Some Online Research

Looking around online, I have found some useful data:

1. Dell claims their EqualLogic systems lead with over 14% of the market according to IDC. They base this on a September 2010 study, “IDC Multiclient Report:  Server Virtualization 2010″ and include the chart at right from that study
2. Other references to that study (including this IDC press release) claim the following:
   1. “23% of all servers shipped in 2014 will be actively supporting virtual machine technology”
   2. “more than 70% of all server workloads installed on new shipments in 2014 will reside in a virtual machine”
   3. “More than $19 billion will be spent on server hardware in support of these applications”
   4. “IDC estimates that these 2.2 million physical servers will in reality become as many as 18.4 million logical servers with customers deploying an average of 8.5 virtual machines per physical host by 2014″
3. Some ESG charts available from EMC suggests a different story:
   1. EMC leads with 25% of the market for “the primary vendor” for storage for virtual servers
   2. HP is next at 17%, followed by IBM and Dell, both at 16%
   3. Among VMware users, EMC lead with 40% to IBM’s 20%, HP’s 12%, and Dell’s 9%

Unanswered Questions

While it’s nice to see the vendors listed, I’m much more interested in answering “what are other people doing” questions. Where’s the hard data answering the following questions:

1. What percentage of servers are virtual? How does this break across industries or for production versus test/dev?
2. What is the actual market share or connect rate for the various storage protocols (FC, iSCSI, NFS, SAS, FCoE, etc)?
3. How much virtual server storage is connected to a network (SAN, NAS) versus direct-attached (DAS)?
4. Is networked storage uptake accelerating or slowing?
5. What rate of usage do advanced storage features like VAAI have?
6. Are folks booting VM guests from the SAN?
7. How much are people spending on storage for virtual servers versus the server or network hardware or virtualization software?
8. What’s the breakdown of usage for the various storage mapping methods? (Raw devices, VMFS, PVSCSI, iSCSI in the guest)
9. Are folks using blades or conventional servers?
10. What about 10 GbE and FCoE?

Stephen’s Stance

Perhaps IDC, ESG, or others would be willing to share their research with me so I can use it in my seminar. Or perhaps a vendor highlighted here (Dell, EMC, HP, NetApp, or IBM) would like to share the reports with me to enhance the session. Either way, it would be great for end users to learn some real numbers instead of relying on press releases and sales pitches.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Storage for Server Virtualization: I Need Numbers
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Personal, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Is Maximum Performance Relevant?

Loping along at 75 mph in a Corvette Z06

My opinion on maximum performance might seem clear from the paragraph above, but it’s more nuanced than that. Although maximum performance is not singularly important, it is often an indicator for more relevant metrics. For example, a car that lags behind all others in absolute acceleration or top speed might be similarly unable to deliver satisfying performance driving around town. And, all other elements being equal, the quicker car may have better engineering.

Consider the now-infamous Tolly report comparing the HP c7000 blade system with Cisco’s UCS. Many complained that the test was unfair to Cisco, and I noted that they cherry-picked favorable results. Yet this report did start a discussion on HP’s blade products, oversubscription, Ethernet and FCoE versus Virtual Connect and Flex10, and the merits of blade personality. Although the performance test wasn’t the smack-down that HP seems to have wanted, they would probably judge the report to be a success.

Microsoft recently demonstrated that their software iSCSI initiator (in combination with Intel’s Xeon 5500 and 10 GbE adapters) can achieve wire-speed throughput and one million IOPS. This was a particularly wise benchmark even though it neither demonstrated a real-world use case nor directly compared to the performance of competing protocols. No, the report was news-worthy because it demonstrated a level of performance that defied conventional wisdom. The Microsoft/Intel iSCSI test was analogous to Nissan’s record-setting lap of the Nürburgring Nordschleife in their GT-R: It set the world on notice that they were a serious contender.

So maximum-performance tests can be useful to get the world talking and challenge the status quo. They can also demonstrate innate technical superiority, though one has to investigate such claims fully to see whether they are being made fairly.

Comparing Contenders

Although maximum performance should always be taken with a grain of salt, comparisons can take many other factors into consideration. The real value of performance comparisons comes when an attempt is made to model real-world usage. Holistic evaluation, taking both objective and subjective metrics into account, can help buyers separate the wheat from the chaff.

I very much respect the spirit behind “real world” benchmarks like SPC Benchmark-1. The creators attempted to reflect actual enterprise workloads for storage systems, including email servers, databases, and OLTP. Although many criticize the exact specifications or application of these tests, I applaud that they are rooted in what end users actually do with storage.

I was similarly impressed by the Data Center Infrastructure Group’s new Midrange Array Buyer’s Guide. Jerome Wendt and company assessed every storage system across a slice of the market and laid out the facts in an easy-to-understand format. My initial examination of the results was reassuring: The Guide passed my “sniff test”, with systems I know to be good near the top. One can argue the merits of each system’s placement, but I am certain that end users will be able to use this document to create “short lists” of solid products to evaluate.

Then there are people like Howard Marks at DeepStorage, Dennis Martin at Demartek, and the folks at ESG Labs. Each is doing a yeoman’s job of trying to generate real-world use cases and comparisons. This is what benchmarking and testing should be all about: Helping people make sense of the confusing array of products on the market. I applaud them for turning hands-on time into suggestions for improvement, guides for usage, and fodder for comparison. No one will run out and buy “that specific device” based on a benchmark, but they might open their eyes and consider “these few.” That sounds like a win to me.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | In Praise of Performance Comparisons
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.

I will be wearing two hats at the show as usual:

1. I’ll be attending as press, representing this blog and Gestalt IT and learning about all of the new storage technology being launched. I’ve got some questions for quite a few companies, too, and look forward to covering their products here in the future.
2. I’ll also be introducing my new Nirvanix Consulting practice, and probably fielding lots of questions about what exactly that means.

I’ve got a full roster of meetings, both informal and scheduled, over the next three days. Along with many, many marketing reps, I’m looking forward to meeting tons of storage bloggers, some old friends and some for the first time: George Crump, Steve Duplessie, Carter George, Howard Marks, Beth Pariseau, Dave Simpson, Jerome Wendt, Hu Yoshida, IDC, ESG, and The Wikibonners, I hope I didn’t miss anyone, but I’m sure I did. Greg? Mark? Marc?

Traveler's unicorn: A 3 oz tube of toothpaste! Why did it take so long for a TSA-approved tube?

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | Spring Storage Networking World 2009, Here I Come!
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Personal. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Dave called me for this piece, and I was pleased with the question.  Truth be told, there really are compelling benefits from virtualization, but most folks have been waiting for a real “must have” killer application for the technology.  In order for this tech to make the impact it should, we in the industry have to change some of our thinking:

• Storage virtualization means more than just Fibre Channel block aggregation.  There are great applications inside servers and arrays and in the NAS world, too.
• Speaking of NAS, Microsoft DFS is probably the most-implemented storage virtualization product, and just about every NAS array has cool aggregation and migration features.
• Virtualization is a feature, not a product.  HDS has seen the amazing potential for block virtualization in migration and storage flexibility, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
• Storage and server virtualization go well together – so well, in fact, that ESG reports that 24% of those who have implemented the latter are also using the former!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2008. | Storage Virtualization: What Is It Good For?
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Personal. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.