How could a company as mighty and diverse as HP have had so many issues with executive management?

HP stumbled mightily in 2011, and it had nothing to do with product or people. Even sales remained strong, though the PC business is changing. HP’s mighty stumble was a crisis of confidence due to a chain of shenanigans at the very top. This culminated with the short reign of Léo Apotheker, leaving HP to reassure the market of its strategy.

HP And the Enterprise IT Industry

Sometimes, it’s hard to get a sense of scale when talking about very large things. How big is the solar system? How far away is the nearest star? The same is true of earthly things, exemplified by popular misconceptions about the global financial crisis. It’s difficult for people to understand just how much money a trillion dollars is.

In my little world of enterprise storage, it’s difficult to reconcile “big storage” players like EMC and NetApp with “big storage and everything else” players like HP, Dell, Oracle and IBM. Sure, EMC and NetApp lead the pack in terms of market share, but they’re nowhere near as large as the integrated players. HP has more than 7 times the revenue of EMC, which makes 3 times more than NetApp.

This old slide might need updating, but you get the picture...

HP is an incredibly diverse company, dominant in the PC, printing, and blade server market and top 5 just about everywhere else, including networking, services, and enterprise storage. And HP has nearly 325,000 employees, all working to move the company forward in one direction or another.

NetApp is a motorcycle, with one drive wheel pushing it forward at high speed; HP is more like NASA’s shuttle crawler-transporter, a 16 motor mammoth. Single-purpose companies can be agile, but they can also be derailed by market downturn or technological shift. Storage specialists like NetApp continually try to innovate and acquire to keep themselves vital, while larger companies like Cisco and EMC try to diversify while maintaining market leadership. HP doesn’t need to try; it is diverse.

HP Is a Very Large Thing

I watched HP's rise in the server market of the 1990's

HP has long been synonymous with innovation, high-technology, and silicon Valley. I have been an HP customer as long as I have been in IT, and watched as they integrated technology from Apollo and Convex in the 1990’ s. The server products that resulted became the dominant UNIX platform, but HP’ s innovative storage concepts didn’ t take the market by storm.

After HP merged with Compaq (which brought Tandem and Digital Equipment Corporation), the company vaulted ahead in the Wintel market and also gained valuable storage expertise. Throughout the last decade, HP was firing on all cylinders and dominant in nearly every arena. The company owns half the blade server market, is tied for first in servers, leads in PCs and printers, and is a contender in networking and storage. It’s simply impossible to say what HP is in a single sentence.

HP storage has an extremely broad product range, which management is working to reconcile. Acquisitions of LeftHand, Ibrix, and 3PAR gave HP storage shot in the arm to be sure. An injection of startup mojo has energized the marketing and product groups within HP just when the company needed it. HP’ s market share has grown somewhat as a result, though not as much as the hyper-focused NetApp. HP networking similarly took on 3Com, bedeviling Cisco in the Ethernet switch market.

The Executive Soap Opera

It takes a lot to bring a mammoth to its knees, but a shot between the eyes usually does the trick. While the many engines of HP push it forward, the company’s upper management has seemed, at times, suicidal. Business schools could design an entire curriculum around the folly of Patricia “I spy” Dunn and Mark “penny-pinching” Hurd. Who would think that HP management could top this?

From August 2010 through September 2011, HP dominated IT headlines in completely the wrong way. The board wanted a change, and selected Léo Apotheker to transform HP. But it was a soap opera from the very start, with Oracle hiring Mark Hurd and sending Apotheker into hiding among accusations of corporate espionage while at SAP.

The new CEO didn’t seem to understand HP at all, though he was intent on steering it in a new direction. Apotheker set about dismantling HP’s consumer and end-user businesses, killing Palm/WebOS and threatening to sell off the PC business. The company was to focus instead on enterprise computing, but these drastic moves spooked the entire industry.

It wasn’t long before HP’s board struck again, with a shake up at the hands of Ray Lane and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman brought in to replace Apotheker. The first order of business for the new HP executive team appears to be reassuring the entire world that management has not gone completely insane.

Stephen’s Stance

To an outsider like me, the most disappointing thing about HP’s mighty stumble is that it has nothing to do with the people who really make the company what it is. I have met many creative, hard-working individuals in HP’s storage, server, networking, and printer groups, and they could not be more different from the executive soap opera. I only hope that this new board and CEO will bring some stability and let HP cruise forward once again.

Disclaimer: HP has sponsored the Tech Field Day events which I organize, and has on occasion invited me to attend events at their expense.  But I do similar work with nearly every company in the IT industry, and this piece is my own opinion.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2012. | HP’s Mighty Stumble
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.

Servers, storage, and networks may be interconnected, but most large IT organizations keep the administrative teams from mixing. But the next-generation virtual data center might change that!

Lots of my IT infrastructure management clients are talking about how the advent of Ethernet/IP and virtualization is changing the roles of storage, server, and network administrators. The evolution of the storage role in particular in enterprise IT organizations has been a topic of particular interest to me for a while: I definitely remember thinking about this as iSCSI and Cisco came on the scene a few years back, but the question of integration of storage, server, network, and application management areas is as old as IT.

Back in 2005, I wrote a column in Storage magazine, asking Who Watches the SAN? Although there were (and still are) reasons one might consider handing SAN management over to the network team, such as the use of iSCSI, Cisco FC, or (soon) FCoE, I concluded that many network teams just aren’t ready to take on SAN management. Storage is different – extremely sensitive to latency and outages and burdened with interconnect concepts that are similar, but not identical, to their network cousins. So most people are better off leaving SAN management in the hands of storage people, regardless of whether their SAN is made up of FC or iSCSI.

The Virtual Data Center

Things are changing, however. The modern data center is evolving to virtualize all three major IT infrastructure components: Servers, storage, and networks. Over the last year or so, we’ve seen the first fully-virtual infrastructure built, with all three areas combined in a single box, soup-to-nuts. Consider a VMware ESX server with virtual servers talking over virtual networks to a virtual storage array from FalconStor or LeftHand – it’s an entire data center in a box!

Server admins are normally tasked with everything “in the box”, including VMFS and virtual network connectivity, just as they always had to manage volume managers and path management software back in the “physical server” world. I doubt this will change. So we could see not just storage but network folks excluded entirely from the next-generation virtual datacenter!

This doesn’t have to be how things end up, though. I strongly believe that network and storage pros have critical insight into their areas, and cutting them out would be a tragic loss akin to what happened when open systems folks decided not to pay attention to the lessons of the mainframe generation. We would effectively repeat a decade of experience and learning that could, with minor modifications, be brought right into the modern world.

There are three things to do:

1. Re-combine the stovepipe IT infrastructure organizations (server, storage, network) into a single management organization with specialists in these areas and others like virtualization and cloud computing.
2. Spend the time and money to cross-train everyone to re-apply their experience and skills in this new world. Storage folks, for example, must know a good bit about server virtualization or their skills will have much less value!
3. Bring the mainframe, security, and records management folks to the party, too! They all have essential insights, and a failure to give them a seat at the table would be a critical loss.

Database and Applications

Then there are the DBAs and IT application folks. These teams have always been held at arms-length in the open systems world, and much closer on the mainframe side (especially the database people!) I think there has been a feeling that there were enough interests at the IT infrastructure planning meetings already without mixing them in as well! The current response is a service-based approach, where IT infrastructure adds an analyst role to develop SLAs and standard service offerings and act as a liaison between ITI and IT Apps.

This is probably enough for a conventional system, but there are changes here as well. Virtual appliances can step right into the apps arena, and the database/storage hybrid devices from Oracle/HP, Netezza, and the rest tromp right through the DBA world. Then there are the “webby dubby” (Web 2.0) storage services/devices like Amazon S3, Nirvanix, and EMC Atmos to consider.

Stephen’s Stance

I think we’re seeing another serious change to the status quo: Right after the data center is virtualized and IT infrastructure is recombined, applications themselves will fundamentally transform, demanding a merger of the current IT infrastructure and IT applications groups. This could all come within five years, or it could be delayed or diverted by organizational infighting and intransigence. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Changes in Technology Drive Changes in IT Organizations and Roles
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Note: This information was based on the “VMware Storage/SAN Compatibility Guide” and is being regularly updated. Please add comments here and I will add products and change and update listings as soon as they appear in the guide!

Where, Why, and What is VAAI?

I’ve previously discussed the fact that VMware’s excellent ESX hardware compatibility list (HCL) is so comprehensive than obscures basic facts about supported products. This is especially true for VAAI, since compatibility is only noted as a footnote in individual storage array listings. It does not help matters that not all VAAI plugins support all three capabilities.

Like my previous posts regarding FCoE CNA’s, SATA and PATA chipsets, and home/lab network cards, I’ll attempt to boil down the VMware ESX HCL into plain English. This data will also be part of my Storage for Virtual Servers seminar presentation, the first of which will be given on March 10 in Philadelphia.

I’m not going to spend too much time on “what is VAAI” in this post. Instead, I suggest you read the following blog posts and VMware’s excellent guide, “What’s New in VMware vSphereTM 4.1 — Storage“?

• What is VAAI, and how does it add spice to my life as a VMware admin?
• vStorage APIs for Array Integration aka VAAI
• If You Ever Needed Convincing About VAAI…
• VMware VAAI pros and cons and the hidden fourth primitive

The Three VAAI Primitives

You ought to read the updated Complete List of VMware VAAI Primitives since it’s much more thorough and informative!

In ESX 4.1, that vStorage API for Array Integration includes three basic capabilities or primitives:

1. Blocks zeroing is a communication method for thin provisioning capable storage arrays, allowing them to quickly zero out storage capacity for later reclamation.
2. Full copy commands the storage array to make a mirror or snapshot of data without any I/O on the server hardware.
3. Hardware assisted locking enables more granular control of shared storage resources in ESX clusters

In order to support VAAI, a storage array requires two things:

1. Hardware capable of supporting one or more of the three primitives listed above
2. A software plug in for ESX enabling communication and integration

VAAI Plug In Support

Creating a VAAI plug in is not a trivial task, and not all storage arrays are yet supported. I have heard grumbling from storage vendors that EMC (the storage vendor that owns VMware) has been given early access to VAAI information, allowing them to support this feature set before their competitors. However, this has not stopped a diverse set of other unrelated storage vendors from quickly producing and releasing effective and complete VAAI plugins.

As of this writing, there are 11 array-specific plugins and one general-purpose plug in available for ESX 4.1. EMC, NetApp, 3PAR (HP), HDS, FalconStor, Fujitsu, IBM, Dell (EqualLogic), and HP (LeftHand, P9000, P2000) have produced VAAI plugins supporting all three primitives. Additionally, a cloud in supporting the T10 blocks zeroing methods is available, enabling other arrays to support this one primitive. Note that the T10 primitive should support nearly any capable array, but not all have been tested and qualified for use with it.

VAAI Support Matrix

Note that similar OEM versions (for example, Fujitsu’s FibreCAT CLARiiONs, and the Gateway/Lenovo/Acer AMS line) are also supported the same as the manufacturer’s offerings. I’ve simplified and eliminated similar models (the Dell EqualLogic PS6000E, PS6000S, PS6000X, PS6000XV, and PS6000XVS are all listed simply as PS6000).

Updates:

• IBM recently added full VAAI for the XIV, SVC, and similar Storwize V7000. I’m sure they’re also working on complete VAAI plugins for the big DS8000 systems!
• EMC certified the new VNX line for VAAI (FC only for now) and the V-Max just gained iSCSI VAAI support.
• FalconStor added VAAI for NSS, enabling any storage array to be used.
• HP created VAAI plugins for the P9500 and MSA P2000 lines as well.

Stephen’s Stance

VAAI is an exciting new capability for VMware ESX, and demonstrates the enterprise readiness of vSphere 4.1. Although not all storage arrays are yet supported, the diverse assortment listed above should cover the majority of enterprise storage environments. I fully expect that the obvious holes will be filled in soon, and I look forward to updating this list when I hear news of those product releases. I also look forward to learning of additional capabilities added as VAAI primitives in the future!

The Exhaustive List

I am attempting to keep this list up to date. My authoritative source of information is the VMware Storage Compatibility Guide. This is the only source of information I will use, since only official and supported implementations belong in production. But I welcome pointers, suggestions, and referrals for updates!

This list is complete as of February 21, 2011

Full VAAI (All 3 primitives)

• Dell
  • EqualLogic
    • iSCSI (vmw_vaaip_eql)
      • Dell EqualLogic PS4000E (Dell EqualLogic PS4000X; Dell EqualLogic PS4000XV)
      • Dell EqualLogic PS5000E (Dell EqualLogic PS5000X; Dell EqualLogic PS5000XV)
      • Dell EqualLogic PS5500E
      • Dell EqualLogic PS6000E (Dell EqualLogic PS6000S; Dell EqualLogic PS6000V; Dell EqualLogic PS6000XV; Dell EqualLogic PS6000XVS)
      • Dell EqualLogic PS6010E (Dell EqualLogic PS6010S; Dell EqualLogic PS6010X; Dell EqualLogic PS6010XV; Dell EqualLogic PS6010XVS)
      • Dell EqualLogic PS6500E (Dell EqualLogic PS6500X)
      • Dell EqualLogic PS6510E (Dell EqualLogic PS6510X)
      • EqualLogic PS100E
      • EqualLogic PS200E
      • EqualLogic PS300E
      • EqualLogic PS3600X
      • EqualLogic PS3700X
      • EqualLogic PS3800XV
        • EqualLogic PS3900XV
      • EqualLogic PS400E
      • EqualLogic PS50E
      • EqualLogic PS70E
• EMC
  • FC (vmw_vaaip_cx)
    • EMC CLARiiON CX4-120 (EMC CLARiiON CX4-120 C8/C8X; Dell/EMC CLARiiON CX4-120; Fujitsu FibreCAT CX4-120)
    • EMC CLARiiON CX4-240 C8/C8X
    • EMC CLARiiON CX4-480 (EMC CLARiiON CX4-480 C8/C8X; Dell/EMC CLARiiON CX4-480)
    • EMC CLARiiON CX4-960 (EMC CLARiiON CX4-960 C8/C8X; Dell/EMC CLARiiON CX4-960)
    • EMC Celerra NS-120
    • EMC Celerra NS-480
    • EMC Celerra NS-960
    • EMC VNX5100
    • EMC VNX5300
    • EMC VNX5500
    • EMC VNX5700
    • EMC VNX7500
  • FC/iSCSI/FCoE (VMW_VAAI_SYMM)
    • EMC Symmetrix VMAX
  • iSCSI (vmw_vaaip_cx)
    • EMC Celerra CNS
    • EMC Celerra NS-120
    • EMC Celerra NS-480
    • EMC Celerra NS-960
    • EMC CLARiiON CX4-120 C8
    • EMC CLARiiON CX4-240 C8
    • EMC CLARiiON CX4-480 (EMC CLARiiON CX4-480 C8)
    • EMC CLARiiON CX4-960 (EMC CLARiiON CX4-960 C8)
• FalconStor
• FC (unknown)
• CDP Gateway
• CDP SA
• CDP VS
• CDPx Gateway
• IPStor Enterprise
• NSS Gateway
• NSS SA
• NSS VS
• Fujitsu
  • FC (fjt_vaaip_module)
    • Fujitsu Eternus DX410
    • Fujitsu Eternus DX440
    • Fujitsu Eternus DX8100
    • Fujitsu Eternus DX8400
    • Fujitsu Eternus DX8700
  • iSCSI (fjt_vaaip_module)
    • Fujitsu Eternus DX410
    • Fujitsu Eternus DX440
    • Fujitsu Eternus DX8100
    • Fujitsu Eternus DX8400
    • Fujitsu Eternus DX8700
• Hitachi
  • FC (vmw_vaaip_hds)
    • Hitachi AMS 2100 (Acer AMS2100; Gateway AMS2100; HDS AMS 2100; Lenovo-HDS AMS2100)
    • Hitachi AMS 2300 (Acer AMS2300; Gateway AMS2300; HDS AMS 2300; Lenovo-HDS AMS2300)
    • Hitachi AMS 2500 (HDS AMS 2500)
    • Acer AS2040; Gateway GS2040
    • Hitachi AMS 2010
    • Hitachi BR1600/BR1600E/BR1600S
    • Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform (Hitachi VP9500; HP StorageWorks P9500)
    • Nihon-Unisys Sanarena 1910
    • Nihon-Unisys Sanarena 1930
    • Nihon-Unisys Sanarena 1970
    • Nihon-Unisys Sanarena 1990
  • iSCSI (vmw_vaaip_hds)
    • Hitachi AMS 2010
    • Hitachi AMS 2100 (HDS AMS 2100; Lenovo-HDS AMS2100)
    • Hitachi AMS 2300 (HDS AMS 2300; Lenovo-HDS AMS2300)
    • Hitachi AMS 2500 (HDS AMS 2500)
    • Hitachi BR1600E
    • Nihon-Unisys Sanarena 1930
    • Nihon-Unisys Sanarena 1970
    • Nihon-Unisys Sanarena 1990
    • Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform
• HP
  • 3PAR
    • FC (3PAR_vaaip_InServ)
      • InServ E200
      • InServ F-Class
      • InServ S400
      • InServ S800
      • T-Class
    • iSCSI (3PAR_vaaip_InServ)
      • InServ E200
      • InServ F-Class
      • InServ S400
      • InServ S800
      • T-Class
  • P9500
  • FC (hp-vaaip-p9000)
  • HP P9500
  • P2000
  • FC/iSCSI (hp-vaaip-p2000)
  • HP MSA P2000
  • LeftHand
    • iSCSI (vmw_vaaip_lhn)
      • HP LeftHand P4500
      • HP LeftHand P4000 VSA
      • HP LeftHand P4000sb
      • HP LeftHand P4300 (HP LeftHand P4300 G2)
      • HP LeftHand P4500 (HP LeftHand P4500 G2)
      • HP LeftHand P4800
      • HP ProLiant DL380
      • Dell 2950
      • IBM x3650
      • LeftHand NSM 160
      • LeftHand NSM 185
      • LeftHand NSM 2060 (LeftHand NSM 2060 G2)
      • LeftHand NSM 2120 (LeftHand NSM 2120 G2)
      • LeftHand NSM 260
      • LeftHand NSM 320
      • LeftHand NSM 326
      • LeftHand NSM 3650
      • LeftHand NSM 380
      • LeftHand NSM 4150
      • LeftHand VSA
• IBM
  • FC/iSCSI (IBM_VAAIP_MODULE)
    • IBM XIV
    • IBM SVC
    • IBM V7000
    • Fujitsu VS850
    • Actifio
• NetApp
  • FC (VMW_VAAIP_NETAPP)
    • NetApp N3000 Series
    • NetApp N5000 Series
    • NetApp N6000 Series
    • NetApp N7000 Series
    • NetApp FAS2000 Series
    • NetApp FAS3000 Series
    • NetApp FAS3100 Series
    • NetApp FAS3200 Series
    • NetApp FAS6000 Series
    • NetApp FAS6200 Series
  • FCoE (VMW_VAAIP_NETAPP)
    • NetApp FAS3000 Series
    • NetApp FAS3100 Series
    • NetApp FAS3200 Series
    • NetApp FAS6000 Series
    • NetApp FAS6200 Series
  • iSCSI (VMW_VAAIP_NETAPP)
    • NetApp N3000 Series
    • NetApp N5000 Series
    • NetApp N6000 Series
    • NetApp N7000 Series
    • NetApp FAS2000 Series (Fujitsu Eternus NR1000F Series Model F2040)
    • NetApp FAS3000 Series
    • NetApp FAS3100 Series (Fujitsu Eternus NR1000F Series Model F3160)
    • NetApp FAS3200 Series
    • NetApp FAS6000 Series
    • NetApp FAS6200 Series

T10 Block Zero Only

• Bull
  • FC (vmw_vaaip_t10)
    • Bull Optima2000
  • iSCSI (vmw_vaaip_t10)
    • Bull Optima2000c
    • Bull Optima2000i
• NEC
  • FC (vmw_vaaip_t10)
    • NEC iStorage D3-30
    • NEC iStorage D4-30
  • iSCSI (vmw_vaaip_t10)
    • NEC iStorage D3-30/D3-30i
    • NEC iStorage D4-30/D4-30i
• Fujitsu
  • iSCSI (vmw_vaaip_t10)
    • Fujitsu Eternus VS850
• IBM
  • iSCSI (vmw_vaaip_t10)
    • IBM Storwize V7000
    • IBM SVC

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | VMware VAAI Storage Array Support in Plain English
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.

Do you want X-series or P-series storage? Is A-series networking gear any good? And where did all these HP products come from?

HP has always been an alphabet soup company, assigning just about every item in their bewildering array of products a unique product number. Like Mercedes-Benz cars, even the product names are a mix of letters and numbers that can be off-putting to browsers. Now that they have grown to supersize proportions through internal expansion and acquisition, just about everyone outside the company seems to have trouble decoding the product line, so I decided to take a stab at decoding the enterprise lineup in plain english.

An Important Note

This is not a political activity. I’m not trying to comment on which product is better than which or pigeonhole something by calling it “midrange” when HP thinks it’s “high-end”. I’m trying to be descriptive and helpful to prospective buyers working to understand the multitude of products sold by HP.

I welcome your input. In fact, I demand it! I don’t know which product is which and need your help to improve this list. Please feel free to comment and suggest corrections and additions (wireless?)

Storage Products (“StorageWorks”)

HP’s storage products are divided into three categories:

• P-series is block (SAN) storage using Fibre Channel or iSCSI
• X-series is file (NAS) storage
• Disk backup will presumably get a letter series in the future

Storage Product Notes

HP engineering input into OEMed products ranges from minimal to substantial. The EML tape library, for example, is very different from the standard Oracle (STK) product on which it is based. The high-end Hitachi-based storage includes substantial HP input as well.

HP StorageWorks VP of Marketing Tom Joyce informed me that the 3PAR T- and F-Class boxes won’t be renamed at this point. This is probably a good move – capitalize on the value of the 3PAR name rather than the virtually-unknown “P-series” nomenclature.

Others tell me that the StorageWorks 4400 is hitting end-of-life in the now-ish timeframe. So it won’t get a new name either.

Networking Products

HP’s networking products are divided into three categories:

• A-series is enterprise-class core switching, routing, and 200+ AP wireless
• E-series is mid-market and SMB switching and smaller wireless
• V-series is SMB and SoHo web-managed and unmanaged switching and wireless

Networking Product Notes

HP’s 3Com acquisition focused primarily on the H3C (former Huawei/3Com joint venture) high-end switching and routing products. Although some 3Com gear remains in the E-series line (particularly stackable switches), the low-end fixed-port switches have seemingly been eliminated from the product line. The Colubris acquisition provided HP with scalable wireless products now slotted below the H3C gear.

Stephen’s Stance

Product lines are always confusing at large companies, and doubly so where acquisitions bring in legacy products and customers. I wish HP the best of luck sorting all this out!

Note: The photo at the top is of a Japanese clone of the Enigma Machine from World War II.

Image credit: Japanese WWII Enigma Machine by Radio Rover

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Stephen’s HP Product Line Decoder Ring
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Personal. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Who will power the enterprise? The smart money is betting on a few superpowers taking over.

After years spent focusing on personal technology, businesses are increasingly turning back to the enterprise. There are many reasons for this, but the biggest one is the poor economy. Individuals simply have less free cash to spend on gadgets and software, and the meagre profits are increasingly going into the pockets of a single company: Apple.

The corporate IT market is much more dynamic and competitive, with a few very large “superpower” companies discovering their power to drive purchasing decisions. If a supplier can create an integrated “stack” of hardware and software, they can push product purchases that might otherwise be overlooked or postponed. This is the main reason that enterprise IT acquisitions work so well: Where a small company must fight to sell their product, a large one can hitch it to a much more strategic sale and have it pulled along.

The old IBM model is the prototype, with that company once selling everything from office equipment to datacenter gear as well as the consulting and integration services to make it all work.

HP has spent almost two decades bulking up to become the new IBM, buying their way into open systems laptops, desktops, and servers (Compaq), networking (3Com), services (EDS), and storage (Compaq, LeftHand, Ibrix, and perhaps 3Par). HP has been remarkably proficient at executing on this enterprise plan: In talking to enterprise IT folks, I often hear IBM-esque sentiments regarding the new HP. They tell me they’re willing to give HP the benefit of the doubt when it comes to new technologies and products, buying on basis of the company’s reputation and ability to make everything work. This bodes well for the company’s post-Hurd future, and HP has the most-complete “enterprise stack” in the business.

But HP has a target on its back, pinned there by Dell. The folks from Round Rock believe they can be more efficient (and thus profitable) than HP in the same markets, and have been making moves to fortify their enterprise offerings. Dell was always more of a manufacturing than R&D business, but they have shown a desire to broaden their focus. Intrigued by the high-margin mid-enterprise storage business built from their EqualLogic acquisition and their success selling EMC storage, Dell is moving into the enterprise. They matched HP/EDS by purchasing Perot and have made smaller buys in storage (Ocarina, Exanet) as well as the big move for 3Par.

The next big emerging stack player is Oracle. The acquisition of Sun gave Oracle a strong hardware base to complement their command of enterprise software, and many expect further acquisitions. But Oracle is playing a different game than HP and Dell, focusing on the high-margin enterprise space and ignoring more competitive outlying areas. Many suspect the company might make a play in the network space (Brocade, Juniper, and F5 have been mentioned) but storage is possible as well. CEO Larry Ellison is a major investor in Pillar Data Systems, so many expect a spin-in here. But Oracle has the appetite for something much bigger, even EMC or NetApp.

Then there is Cisco, who have attempted to parlay their data center networking strength into a broader position. But Cisco’s halting moves into storage (Fibre Channel switching and SAN extension) did not displace the market leaders, and their server products (UCS) have not made much of a dent on HP, IBM, and Dell either. A solid partnership with EMC has delayed further forays into the enterprise storage market, and Cisco seems puzzlingly interested in low-margin access businesses (Linksys, Flip) and their Cius tablet.

There are other players in the enterprise space as well. EMC has diversified under CEO Joe Tucci, taking a dominant position in server virtualization (VMware) and making a strong enterprise security acquisition (RSA). But the many faces of enterprise storage remains EMC’s strength, and they seem content to partner with Cisco for a stack sale. Hitachi, NEC, and Fujitsu also offer varying enterprise hardware and software stacks, but their comparatively small sales presence in the US market limits their ability to execute. In the final analysis, only IBM, HP, Dell, and perhaps Oracle can claim to be enterprise IT superpowers at this point.

Image credit: Steam Engine by Stuck in Customs

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Meet the Enterprise IT Superpowers
This post was categorized as Computer History, 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.

I’ve long wished for a new enterprise storage superpower. Competition is good for everyone, and the enterprise storage space has always been highly competitive. Traditional SAN storage powers (EMC, HDS, HP, and IBM) have been under continual attack from tech-heavy upstarts like EqualLogic, LeftHand, Compellent, Xiotech, and 3Par. The smaller (revenue-wise) NAS market has been more serial, with NetApp knocking off Auspex, then challenged by EMC. Yet innovators have been thick there as well, from Exanet to Ibrix, Isilon to Onstor.

Through it all, one thing has been clear: The major companies, though perhaps lagging in technology, were usually able to withstand the attack of the upstarts through sheer strength of salesforce. Storage is a strategic investment, and selection of a storage platform is much more far-reaching than many IT product decisions. The inertia of an installed storage environment makes it a real challenge to switch vendors, giving the established players massive leverage.

It became clear to me and many others that the best way for upstart companies (and, by extension, technologies) was to be part of an established vendor’s sales process. OEM relationships were a big part of this (witness the success of BlueArc and even NetApp and HDS) but acquisition was a much stronger proposition. If customers were warmer to OEM products than independent sales, they are much hotter when it comes to acquired technology. HP, Dell, IBM, and EMC have all demonstrated the power that comes when an established company buys a startup and puts the power of their sales force behind these new products.

This explains Dell’s fantastic success with EqualLogic. They took a product that was emerging as dominant in its niche (midrange iSCSI SAN) and blasted it into the market, while at the same time optimizing manufacturing and deployment. EMC did the same with Clariion and DataDomain, and HP is showing strong signs of health with LeftHand and Ibrix. Then there is IBM, who took XIV out of Israel and made it a source of irritation to the rest of the industry.

Many industry watchers have long wondered what would happen if the smaller guys got together, forming a new superpower of their own. Would 3Par, BlueArc, and Sepaton be a real challenger? What about Xiotech or Compellent and Isilon or FalconStor? Is mixing and matching some smaller companies a recipe for success? The answer was often a counter-question: What if someone like Dell, who knows how to manufacture and sell, picked them up instead? This seemed much more like a sure-thing, since the established management and financials stave off potential integration issues.

It appears that this is the future. Established players will pick up smaller companies, fortifying their offerings and accelerating sales in a way the little guys weren’t capable of. Dell’s billion-dollar acquisition of 3Par reportedly headed off a similar offer from HP, and will likely spark another acquisition. I imagine the management teams at Compellent and Xiotech just got a lot busier…

Clearly, Dell and HP are playing this game. IBM and EMC are in it, too. But what about Cisco and Oracle? Could they be planning storage acquisitions of their own, to the detriment of partners like EMC and Hitachi? What about the strong contingent from Japan, NEC and Hitachi? And who gets picked up next? We shall see!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Dell + EqualLogic, Exanet, Ocarina, 3Par = What?
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.

This is how we used to avoid hotspots in 1998: Carefully planning every detail of the storage layout.

Each disk drive consists of a spindle of spinning platters with read/write heads move back and forth. Each time you access a piece of data that’s not in cache, the drive moves its arm over the platter to access the correct piece of data. Since each drive can only access one piece of data at once, and since caches can only hold so much data, tuning a system to minimize the number of requests per drive is essential.

Manual storage array layout was an art, but we never fooled ourselves into thinking our designs were optimal. There were just too many intractable problems, so we had to compromise at every turn:

• We usually had no performance data to base our layout decisions on, so we had to rely on guesses and rules of thumb
• Workloads tend to change over time and manual layouts are painful to modify
• The smallest unit of allocation was an entire LUN or drive, so even the best disk layout mixed hot and rarely-accessed data everywhere
• Much of the allocated space was unused, so we used expensive disks to store nothing

One might think that, 10 years later, advances in technology would have solved these basic issues. But for many people using many of the so-called modern mainstream enterprise storage systems, these problems remain.

Like all good systems administrators, I’m a natural control freak. I am uncomfortable letting the system manage itself, having been burned too many times by computers (well, software really) making stupid decisions. It’s analogous to the backlash against anti-lock brakes, traction control, and automated transmissions among racing enthusiasts.

Do we allow technology to help us get better performance, or do we try to micro-manage everything? Photo by ClearInnerVision

But the time has come to let go. We don’t have to micro-manage storage anymore, and we have much to gain by letting the array do the work:

• Just as traction control can manage each wheel independently, something a driver could never do, modern virtualized storage systems can allocate small “chunks” to the optimal drive type, creating a better layout than anyone could manage with LUNs
• Dynamic optimization technology can move these chunks around, adapting as loads change
• Thin provisioning can go a step further, not wasting drive capacity for unused space
• Wide striping and post-RAID storage systems have a higher threshold before performance suffers due to spindle hotspots
• Widespread availability of tiered storage, including advanced caches, solid state drives, high-performance SAS and FC, and cheap bulk disks, gives us many more options

As I mentioned, not all systems have these capabilities, and not all implementations are created equal. I’m concerned about misuse of thin provisioning, for example, but it’s hard to argue with its effectiveness in many circumstances. Find out how granular your system’s allocation is – some remain LUN-only, while others are much more effective, using tiny chunks.

These new storage automation technologies really become essential once high-dollar flash storage is added to the mix. If you’re paying 30 times more for a flash drive, you want to make sure you’re making the best use of it that you can! Look at IBM’s recently-announced SAN Volume Controller (SVC) and solid state drive (SSD) combination, for example: It will almost certainly have fine-grained thin provisioning of SSDs, and should be able to dynamically move data between flash and disk storage and even between different storage arrays, but I still have questions on how granular this capability will be. HDS can do similar things with their USP-V. NetApp’s V-Series NAS systems will do dynamic allocation, thin provisioning, and data deduplication to enable a better return on the flash drive investment. I’d love to see 3PAR, Compellent, Dell/EqualLogic, and HP/LeftHand apply their solid dynamic allocation tech to solid state storage as well!

Then there’s the 800 lb gorilla: EMC. More enterprise SSD has probably been shipped out of Hopkinton than every other vendor combined, and both the CX and DMX support (optional/expensive) “virtual provisioning” (aka, thin provisioning) of flash storage. But EMC’s Optimizer is not widely used, and only migrates entire LUNs based on user input – hardly the kind of dynamic and granular technology needed to optimally use all of that flash storage. I’m sure the company is working on addressing this issue, though. Perhaps it will appear in the DMX-5 announcement we are all expecting this year?

This article can also be found on Gestalt IT: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Storage Automation

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Storage Automation
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.

Update: Check out the latest multi-vendor iSCSI post!

I usually don’t write about other peoples’ articles on this blog, preferring to stick to my own independent work. But this time I’m making an exception.

If you use or are interested in VMware ESX 3.x and iSCSI, you simply must go read Chad Sakac’s post on the topic. Co-written with just about everyone in the industry (including EMC, VMware, NetApp, Dell/EqualLogic, and HP/Lefthand), Chad has put together a “cheat sheet” on the ins and outs of iSCSI connectivity and performance in ESX 3.x.

Top takeaways (and I’ve been preaching about these for a while myself, too!)

• Ethernet link aggregation doesn’t buy you anything in iSCSI environments
• iSCSI HBA’s don’t buy you much other than boot-from-SAN in ESX, either
• The most common configuration (ESX software iSCSI) is limited to about 160 MB/s per iSCSI target over one-gigabit Ethernet, but that’s probably fine for most applications
• Adding multiple iSCSI targets adds performance across the board, but configurations vary by array
• Maximum per-target performance comes from guest-side software iSCSI, which can make use of multiple Ethernet links to push each array as fast as it can go

Thanks for putting together such a great article, guys!

This post can also be found on Gestalt IT: Essential Reading for VMware ESX iSCSI Users!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | Essential Reading for VMware ESX iSCSI Users!
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.

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

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

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

FCoE and iSCSI are similar in concept:

• Both rely on Ethernet physical connectivity
• Both transmit SCSI packets
• Both are aimed at date center users

But there are major differences as well:

• iSCSI is routable in an IP network
• iSCSI can use IP services like IPsec
• Software initiators can give iSCSI connectivity to any server, regardless of hardware
• FCoE will require converged network adapters (CNAs), while iSCSI can run on any Ethernet adapter
• FCoE will start at 10 Gb, while iSCSI can operate at just about any speed

Looking at this list, one might realize that FCoE is really a competitor for faster-than-4 Gb Fibre Channel. It’s not just a data center product, it’s an enterprise (read high-end and expensive) product, and that’s exactly where it will flourish. I have no doubt that Cisco and Brocade will successfully transition their Fibre Channel product lines to FCoE, and that QLogic and Emulex will sell a gazillion CNAs. But what about the rest of the market?

VMware’s adoption has shown that there is a taste for shared, networked storage outside the rarified budgets of the enterprise world. So far, no storage protocol has won the midrange and virtual server market, with Fibre Channel, iSCSI, and NFS duking it out along side internal SAS and SATA and the odd InfiniBand and external SAS solution. Although CNAs and FCoE ought to work fine in the virtual data center, not everyone will have a taste for them. There will always be plenty of folks who just want inexpensive external networked storage arrays, and iSCSI is the best thing they’re likely to see any time soon!

And iSCSI isn’t done evolving. Folks like Mellor, Chuck Hollis, and Storagebod are lauding FCoE at 10 gigabit speeds, but seem to forget that iSCSI can run at that speed, too. It can also run on the same CNAs and enterprise switches. And although wide(r)-area SANs aren’t common, I’m beginning to see some interest in leveraging the routability and other advanced features of IP in the storage world. iSCSI still has some cards to play! And the non-enterprise space isn’t nearly as awful as some make it sound – it is and will remain a bigger, more diverse market than the high end, and there are some serious buyers that will never get into FCoE.

Right now, the SAN world is expanding like it hasn’t done for years. iSCSI deployments are accelerating, growing the whole market. Sure, FCoE will probably completely replace old-school Fibre Channel over the next five years. But it will have to share the market with the now well-established iSCSI. It looks to me like Dell and HP made smart investments.

Update: More coverage on the topic:

• Doug Rainbolt from Alacritech is skeptical of the drivers for FCoE
• David Dale from NetApp feels that FCoE is unlikely to intrude on the iSCSI “sweet spot”

See my posts on Gestalt IT for similar enterprise IT infrastructure commentary

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2008. | Is the FCoE Starting Pistol Aimed at iSCSI?
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.