The Internet is Shiva

Every business will be permanently changed as Internet-enabled platforms destroy profitable monopolies and build new opportunities. Google conquered advertising and destroyed traditional publishing but enabled a flowering of democratic dialog. PayPal and Square will do the same to banking in 2011, but their own come-uppance might come sooner than they like. No matter your business, someone has their sights set on you and the Internet is their tool. The trick is to keep dancing, keep innovating, and love the paradox.
The text to appear after expiration date.
Image Credit: Eleven by Wetsun

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Eleven Tech Trends To Watch In 2011
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History, Enterprise storage, 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.

• My posts
  • ioSafe SoloPRO Review: Is It The Safest Place For Your Data?
  • 4 Steps To Respond When Social Media Goes Negative
  • Amazon Is Still The Best Place To Buy Office 2011 For Mac
• Tech Field Day-related posts
  • The 3 R’s of I/O Profiling
  • Tech Field Day–Intel–10Gb Adoption In Datacenter Network
  • Tech Field Day::Aprius
  • Tech Field Day 4 , San Jose Roundup
  • Tech Field Day 4: SolarWinds Interview
  • Tech Field Day 4: Avere Interview
  • Tech Field Day 4: Aprius Interview
  • Tech Field Day 4: Actifio Interview
  • Tech Field Day 4: NetApp Cloud Interview
  • Tech Field Day 4: NetApp Interview
• Other interesting stuff
  • Don’t spam Wikipedia
  • Cisco IOS Hints and Tricks: Does FCoE need QCN (802.1Qau)?
  • Brocade And Cisco Maintain SAN Lock-In Status Quo With FCoE
  • Brocade, Cisco, End-to-End FCoE And Who’s On First
  • EMC: Solid progress but a way to go yet
  • Oracle Broadens x86 Virtualization Support, but Work Remains
  • Plagiarism Week: Finding the Slimy Slimeballs

Subscribe to my Google Reader feed or follow me on Twitter to see these in real-time.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Back From the Pile: Interesting Links, November 19, 2010
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Everything, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

FCoE is taking enterprise storage by storm, but where is Microsoft?

Microsoft is a controversial company, generating a mix of criticism and praise everywhere they are involved. Although I’m definitely a Microsoft skeptic, I’ve been pleased by much of the work they have done in my field of enterprise storage. Their client-side (“initiator” to us storage folks) work has been especially notable, making me wonder why no other operating system vendor has as diverse and full-featured storage support as Microsoft. I would go so far as saying that the iSCSI SAN revolution would not have happened if not for the folks up in Redmond.

Enterprise storage is in the midst of another shift these days. iSCSI moved low-end and midrange servers to SANs by leveraging Ethernet for connectivity. Now, the storage and networking industry is pushing to do the same for high-end Fibre Channel SANs, bringing Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) to life before our eyes. Although users are not yet on board, the dominance of FCoE seems almost certain to many industry watchers.

Where Is Microsoft?

But where is Microsoft when it comes to FCoE? I see no public statements of support for the protocol. I see no participation in FCoE standards-setting (though the company did recently join the FCIA as an “Observer”). Most importantly, I see no software features developing solid enterprise support for FCoE within the Windows operating system. Put simply, Microsoft does not seem to be participating in FCoE development, either on the initiator or target side.

Some may say Microsoft doesn’t need to get involved. After all, most FCoE integration will rely on third-party hardware and drivers that appear to be standard Fibre Channel HBAs to Windows. But this argument is spurious: Microsoft never got very involved in Fibre Channel either, and the confusing state of third-party FC SAN connectivity in Windows is a stark contrast to the solid and reliable iSCSI initiator. The fact that Microsoft embraced iSCSI while allowing third parties to “own” FC is an indictment of their stance towards FCoE.

Then there is Microsoft’s FCoE  logo program. In March, I was pleased to note that Microsoft would at least add FCoE to their Windows Logo program. Yet there has been no sign of the Logo Kit, promised for December, and just one mention of this program in the last year: Microsoft delayed enforcement of FCoE Logos until December of 2010. As far as an outside observer would know, Microsoft hasn’t moved forward with even the most basic FCoE support, a Logo program, in a year.

I am not suggesting that Microsoft must develop software FCoE targets. In fact, a Microsoft FCoE target might prove to be counter-productive, discouraging storage vendors from competing. A software initiator would be welcome, but the high-end target audience makes this less critical than for iSCSI. Instead, Microsoft should begin to develop a converged I/O framework around the DCB standards, including a detailed FC and FCoE integration architecture for third-party hardware and software.

Unacceptable

The current state of affairs is simply unacceptable. Consider the systems using FCoE: Many criticize Microsoft’s presence in the data center at all, but no one can deny their power there. Microsoft Windows Server powers most enterprise compute tasks today, running on almost three quarters of data center servers. Windows Server will almost certainly be the leading user of Fibre Channel over Ethernet connectivity.

On the other side of the equation, storage and networking vendors from EMC and NetApp to Cisco and Emulex are pushing hard for the FCoE transition. Regardless of end user indifference, FCoE will dominate SAN deployments in the next few years. It’s a question of “when” not “if”  - DCB and FCoE will take the data center by storm.

Certainly, Microsoft can simply allow the FCoE ship to sail without them on board. They can allow third-party HBA/CNA, server, and networking vendors to bring FCoE support to Windows. But this represents a massive missed opportunity for the company and a capitulation in the high end of the enterprise market. Microsoft must immediately move to take leadership in FCoE: Add corporate resources, step up standards efforts, publish the Logo Kit, and develop a framework of support.

Disclaimer: I am a Microsoft MVP in the area of storage. Their kind treatment of me obviously didn’t color my perception of them with regards to FCoE. I also have an NDA with Microsoft, and they have briefed me on future Windows Server and storage developments. Nothing in this post should be construed to reveal the company’s future plans.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Where Is Microsoft’s FCoE Support?
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Gestalt IT. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

HP invited bloggers to Colorado to show off their storage offerings at Tech Day 2009

Well that was interesting! I spent Monday and Tuesday with a dozen bloggers in Colorado Springs learning about HP’s key StorageWorks products from the executives and engineers of that storied company. Throughout the event, we listened, asked tough questions, and tweeted incessantly. HP Tech Day generated an avalanche of publicity for the company, including press articles and cries of FUD and misdirection.

Here is the truth: HP and Ivy did a darn fine job of putting together a set of sessions to tell us what they have. They presented folks who really knew their stuff, warts and all. They invited a variety of independent voices and let us ask and say anything we wanted with no expectations, let alone an NDA. This was a stellar event, and every other IT company should be asking why they didn’t do it first.

Won’t Be Fooled

But what was HP Tech Day really all about? Did they brainwash us into thinking the EVA was exciting? Did HP hoodwink and misdirect us from noticing the gaps and overlaps in their product line? Were we dazzled enough to no longer question their storage strategy? Of course not! Robin Harris has seen it all before. Rich Brambley can dissect a presentation with the best of them. Nigel Poulton questions everything he sees. This was not a love-fest, and there were some seriously uncomfortable moments for the HP crew.

We were all savvy enough to know what the score was: HP (and especially their StorageWorks product line) has never received much press or blogger attention. They invited us in to spread the word about their products and get blog exposure. And it worked! The storage Twitter-sphere was dominated with #HPTechDay postings for days, and attendees did indeed blog about the stuff they saw. It was a success from HP’s perspective, and now that we know more about their products we will likely cover them in the future.

I personally never blogged much about HP products. I compared them to Ford, called one product an all-time cool flop, and covered their acquisition of LeftHand and Ibrix, but that’s about it. I didn’t even notice that they had started selling LSI’s StoreAge-based virtualization platform, and didn’t know enough about their other product releases over the last two years to mention them. If it hadn’t been for Calvin Zito and the HP Tech Day, I probably wouldn’t mention them in the future, either. They just weren’t on my radar.

We Were Educated

This has changed as a result of Tech Day. I now know that EVA is still pretty much what I thought it was but that it is fairly simple to configure. I now know that HP has two lines of deduplication appliances, and that one is homegrown. I now know that HP develops and sells a FC SAN virtualization platform based on the LSI/StoreAge product. This was great product exposure for HP: Even though I still don’t think I’ll focus on these offerings, at least I now know that they exist.

We also saw some more interesting content: HP plans to leverage their excellent ProLiant server and blade technology to underpin a line of commodity-based storage and consolidated virtualization offerings. This is exciting stuff, and builds on HP’s base and their recent acquisitions. The most interesting concept I saw was a combination of a blade chassis and ultra-dense storage system with VMware ESX, LeftHand, Ibrix, and HP’s management software. They definitely plan to challenge Cisco/EMC and IBM in this market.

But the best part of the event was the people of HP. The company was smart enough to bring in the techies rather than executive marketing droids. They gave us straight and honest answers about their product capabilities and their place within the company, sometimes to the chagrin of others in the room. We saw conflicting definitions, product line overlaps, internal competition, and got a feel for the realities of this massive company. Every company is like this, but most would never admit what we already know. By not showering us with slick FUD, HP won our respect in a way that I would not have thought possible.

Colorado Take-Away

The event was great. Every other IT company should wise up and do the same. But I bet they won’t have the nerve to do it as openly, and I expect HP will be more careful next time too. As for HP’s products, let me lay out my honest opinion:

1. LeftHand was a bargain. HP could replace their entire sub-XP block storage product line with LeftHand variants based on commodity Intel hardware. I think they should.
2. Ibrix is too new to judge, but will likely take a seat next to LeftHand in a unified commodity-based scale-out SAN/NAS platform.
3. I hope HP hasn’t lost focus on their excellent Hitachi-based XP line, since it’s the only challenger they have to EMC Symmetrix at the high end of the market.
4. HP’s excellent server and blade hardware should be leveraged throughout the company and oddball hardware should be curtailed.
5. HP has an interesting lineup of Windows Storage Server and Windows Home Server hardware aimed at the low-end SOHO and SMB market. I’m not a Windows hater, but wouldn’t it be cool to have a super-low-end LeftHand variant there too?
6. I wonder if HP’s home-grown in-line deduplication (the D2D line) could replace the Sepaton-sourced post-process VLS line or vice-versa if an acquisition of that company happens.
7. I don’t “get” SVSP, the LSI/StoreAge SAN virtualization platform. It’s nice and it seems to work, but why introduce a FC SAN virtualization platform at this point? Maybe it sells when integrated with EVA, but not as a standalone product.
8. Where are all the storage arrays that use 2.5″ disk drives that HP talked about over the last few years? And where are the flash solid state drives?
9. They were like deer in the headlights with no story when I asked about sub-LUN automated tiered storage since even full-LUN automation has not yet been released. Might EMC get there first?
10. As for the absence of DCB and FCoE, HP seems to think that Virtual Connect and Flex-10 are good enough for now. HP will OEM a CNA soon and might possibly consider the Cisco Nexus 4000. Maybe. They had better have a more-convincing story when this stuff takes off next year!
11. Most importantly, where is the cloud strategy? I applaud HP for not overusing the current buzzword, but it almost seems like they are avoiding the topic entirely.

I am left thinking that HP is like a boxed puzzle. All of the pieces are there, but they haven’t been put into place yet. Let’s hope Dave Donatelli and his crew can help them work it out when he takes his post as czar of servers, networking, and storage next year. For now, I’ve gained a lot of respect for the people of HP and a pile of knowledge about their storage products. And HP has gained my attention.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | The Truth About HP’s Tech Day
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Everything, Gestalt IT, Personal, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Today, Brocade announced that it has completed its acquisition of Foundry Networks.  This is just the latest move in the strategic game to control the next generation of Ethernet, and possibly all local connectivity, including storage. Although 1 Gb Ethernet, 4 and 8 Gb Fibre Channel, and InfiniBand are all still going strong, the attention of the industry, the pundits, and the prognosticators (myself included) is firmly fixed on enhanced 10 Gb Ethernet. So Brocade’s move seems especially relevant to the core question of which companies will thrive and which will fail in a 10 Gb world.

Cisco is, as always, the big player everyone is gunning for. They created a subsidiary, Nuova, to develop a next-generation architecture, then absorbed the company in April. The result of Nuova’s work is Cisco’s Nexus line of data center switching products as well as much contribution to enhancements to Ethernet, known as Data Center Bridging (DCB) to the IEEE, Data Center Ethernet (DCE) to Cisco, and Converged Enhanced Ethernet (CEE) to others. The whole Nuova episode worked out quite well for Cisco, and they are well-positioned in the next-generation Ethernet game.

Although the fight to control the next generation of datacenter I/O can sometimes seem like a two-way battle between Cisco and Brocade, there are many players involved:

• Woven Systems launched its second-generation product in October. Aimed squarely at the largest data centers, the Woven line sells at bargain prices and expands incrementally, maintaining performance, according to the company.
• Force10 has also found success selling a complete line of 10 Gb Ethernet products, from the core data center to the edge.
• HP’s ProCurve line is mostly focused on smaller businesses, but the number-two supplier of networking hardware shouldn’t be discounted in this horse race!
• Arista Networks is another dark horse. With ex-Cisco “Data Center 3.0 commander” Jayshree Ullal and ex-Sun Andy Bechtolsheim, Arista has so far played its 10 Gb song to a cloud computing refrain. But the company reportedly has strong technology, and could be a contender in the converged I/O space as well.

This playing field is wide open. I expect Brocade and Cisco to be major players over the next few years, and that HP will acquire one of the other players at some point to add to their ProCurve line. But no matter who wins, the dominance of 10 Gb Ethernet is a safe bet.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2008. | Who Will Capture the 10 Gigabit Ethernet Crown?
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.