It's not going to be this easy to bridge Fibre Channel and Ethernet!

Before the holidays, I posed a question on Google+ that generated quite a bit of interest and feedback. Now that it has settled down a bit I’d like to summarize the unresolved elements to make FCoE truly a world-class storage interconnect.

Setting the Stage

FCoE has been a controversial topic in both storage and networking, and for good reason. No one would deny that Ethernet is not an ideal transport mechanism for block storage I/O. “Porting” Fibre Channel to run on Ethernet networks has been a supreme technical challenge, and many companies and individuals have labored long and hard to make FCoE a reality.

Now that FCoE is specified in the standard and has been deployed in production environments, the question turns to its future. Will it take off and seize the mantle of dominance currently held by what I like retroactively to call “Fibre Channel over Fibre Channel?” Will they coexist for the next decade, with FCoE mainly deployed in “block” environments such as Cisco UCS? Or will FCoE ultimately fail to catch on, displaced by some other storage protocol like plain FC, iSCSI, NFS, or something entirely different?

The data center needs a flexible new protocol to meet the needs of virtual environments, and convergence of storage and data networking makes a great deal of sense in these environments. This was the root of my question, and I ask it in all earnestness.

My question: What elements remain unresolved to make FCoE truly world-class? What should the vendors be prioritizing? Here are the answers I received.

Technical Considerations

Link Aggregation on CNA’s

Converged network adapters (CNA’s) allow multiple protocols to access a single Ethernet connection, but some also include multiple ports that can be aggregated. In traditional Ethernet networks, link aggregation is a respectable approach for performance and availability. But storage networks have traditionally relied on host-based MPIO software, and these features are mutually exclusive. The zeitgeist seems to be a recommendation to avoid link aggregation on CNA’s that are used for storage networks.

How Do You Handle Virtual Machine Mobility?

As I described recently, virtual machine mobility is a major technical challenge for existing networks. The VMware proposal, the VXLAN, seems to be gaining traction right now. But this is only a solution for data networking. How will FCoE SANs handle virtual machine mobility? This remains unresolved as far as I can tell, though Ethernet switch vendors have come up with their own answers. Brocade demonstrated just such a solution at Networking Field Day 2, and I know that others have answers as well. But will there be an interoperable industry solution?

How Should FCoE Be Implemented Over Longer Distances?

Fibre Channel has traditionally relied on routers and other protocols (FCIP and iFCP) to span distances, but FCoE raises the possibility of native traversal. While it is certainly possible to span distances with FCoE, this is definitely not a recommended or supported idea. Without TCP/IP, or any routing mechanism, it’s just a bad idea. But I imagine that it won’t be long before vendors decide to give it a go anyway.

Implementation Considerations

Is TRILL Required for FCoE Networks?

This has been one of my own questions since the very beginning. Clearly, edge only FCoE works just fine without TRILL. But as networks become more complicated, and virtual machines move, it seems an awfully good idea to have some protocol to alleviate East-West routing concerns. I feel much better with TRILL (or some similar Ethernet fabric technology) in a complicated FCoE network.

Should All Switches Be Full FC Forwarders?

There are number of ways to implement FCoE on Ethernet network, and not all involve building a full Fibre Channel stack in each switch. While many (including myself) assumed that FCoE implied Fibre Channel forwarding in all switches, this is clearly not the direction taken by vendors, at least initially. Perhaps the current “Ethernet forwarding” approach is only a stepping stone, or perhaps it will emerge as the dominant FCoE standard.

How Will OpenFCoE and LoM Be Used?

OpenFCoE is a software solution allowing FCoE to be run without a CNA. If this became popular, it wouldn’t be long before data center architects began looking at LAN on Motherboard (LoM) and even 10GBASE-T as a potential SAN alternative. Will this be used in the long run? It could happen, but it’s certainly not something that’s here at the moment. But OpenFCoE is a real player, especially with Intel’s backing.

How Will Technologies like Zoning Interoperate?

Many networkers are just now beginning to see the true complexity of Fibre Channel SANs. Although interoperability of higher-level Fibre Channel functions between vendors has never been a priority in “FC over FC” SANs, Ethernet could change things. I would not be at all surprised to see a groundswell of customer support demanding greater levels of interoperability from FCoE than from FC, and zoning and VSAN is the likely first beachhead.

The Big Question: When Will We See the “Killer App” For FCoE

Just about everyone agreed that the real challenge for FCoE is market acceptance. Customers aren’t yet demanding FCoE, and vendors are finding it hard to articulate a compelling case to move from “tried-and-true” FC. Convergence, cost savings, and performance have all been put forth, but customers aren’t biting. Perhaps they just need a little time and a little more proof.

This post relies extensively on feedback from a number of people, including Ivan Pepelnjak, Tony Bourke, J Metz, Dmitri Kalintsev, Derick Winkworth, David Hardaker, Juan Lage, and Corey Hines.

Read Scott Lowe’s response: What Does FCoE Have To Do With VM Mobility?

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2012. | Eight Unresolved Questions About FCoE
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Everything, 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.

It isn't always easy to get where you need to go!

Consider the following situation: You go to lunch with your good friends, John and Mary. Halfway through a rousing discussion of the latest Hollywood movie, Mary starts talking about the fantastic action sequences while John criticizes the romantic angle. You realize something mine-bending has happened: John now has Mary’s personality, and vice versa. It’s like they have switched brains or something!

This truly weird situation isn’t likely to happen in person, but occurs all the time in the data center. Virtualization of server, network, and storage services eliminates the fixed link between physical resources and functional applications. A running virtual machine can instantly move from one server, network adapter, HBA, or LUN to another. And when it happens, traditional components have no idea how to react.

The Challenges of Mobility

Mobility is perhaps the “killer app” of virtualization, but it is also the killer of traditional IT systems. Let’s consider the challenges of this “Twilight Zone” moment.

• The operating system expects a consistent hardware environment, which is exactly what the hypervisor creates
• The LAN must be prepared to redirect all network traffic instantly and seamlessly to one or more new physical interfaces
• The SAN similarly must be able to reroute all I/O to a new pair of HBA’s without missing a beat
• The storage array must be able to re-present capacity to a new physical device, and must maintain snapshots and other configurations
• The backup system must also be able to maintain consistency over time even as machines relocate to different server and storage locations

All of this must be done while maintaining quality of service (QoS), access control, reporting, and appropriate segmentation at all levels. This is an incredibly challenging task, and no conventional protocol (IP, Ethernet, NFS, SCSI, Fibre Channel, etc.) is anymore ready then you are when your good friends switch personalities.

Two Paths

So much of the development that is currently taking place in IT focuses on accommodating this “mobility issue”. Two key approaches have emerged to take on this challenge:

• “In a vacuum” technologies (like VXLAN) assume that no other changes will be made, so the focus is on maintaining complete compatibility in front and behind
• “Clean sheet” technologies (usually from startups) take a different approach, throwing out compatibility in favor of technical elegance

Both of these approaches have merit. Attempting to maintain compatibility only works so far (just ask a Windows API programmer), but it leverages the existing environment and recognizes that most people are not ready for wholesale change. Clean sheet designs always make more sense, but they rarely attain mass acceptance. Nearly every technology we rely on today is full of bolt-ons in the name of compatibility. Some, like Ethernet and x86, actually work pretty well, too.

The Stack of Lies

The difference between virtualization and cloud computing is exactly this same distinction. Hypervisors, NPV, NAT, thin provisioning, and so many other virtualization technologies exist mainly to maintain compatibility in a vacuum. In contrast, true cloud computing dispenses with the entire stack and creates a new platform for applications.

This is, perhaps, the reason that cloud computing is not taken off in the enterprise. Simply put, IT is not prepared to ditch everything they have ever used even in the face of a demonstrably superior alternative. Currently, the highest use of cloud is behind gateways and virtualization engines that bring it back down to earth.

This brings us to the stack of lies called server virtualization. Any “modern” virtualized data center is built on lie after lie, with each level telling the other what it wants to hear. The volume manager lies to the operating system; the hypervisor lies to the volume manager; and the storage array lies to the hypervisor. The same sad state of affairs allows networking and even memory to function in a virtual world.

But these shaky stacks of lies have difficulty adapting to motion, since no level truly “knows” the reality of the world around. The depressing truth is that a bowl of spaghetti like VXLAN is perhaps the highest form of art we can expect in a virtual data center.

Stephen’s Stance

As a techie, I am always drawn to clean sheet designs that offer technical elegance along with functionality. But I know that, realistically, products that assume nothing about the world around them and bend over backward to maintain compatibility are more likely to succeed. Still, I maintain hope that the issues of virtual machine mobility will be solved in an elegant way, rather than adding to the “stack of lies”.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | The Terrifying True Story Of Virtual Machine Mobility
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Features, 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.

Although I’m a long-time Fibre Channel user, and certainly not the sort of person who denies the capabilities of that hallowed storage protocol, is it really necessary anymore? On Thursday, October 6, I’ll be taking up the challenge and debating Stu Miniman on this very topic as part of the Interop Conference and Expo in New York. Knowing my enthusiasm for iSCSI, organizers Mike Fratto and Howard Marks made me the rebel upstart, leaving Stu to defend the tired old lady!

iSCSI is the challenger for long-dominant Fibre Channel protocol SAN

Let me make it perfectly clear ahead of time: I’m actually something of a defender of Fibre Channel myself! I cringe whenever the “superiority” of Ethernet is raised, but this has more to do with the high standards of typical Fibre Channel SAN implementations than any real technical quality. In other words, it’s fairly straightforward to deploy a high-performance, reliable Fibre Channel SAN and fairly difficult to do the same with Ethernet-based protocols.

That said, I see the era of Fibre Channel coming to an end. 8 Gb Fibre Channel is fairly compelling as an upgrade from 4 Gb, but the jury is out when it comes to 16 Gb or even 32 Gb off in the future. By that time, Ethernet SAN will be widely available and supported, and will likely boast 40 Gb or 100 Gb performance to boot. Who is going to adopt a 32 Gb Fibre Channel SAN when Ethernet is three times faster?

But all of this is the future. Today, the battle lines are drawn between 8 Gb Fibre Channel and 1 Gb or 10 Gb iSCSI and NFS. This is the baseline for my Interop debate. I am not arguing about the future of SAN, or even iSCSI versus NFS. Rather, I am arguing that most businesses would be best served by implementing an iSCSI SAN rather than purchasing Fibre Channel today.

I intend to record and stream our Interop debate, perhaps even real-time. Watch this blog for a recording, and follow me on twitter to see if a live stream is available. See you on Thursday!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Interop NYC and The Great Debate: ISCSI Beats Fibre Channel
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Everything, Personal, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

"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.

It’s hard to compare big numbers: Just how fast is 10 gigabits per second anyway? To help out, I’ve prepared another napkin-tastic infographic!

This illustration shows the number of ports required to match a single 10 Gb/s Light Peak connection (or 10 GbE link) in terms of real-world throughput. I used my own benchmarks to come up with real-world performance. Since these average 80% efficiency, I estimated that Light Peak would deliver 80% of its theoretical bandwidth, or just about 1000 Megabytes per second.

It’s important to remember that, despite the doom and gloom predictions, Light Peak is not intended to replace any existing port type. It is a high-speed interconnect for multiplexing these protocols. In other words, a Light Peak connection will carry multiple USB 3.0, FireWire, Ethernet, or other signals not some new special protocol. And Light Peak probably won’t use light at all at first: It will run over conventional copper wiring, perhaps combined with USB 3.0!

It’s fun to imagine what such a port would mean to the physical design of portable computers. A future MacBook Air could have a single combined port carrying either USB 3.0 or 10 Gb/s Light Peak over copper (“Copper Peak”?). This could connect to a “dock” or break-out box, or perhaps the ports could be embedded in a monitor or even the power adapter. This remote block could include everything we might need: 1 Gb Ethernet, FireWire 800, USB 3.0, and ExpressCard (PCI-over-Light Peak isn’t that far-fetched).

About the only thing Light Peak will have difficulty carrying is full-bandwidth video. Apple’s current DisplayPort cables already carry 10.2 Gb/s of data, and the DisplayPort signal driving a 27″ 2650×1600 display would saturate a Light Peak connection. Unless Apple has something up their sleeve (multi-link Light Peak?) we’re not yet looking at single-port computers!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Infographic: Real-World Port Throughput Relative To Light Peak
This post was categorized as Apple, Features, Personal, Terabyte home. 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.

Once something is in place, it's hard to get it to move again

In Philosophiæ Naturalis, Sir Isaac Newton defined inertia as follows:

The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.

Although Newton was referring to physical objects, the power of inertia affects companies, markets, and relationships in the same manner.  Humans are creatures of habit, and change is challenging.  When faced with a choice of continuing along the same road or branching off in a new direction, most will choose familiarity.

Inertia in IT Architecture

Consider the impact of inertia on IT architecture: once the solution is in place, it tends to remain there for a very long time.  This rule applies to practices, architectures, solutions, and hardware and software.  It explains the continued presence of Token Ring, MS-DOS, Mac OS 9, and Palm organizers in so many companies.  It also explains the curious devotion IT pros field toward solutions that are backward compatible: Ethernet, Windows, Intel x86 architecture, and so on.

Once, while visiting the data center of a midsize financial institution, I spotted a stack of old IBM PC desktop computers in the corner.  The company had purchased a company, which itself had purchased a bank many years ago.  The loans from that long ago and far off institution were still serviced by this archaic hardware and software.  The company’s IT staff had squirreled away half a dozen replacement computers so they could migrate the application to new old hardware in the event of a failure.  If this isn’t inertia, I don’t know what it is.

Overcoming Inertia

An external force is required to overcome inertia, and one must desire to initiate a change.  New products and solutions must not merely be attractive, it must also be compelling enough to overcome this inertia.  In my experience, there are three reasons that companies change direction when it comes to IT architecture:

1. A noticeable irrefutable return on investment (ROI)
2. A tangible and necessary performance benefit
3. A unique and desirable function

Many new technologies show promise in all three areas, including 10 Gigabit Ethernet, Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE), server virtualization, and data deduplication.  But these potential benefits are not necessarily compelling in all IT environments.

A company with a substantial investment in Fibre Channel SAN hardware may find that upgrading to 8 Gb Fibre Channel is more compelling than a switch to converged networking and FCoE.  Many companies have found it hard to justify the additional cost of data compression or deduplication technology when compared with the decreasing cost of capacity or the benefits of improved utilization through better storage management.  The growth of server virtualization has been steady, but the hold-outs indicate that many companies find it hard to justify the technology.

Stephen’s Stance

Contrary to our nerd dreams, mere technical superiority does not guarantee the success of a new product or solution.  It must be better, faster, and cheaper to achieve widespread success.  In short, it must demonstrate a compelling case, or inertia will set in and derail its progress.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | The Three Requirements To Overcome Inertia
This post was categorized as Computer History, Personal, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Light Peak could share a plug with a full USB 3.0 port for power and compatibility!

Yesterday I talked about Light Peak, the new optical interconnect being developed by Apple, Intel, and others. Today I’m continuing that theme, suggesting a possible productization that would really take Light Peak to the next level: Integrating it with USB 3.0.

Light Peak Background

As discussed yesterday, Light Peak is a cable, not a protocol. It’s a mechanism to carry data from one point to another at high speed but lacks a schema for that data. Instead, Light Peak will carry existing data types like USB, DVI/HDMI video, Ethernet, and perhaps even PCI.

But one major element is lacking at this point: Power. Most existing interconnects carry data as well as low-voltage DC to power connected devices. USB is the poster child, with many USB devices powered by the port rather than an external “power brick”, but other interconnects feature power as well: Power over Ethernet is in wide corporate use, especially for voice-over-IP (VoIP) telephone systems, and the HDMI includes DC power as well, though just 5 volts and 50 mA.

Being an optical medium, Light Peak cannot easily carry power, since the plastic fibers used are non-conductive. Although Apple and Intel have hinted at a bundled copper wire for electrical power, one thin and flexible enough would experience an unacceptable voltage drop over the long runs possible with optical fiber. Therefore, we are likely to see a number of permutations of Light Peak:

1. Native optical-only Light Peak for long distances or devices not needing power
2. Light Peak bundled with a power cable, as hinted in this Apple patent
3. Light Peak bundled with a data cable, likely USB

It is this last permutation that interests me the most.

How Light Peak Will Be Used

Imagine a new MacBook Air with a single I/O port. Unlike the old one (which used slow USB 2.0), this new device could connect at high speed to just about anything through a simple converter or docking station. And images suggest daisy-chained devices reminiscent of today’s rarely-used FireWire connection.

It seems very likely that the eventual Light Peak products will carry USB, DVI or DisplayPort, SATA, and Ethernet data over a single cable. Since it has so much bandwidth, Light Peak will probably support both conventional and higher-speed variants of those protocols: This means that USB 2.0 and 3.0 will coexist, as will 1.5, 3, and 6 Gbps SATA and Gigabit Ethernet. We will probably even see PCI Express extended over Light Peak!

Apple has long championed thinner form factors and reduced cable clutter, and it’s worth noting that they’re the driving force behind Light Peak. This makes the concept of a single-port MacBook that much more likely. But what will that port look like?

Light Peak = USB 3.0?

Despite the over-used graphics representing a surface-mount 4-fiber Light Peak connector, the end-user plug-and-cable form factor hasn’t been decided. One serious drawback of optical connections is that they can’t transmit power, putting a crimp in the “one wire” vision. So the safe money says that final Light Peak spec will include both copper (for power and perhaps additional data) as well as optical channels bonded together into a single cable.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that a common variant of Light Peak will in fact use a fully-functional USB 3.0 port with one or two optical connections embedded in the center. Just as the headphone jack used in many Macintosh computers today includes a Mini-TOSLINK optical cable in the center, these Light Peak-enabled USB connectors will be compatible with current USB devices, from thumb drives to coffee warmers.

But connect a Light Peak-capable device (using a plain-looking but optical-enabled USB-type cable) and a whole new world will open up. The copper wires will carry an amp or two of power, allowing a monitor, hard disk drive, or printer to come to life, and these will include additional Light Peak ports for more device connectivity. I imagine we will see Light Peak USB hubs contained in monitors which will act as a docking station to this future MacBook.

Connectors like this USB 3.0 mini plug meet the tight tolerances of an optical interconnect

One issue for this USB-centric vision is the connector itself. Being an optical media using extremely thin fibers, Light Peak connections will need precise mating of connector and jack. But conventional USB is much more tolerant of misalignment, and this connector might be unsuitable for optical usage. The slimmer mini USB variant used by some USB 3.0 devices is more appropriate for this use, but this may not be an issue after all: Intel’s videos show what appears to be a conventional USB plug carrying Light Peak already!

Stephen’s Stance

But What If Light Peak Was Electrical Rather Than Optical?

My theory is simple: Light Peak will be a superior and enhanced version of USB 3.0 rather than a competitor or replacement. Apple is holding off on the USB upgrade so they can deliver this new world, not so they can scuttle it. They have learned the lesson of compatibility but want a superior one-wire experience for users. They’ve even delivered a prototype with the optical-capable audio jacks found on every current Macintosh computer!

I expect to see such devices hit the market in late 2011, and hope this backwards/forwards compatibility vision is realized. Without the USB/Light Peak connection, we could be witnessing FireWire and DisplayPort all over again, with Light Peak pushed aside as a proprietary Apple-only connection for high-end devices. A combination of Light Peak and USB is an ideal way to prevent this kind of marginalization!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Light Peak + USB 3.0 = Awesome!
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.

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.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | How Fast Is It? A Storage Infographic
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History, Enterprise storage, Features, Personal, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.