The great battle of enterprise storage is on!

The time has come to take sides on the core question of storage for virtual servers: Do you want storage intelligence to live in the hypervisor or the array? Most administrators are already lining up on one side or the other, unintentionally casting their vote while the rest flounder. But the storage industry must wake up and embrace the divide.

Hypervisor Huggers Unite!

Do you "heart" virtualization?

VMware’s vSphere dominates the world of enterprise server virtualization and has become the core element of the modern open systems datacenter. Microsoft recognizes this but has been unable to field a competitive hypervisor ecosystem for the virtual datacenter. Today, vSphere is the state of the art and nowhere is this more apparent than in storage.

In just a few years, VMware has delivered and updated a host of advanced storage functionality, from provisioning to migration and load balancing to backup and data protection. vSphere 5 includes an advanced and scalable storage virtualization layer, delivering everything a datacenter needs. VMFS sculpts basic block storage into a shared resource for virtual machines, with snapshots, policy-based layout and movement, and flexible allocation and thin provisioning.

Most VMware administrators are “server guys” and relish these features. They have never experienced an automated “storage service” like this, and the enterprise storage world has never been able to construct anything remotely as flexible, user-friendly, and functional. And Hypervisor Huggers don’t need complex enterprise storage arrays to do it: They can use basic iSCSI or Fibre Channel devices to provide performance and capacity and let VMware do the rest!

Storage DRS is exemplary of the new virtual datacenter world. Introduced in vSphere 5 (and restricted to the pricey Enterprise Plus license), Storage DRS uses the core technology of Storage vMotion to dynamically balance I/O and capacity across a diverse pool of storage. Storage DRS even uses Policy-Driven Storage and VASA to enforce tiered storage and data placement strategy. This kind of virtualization has been a “holy grail” quest for the enterprise storage industry, but they’ve never delivered on their promises.

Cheers for Storage Stalwarts!

Do you wish all this virtualization nonsense would just go away?

But not every IT environment wants be 100% vSphere focused, and many aren’t convinced that dumb storage is the smartest place for their data. These Storage Stalwarts want smarter and better-integrated storage arrays, and VMware is innovating here as well.

VMware’s Storage APIs for Array Integration (VAAI) technology is squarely aimed at this market. VAAI allows vSphere to hand off heavy storage operations to the high-end storage arrays from the major players. It works transparently, too, coordinating cloning without the kind of scripting and hair-pulling that used to require. VAAI in vSphere 4.1 also includes block zeroing support and something called “atomic test and set” which we’ll get to in a moment. Microsoft announced their own cloning integration, ODX, but it won’t ship until Windows Server 8 appears sometime next year.

But cloning is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Hypervisor-to-array integration. The rising army of NAS users have seen the glory of more-complete array integration for a while, and they’re not quiet about it. They love that VMware’s NFS protocol support makes storage “disappear” in vCenter, becoming just another resource with integrated thin provisioning and flexible allocation and movement.

VMware is moving aggressively to please their Storage Stalwarts, adding more VAAI support for block and file in vSphere 5. But, as the company laid out at VMworld 2011, neither access method is ideal for virtual servers. So VMware has been pushing the enterprise array vendors for ever-greater integration. They see a future where a VAAI-based protocol enables arrays to de-multiplex I/O streams from the hypervisor and intelligently handle per-VM data.

Stephen’s Stance

You can spot a Hypervisor Hugger by their big LUNs: They would rather treat storage as a bulk commodity, and array vendors should be lining up to get their business. Storage Stalwarts will jump on each new VMware innovation, finally making use of the capabilities they have spent over a decade paying for but not utilizing. The only untenable stance is trying to keep a foot in both worlds: It’s foolish to buy an enterprise array and use it as bulk storage!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Are You a Hypervisor Hugger or a Storage Stalwart?
This post was categorized as Computer History, 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.

I think this sentiment is just as valid today as when I posted it in 2008!

Although many discussions in the storage industry focus on the relative merits of one protocol or another, the conversation occasionally turns to the core issue at hand: We continue to patch together a system based on outdated concepts. Most storage protocols continue to mimic direct attached storage, and most of our so-called networks act as point to point channels. An ultra-modern virtualized storage infrastructure with all the latest bells and whistles still holds the concepts of block and file at its core. Whenever the storage industry has tried to bring about real storage management they have been stymied by a lack of context for data.

No amount of virtualization, and no new protocol, will fix this. Put simply, we need a storage revolution.

Channels, Blocks, and Files

Most innovation in the 1980s and early 1990s focused on moving storage out of the server. SCSI allowed disk to exist in a separate cabinet, RAID allowed multiple physical disks to become a single virtual one, and these were mixed to become the prototype storage array. Although SCSI allowed one-to-many connectivity, it was never a true peer-to-peer network, even once it was mixed with network concepts in the form of Fibre Channel.

Even today, SAN storage is focused on providing faster, more flexible, and feature-packed direct-attached storage. A modern virtual SAN hides a complex arrangement of caching, data protection, tiered storage, replication, and deduplication, masquerading the lot as a simple, lowly disk drive. It is sad but true that all of our work as an industry has been dedicated to recreating what we started with.

Networked file-based storage is no better. Although NAS devices have all the advanced features of their SAN cousins, they must present a simple file tree to the host to retain compatibility. File virtualization merely presents a larger homogenous tree.

Inside the server, too, features and complexity are hidden to retain a familiar file system format. Volume managers can do anything a virtualization device can, but must present their output as a simple (though virtual) disk drive. File systems, too, have added features but still present a familiar tree of mount points, inodes, and files. Even ZFS, possibly the most advanced combination of volume management and file system technology yet, must present a simple tree of storage to applications.

The Metadata Roadblock

This outdated paradigm, of disks and file trees, is ill-suited to today’s storage challenges. Data must be categorized so actions can be taken to preserve or destroy it based on policies. Data must be searchable so users and applications can find what they want. Data must be flexible so it can be used in new ways. Our antiquated notions are not capable of meeting these challenges.

One simple problem is that we lack context for our data. Most file systems merely assign to a file a name, location, owner, and security attributes. The most advanced can contain extended metadata, but this is rarely seen in practice since many applications cannot agree on how to use this data. Microsoft’s Office suite can store and share extended file attributes, for example, but these live inside the file rather than in the file system. The promise of expanded Office attributes is only realized in conjunction with a content management system like SharePoint which lies above the lowly file system.

What if the storage system could keep this data instead? What if it could logically group files according to project or client, mining keywords and authors, and maintaining revisions? These concepts are not new, having been implemented in content management systems for years, and certain elements appeared in file systems, like Apple’s HFS and VMS’ Files-11, for decades.

Cut Down the Tree

File metadata would allow advanced features, but truly taking advantage of them requires a more fundamental shift in the way applications access files. Rather than sticking to a traditional hierarchy of directories in a tree (which was, after all, simply a primitive metadata system), we should remove the tree altogether. Allow files to become data objects, identified by arbitrary attributes and managed according to an overarching policy.

This future vision is decidedly different from our current notion of storage, but is not so far off. Many organizations now rely on central data warehouses based on SQL-language relational databases. As many storage managers have grumbled, databases tend to ignore storage management concepts entirely, managing their own content independently.

But not all applications need a database back-end, so another initiative seeks to provide generic object storage for wider use. Called content-addressable storage or CAS, these devices have traditionally been used only for archival purposes, since that was their first market application. As vendors break free of proprietary interfaces in favor of open ones like XAM, CAS could transform storage itself by eliminating both file and block storage at once.

Similar concepts are already at work in the so-called Web 2.0 world. Non-traditional databases like Google BigTable, Amazon S3, and Hadoop allow massive scalability for object storage. API-sharing initiatives with many Web 2.0 companies can be seen as similar prototypical object storage frameworks. Any of these could be leveraged to provide a new world of data storage, and many are gaining traction even now.

Stephen’s Stance

Although traditional block storage is here to stay for disk drives, and tree-type file systems are likely to remain the foundation of operating system storage, new object-based concepts could change the world in fundamental ways. As applications become “web aware”, they also become object aware, increasing the likelihood of such a storage revolution. For the majority of applications, this new world would be a welcome one indeed.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | We Need a Storage Revolution
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History, 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.

How granular is your storage? This question is just as relevant today as when I first published this article in 2008!

Many storage challenges focus on correlating high-level uses of data (such as applications) with the nuts and bolts of storage infrastructure. These discussions often revolve around the conflict between data management, which demands an ever-smaller unit of management, and storage management, which benefits most from consolidation. Developing data management capability that is both granular enough for applications and scalable enough for storage is one key to the future of storage.

Storage Management: Scaling Up

As I discussed in a previous Sunday Series piece, Turning the Page on RAID, the data storage industry has traditionally focused on reducing granularity. Disk capacity has expanded, and RAID technology has multiplied this by combining multiple physical drive mechanisms into a single virtual one. Storage virtualization technologies, from the SAN to the server, have also often been touted primarily as a mechanism to reduce heterogeneity. From a technical perspective, therefore, granularity has been an obstacle to overcome.

The core organizational best practice for storage management is the reduction of complexity and the enforcement of standardization. Consolidation of storage arrays and file servers is a common goal, as IT seeks to benefit from economies of scale. The goal of both initiatives is the creation of a storage utility or managed storage service. This mirrors efforts on the server and network sides to consolidate and virtualize hardware.

Although both technological and organizational factors have traditionally driven granularity out of storage, this does not have to be the case. Virtual pools of storage are ideal for providing storage on demand, as disk-focused RAID groups give way to more flexible sub-disk storage arrangements. And an operational focus on standardized storage service offerings has the potential to enable scalable management of these smaller units.

Filing Service

File-based protocols would seem to have more potential for granular storage management, but they have been undermined by the hierarchical nature of modern file storage. Whether the connection to a file server uses NFS, CIFS, or AFP, the key unit of management is actually the shared directory, not the file. All files in the share \\firefly\backups would be located on the same server and would be managed as a unit.

NAS virtualization can change this somewhat, as can more specialized NAS servers. Although Microsoft DFS enables consolidation and virtualization of NAS shares, it does not allow subdivision of shares below the directory level – all files in a directory must be placed on the same server. Tricks like stubbing and links allow for some movement, but these do not solve the core issue. Specialized virtual NAS devices from F5 (the ARX, nee Acopia), NetApp, BlueArc, Symantec, and others have the ability to move files individually, providing as much a virtualized storage environment as any block-focused enterprise array. Avere is also beginning to talk about granular file management.

But even an ideal virtualized file server lacks the kind of granularity demanded by users. They care about data, not files, and most applications consolidate their data storage into a few files. Consider a database, for example, where users want each record treated uniquely but storage devices see just a few much larger files. We need a storage revolution, where someone creates an ideal storage platform in which each individual record or object includes custom metadata and is managed independently. This would truly be a massive change, however, and it is not clear that all applications will follow the object storage model of Google and Amazon.

Small is Beautiful

Barring a revolution in data management, our best hope is to allow greater granularity in storage management. As mentioned above, virtualization technology has the potential to enable management and protection of any unit of storage, right down to the individual block or record. But the reality of storage virtualization has not matched its promise.

What is needed is greater integration. Each layer of virtualization (file system, volume manager, hypervisor, network, array, and RAID) also hides necessary details from lower layers. Consider the case of a virtual server snapshot: The application and filesystem must be in a quiesced state to allow a snapshot to be taken at the storage level, but the storage array has no intrinsic information about how its capacity is used. A given LUN might contain dozens of servers on a shared VMFS volume, so all must be snapped together.

Integration can be enabled by sharing more information through APIs. VMware leverages Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) integration for shared storage so a VMFS snapshot can call the operating system and even applications (Windows Server 2003 only, for now) to prepare the data. Similarly, VSS can communicate directly with supported iSCSI and Fibre Channel arrays, calling a snapshot at the right moment. And Microsoft is, no doubt, enhancing VSS as we speak.

As virtualization technology matures, expect this type of integration to improve. We hope to see more APIs exposed by VMware and Microsoft, allowing communication up and down the stack to break through the information barrier. Imagine a future where a standard API like VSS can pass a message through VMware, Xen, and Hyper-V to the underlying storage array to initiate a snap. I predict that this kind of integration-enabled granularity is not too far off.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Granularity: The Hidden Challenge of Storage Management
This post was categorized as Computer History, 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.

Overland's SnapServer will soon scale out to hundreds of nodes, thanks to MaxiScale's technology

Overland Storage is showing intriguing signs of life. Once relegated to OEM tape library duty, Overland received an injection of cash and (more importantly) talent this year. Now the company is stepping up the technology behind their SnapServer NAS array by acquiring scale-out file storage company, MaxiScale. They intend to bring the scalable capacity and performance normally associated with enterprise and high-performance computing systems to the mass market.

Overland In A Snap

Snap Appliance and Overland Storage are familiar names in the enterprise storage space, but the two companies have had a convoluted history. Snap was born in 1998 as a product of Meridian Data and acquired by backup giant Quantum one year later for about $85 million. Although successful, the Snap NAS products were not at home among Quantum’s tape-heavy product lines. The division was re-purchased in 2002 as Snap Appliance by private investors, led by current CEO Eric Kelly, for just $11 million. Two years later Snap was again absorbed by a familiar storage name: This time $100 million brought it into Adaptec.

Quantum competitor Overland Storage re-purchased Snap from Adaptec in 2008 for just $3.6 million and brought Kelly back as CEO in 2009. Kelly brought back former Snap (and Data Robotics) marketing guru Jillian Mansolf this year, and they were soon joined by Dr. Geoff Barrall, founder of Data Robotics and BlueArc. Although a public company, Overland (NASDAQ:OVRL) also raised an additional $12 million in private equity financing, an unknown amount of which went to purchase MaxiScale.

You may also want to read The Rebirth of Overland Storage

This brings us to today, with Overland Storage on the rise, with strong OEM and channel sales in tape and disk storage devices. Overland’s product lines include the NEO tape libraries, REO virtual tape devices, SnapSAN block arrays and various SnapServer unified and NAS systems.

The highlight of Overland’s storage offerings is the SnapServer N2000, a unified iSCSI and NAS array solidly placed in the entry- to mid-market. Like many competitors, Overland relies on a single- or dual-controller storage “head” based on industry-standard CPU technology and scales with additional disk “shelves”. Unusually, Overland’s N2000 line currently relies on a single SAS connection daisy-chained to its E2000 expansion units. One hopes dual connections and faster connectivity are coming soon.

MaxiScale: Scale-Out NAS

Venture-funded startup MaxiScale developed a scale-out NAS capability, allowing multiple NAS servers to be consolidated into a unified namespace without the usual bottlenecks of clustered solutions. The company headed for the cloud storage market, boasting massive scalability and management benefits.

MaxiScale’s technology differentiator was in their rejection of conventional clustering and scale-out approaches. Many scale-out solutions rely on shared-nothing coordinated nodes, but it is often difficult to scale and manage these solutions. This has caused much effort to build cluster coordination through metadata, exemplified by SAN filesystems (including EMC’s MPFS and Quantum’s StorNext) as well as clustered NAS solutions like pNFS.

This MaxiScale illustration shows their distribution of metadata and content as well as their unified namespace

MaxiScale’s “FLEX” technology takes an entirely different approach. It distributes “peer sets” of data across multiple nodes like pNFS but also distributes metadata rather than relying on a single central node. Combining this with a unified namespace, MaxiScale claims to scale to thousands of nodes with linear performance. The company had targeted cloud service providers interested in massive scale using commodity hardware.

Overland + MaxiScale = SnapScale?

Overland appears to be bringing MaxiScale back down to earth, leveraging their technology to combine a set of in-datacenter SnapServers into a unified, high-performance cluster. Although a number of other companies claim scale-out capabilities (Isilon and HP X9000 spring to mind), this is a unique capability in the SMB and midrange NAS market, and Overland will surely make hay as a low-priced alternative.

The company could quickly implement MaxiScale’s software on their existing industry-standard hardware and push a line of “SnapScale” appliances. But things will get more interesting once they begin integrating the technology into their GuardianOS software. Imagine a scale-out solution that enables a company to grow from a single sub-$10,000 NAS to a vast cluster of thousands of nodes with linear performance gains. Even being able to add a half-dozen NAS heads would be a welcome alternative to Dell, HP, and NetApp offerings. In the longer term, Overland could use this technology to break from the head-and-expansion architecture they currently employ, shifting to a cloud-like distributed architecture.

Stephen’s Stance

Overland is making all the right moves. Eric Kelly should be commended for taking bold action to re-energize the company with an infusion of money, talent, and technology. The MaxiScale technology is impressive, and adding it to Snap for a mid-market offering is potentially game-changing.

There are lots of SMB and midrange NAS systems, and most are fairly similar in terms of technology. Overland fell in that group as well until now, but the addition of MaxiScale is a real differentiator for the company. Mansolf and Barrall have proven that they can take out-of-the-ordinary technology and market it to the masses, and this acquisition gives Overland another chance to execute. I will be watching their progress with great interest!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Overland Snaps Up MaxiScale to Scale Up Snap
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.

Huawei Symantec recently introduced their SAN, NAS, and security offerings for the United States market

Surprise! Huawei Symantec has arrived in the United States, ready to take on the midrange storage and network security market with a line of devices that have proven their worth in the international market for three years. I sat down with the company’s management at Storage Networking World and quizzed them on their plans and aspirations for growth.

Introducing Huawei Symantec

It’s important to get one thing straight right off the bat: Huawei Symantec Technologies Co., Ltd (Huawei Symantec) is neither Chinese telecom giant, Huawei, nor American storage and security powerhouse, Symantec. It is an entity unto itself, formed in 2008 as a joint venture of the two but managed independently. And Huawei Symantec USA (HS USA) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of this China-based operation rather than a simple sales or marketing engine. Huawei Symantec USA is akin to NEC’s American operations rather than a global subsidiary like HDS or an integrator/reseller.

Huawei Symantec was created to commercialize the enterprise storage and server hardware of Huawei and the enterprise software offerings of Symantec, but blessed with its own independent 4,000-strong engineering, marketing, and sales force.

This independence is sometimes evident, though perhaps not in HS USA’s initial product offerings. They will enter the market with three products in two lines:

• “Oceanspace” storage:
  • S2600 “Low-End” Fibre Channel/iSCSI SAN array (see this technical whitepaper for more)
  • N8300 unified SAN/NAS array
• “Secospace” security:
  • Secospace USG2000BSR/HSR router/security appliance

Huawei Symantec has a much-broader product range, however, including VTL and PACS storage, cloud storage solutions, SSD drives, and SAN arrays on the storage side (all part of the Oceanspace line); UTM, Anti-DDoS, VPN, and IDS systems for security (referred to as Secospace); as well as servers. The HS USA team confirmed to me that they intend to broaden their product portfolio in America by bringing additional products to market in the near future.

Although these initial products are based on Symantec software, this is not the case for the entire product line. The Oceanstore VTL appears to use FalconStor software, for example, and Huawei Symantec has created hardware and software components that are distinct from both of its famous parents.

What’s In A Name?

I imagine that the famous names attached to this organization might prove to be both a blessing and a curse. The Symantec name carries cachet in the enterprise IT space, much of it inherited from Veritas along with proven products like Storage Foundation, NetBackup, and Enterprise Vault. Although less familiar to Americans, Huawei is a giant in the data centers of the Far East, with thousands of engineers and customers worldwide. But many will undoubtedly draw conclusions about these parents’ motives and strategies and apply these to their child, Huawei Symantec.

I discussed the entry of HS USA with Symantec staff as well, and they stressed that the new company is not driven by (or coordinated with) their management in Mountain View. Their reaction to the new products appeared to reflect the curiosity and interest they might direct towards any new storage or security company that leveraged their products. In short, Symantec appears supportive but disconnected from HS USA. Although they share a name, Huawei Symantec is not an attempt by Symantec itself to enter the enterprise storage array and security appliance market.

The Huawei name and roots in China may prove somewhat perilous, however. Members of the United States Senate and NSA recently moved to block Sprint Nextel and AT&T from using Huawei telecommunications gear, and some of the IT managers I spoke to at Storage Networking World were similarly worried. They expressed skepticism about the build quality and engineering of Chinese products in general and wondered aloud if Huawei Symantec would meet enterprise standards in terms of localization and customer support. And every end user I spoke to was confused about the company’s relationship with Symantec in particular.

Stephen’s Stance

I have been watching Huawei Symantec’s growth for the last few years, and the company’s entry into the United States market has great potential. Huawei Symantec has proven itself on the international stage and brings tremendous engineering and financial resources to the midrange storage and security market. It leverages the contributions of its famous-name parents but enjoys autonomy to go beyond this base.

Make no mistake: Although this is not just another storage startup, its success is not a foregone conclusion. Localization of products, support, and sales is perilous, and every market is littered with examples of failure. Huawei Symantec must act quickly to build strong relationships with resellers, who have traditionally been the gatekeepers of the midrange storage and security market. They must also move aggressively to localize product marketing and develop collateral and strategies to support their new American customers. And they must reach out to educate the market about their relationship with Huawei and Symantec and their engineering credentials.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Huawei Symantec Enters The United States Storage and Security Market
This post was categorized as 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.

Data Robotics is back with the DroboPro FS 8-drive NAS for small business

Data Robotics today launched their sixth product, the business-oriented DroboPro FS file server. Combining the 8-drive chassis from the direct-attached DroboPro with the Linux-based file server engine fro the Drobo FS, the DroboPro FS (or “Pro FS” for short) gives small businesses and remote offices a simple networked location for their shared files. Although it is a bit more expensive than some of the competition, the Pro FS promises to be as easy to set up, use, and grow as previous devices from Data Robotics.

The Drobo I Know

The Drobo line of storage devices from Data Robotics is well-known to readers of my blog. I selected the second-generation Drobo (a 4-drive USB- or FireWire-attached device) as my own home storage solution, and have been very satisfied with it. I continue to recommend the Drobo for its simplicity, reliability, and ease of use. It was simple to set up and has grown with my storage requirements.

One of the coolest features of the entire Drobo line is the “bring your own drive” ethos: It appears as a single large drive (8 TB in my case) and drives can be added and swapped as needed without data loss, migration, or downtime. My own Drobo has grown from two to three to four drives without a hiccup, and has kept my data secure through two hard disk drive failures. I certainly would have lost some of my data by now if I hadn’t invested a few hundred dollars in a Drobo.

The New Drobo Family

No one was surprised when Data Robotics introduced an 8-drive model, the DroboPro, alongside the 4-drive desktop unit they became famous for. But their use of iSCSI was forward-thinking. Although it is only usable by a single connected computer, iSCSI gives the DroboPro more flexibility for rack- or even data-center placement as well as greater performance than the old USB or FireWire ports.

Data Robotics really enhanced their product line in late 2009 with the introduction of two more-capable models, the DroboElite and Drobo S. The Drobo S added a fifth drive slot, dual-drive reliability, and two to three times the performance of the old Drobo when connected with eSATA. I’m seriously considering an upgrade! The DroboElite took the Pro upscale with a second gigabit Ethernet port and multi-server iSCSI support. In fact, the Elite is certified VMware Ready for small-scale datacenter use!

The release earlier this year of the Drobo FS answered pundits (including me) who kept asking for NAS file server capability beyond the underwhelming DroboShare device. Boasting built-in support for Windows (SMB) and Apple (AFP) networks, the Drobo FS shares the 5-drive form factor of the Drobo S, making it a reasonable choice for small offices and home networks. It must have been a hit, too, since the Drobo FS has been in short supply, frequently backordered throughout 2010.

Drobo FS + DroboPro = DroboPro FS!

The DroboPro FS joins the Drobo FS in Data Robotics' NAS lineup

It wasn’t rocket science for Data Robotics to mix together the DroboPro’s 8-drive form factor with the Drobo FS’ NAS software, and that’s just what they did to produce the DroboPro FS. It brings a bit more computing horsepower to handle filesystem and network protocol access along with a second gigabit Ethernet port for reliability, but the Pro FS sticks to the “keep it simple” ethos.

Simplicity is the heart of the Drobo message. Although built on open-source software (Linux, Samba, and Netatalk), the DroboPro FS software is simple to configure, just like the rest of the product line. This contrasts with the “mess-of-menus” interface used to administer so many competing products! While these other devices try to speak more languages than the United Nations, Data Robotics keeps it simple with SMB and AFP.

The DroboPro FS retains all of the core Drobo features: Dual-drive reliability is an option I recommend for any device using more than four drives. The company’s BeyondRAID software allows drives to be added and swapped with no data migration time, and also lets the Pro FS use whatever make, model, or size of SATA drive is available when you need it. Under the hood, the Drobo software optimizes the layout and checks the consistency of data without operator intervention. In short, like all Drobos, the Pro FS just works.

DroboSync: Synchronize DroboPro FS Units

A major new feature in the DroboPro FS product is DroboSync, software which will synchronize all content on one DroboPro FS to a second Pro FS over LAN or WAN. Similar capability has been available using the rsync DroboApp for quite some time, but Data Robotics promises that DroboSync will be integrated, supported, and simple enough to become a core feature. This is a great addition, and worth a place on the defiantly-short list of DroboPro FS features.

Dubious About DroboApps

The Drobo FS and DroboPro FS, being Linux-based, can run other workloads than the SMB and AFP servers bundled from the factory. The DroboApps page at Drobo.com includes 11 others, from NFS to Apache, rsync to Perl. And the FS models can run other packages developed and supported entirely unofficially.

Although I remain positively enthusiastic about the Drobo products, and recommend them for small offices and professional users, I am less excited about these apps. Even those “blessed” by Data Robotics lack the level of simplicity and reliability implied by the Drobo name. Trying them out brought back nightmares from my old Linksys NSLU2 NAS, and creating a stable environment would probably require the same level of hacking and time.

In the past year, Apple has broken two of the open source packages that run on the Drobo FS, and the result is illuminating. Apple’s changes to Snow Leopard caused issues when using the Drobo FS as a Time Machine target. Since the AFP protocol is a core part of the Drobo FS, the company actively investigated the issue and worked to develop a fix to the underlying open source Netatalk package. Contrast this with the Firefly iTunes server offered in the DroboApps store. When iTunes 10 broke Firefly, it also stopped supporting the Drobo FS. Although Data Robotics is reportedly looking into the matter (login required), a fix has not yet been posted.

Since only the core AFP and SMB functionality is really supported by Data Robotics, it begs the question of the suitability of the other DroboApps packages. Indeed, I would have a hard time recommending reliance on any of these packages for production use. And I suggest that Data Robotics should reconsider whether to officially offer DroboApps at all! They should leave the option for individuals to run these apps on their own, but I do not feel they are of a high enough standard to get a “DroboName” and be listed as product features.

Stephen’s Stance

DroboPro FS is a solid addition to the Drobo family, and ought to be on the short list of any small business looking for an integrated NAS solution. The ease of use and simple livability inherent in the Drobo line remains a strong differentiator from the competition. I would like to see NFS promoted to a core DroboPro FS feature, however.

At just under US$2,000 for an empty chassis, the Pro FS is not cheap. Like all of Data Robotics’ products, stepping up to this premium product requires opening up the wallet. Although the Drobo ownership experience is a happy one, it must be difficult for many to justify this premium pricing relative to competing products from Iomega, Thecus, Synology, and others.

A look at the product matrix begs another question: Where will Data Robotics go from here? I imagine a higher-end 8-drive DroboElite FS might be in the works, but I would much rather see a 12-drive rackmount Drobo for larger businesses. Add in some serious CPU power (and maybe some flash cache) and we could have a real challenger in the “M” segment of the SMB market!

Disclosure: Data Robotics sponsored two Tech Field Day events which I organize for Gestalt IT. Their financial support went to that event, and I purchased my Drobo at retail with my own money. I write about them because I am impressed by their products, not because of any business relationship.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Review: DroboPro FS is Data Robotics SMB NAS
This post was categorized as Apple, 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.

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.

I’m a sucker for storage and networking (duh) so combining these two great tastes really gets me interested. I’ve been watching the CloudEngines Pogoplug with interest. It allows you to share a USB external hard disk drive across a LAN and even allows access over the Internet using the Pogoplug service. My friend Howard has one and says it’s cool (though slow).

Last year, Seagate licensed the PogoPlug technology from CloudEngines and came out with their own-brand FreeAgent DockStar Network Adapter which includes the service. In addition to the special connector for Seagate’s pre-GoFlex portable hard drives, the DockStar has three standard USB ports for any old USB drive you might have hanging around.

I guess these things haven’t been selling all that well (especially now that GoFlex is here), so Seagate slashed the price from $99 to $39. You don’t need a Seagate drive at all to use it. The PogoPlug Internet service is iPhone-compatible, too!

The $23 deal from 1 Sale a Day expired, but the Seagate offer is still a great way to buy a PogoPlug cheap!

Note: Some of these links include affiliate codes that help pay for this blog. For example, buying an Amazon Kindle with this link sends a few bucks my way! But I don't write this blog to make money, and am happy to link to sites and stores that don't pay anything. I like Amazon and buy tons from them, but you're free to buy whatever and wherever you want.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Seagate/PogoPlug Network Hard Drive Adapter Deals
This post was categorized as Apple, Deals, Personal, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Fear

Back when I used to teach the “Storage 101″ session at Storage Decisions, I was consistently amazed to find little awareness of enterprise NAS systems. People complained about LUNs and Fibre Channel but when I suggested using NFS or SMB their heads almost exploded. “We would never use that for application storage,” they shouted. “File servers are for home directories, not data center stuff!” Clearly, NAS faces an uphill battle.

In a recent piece I wrote, I referred to what I consider to be the prime best practice: Use the right tool for the job. It’s a simple statement, and one that resonates beyond IT and the technology world. But it can be devilishly difficult to see what the right tool is sometimes. Why not use NAS for virtual machine storage? NetApp has been beating that drum for years, yet NAS has a very small footprint in VMware. How about databases on NFS? Exchange over SMB? Block storage has a massive lead over NAS in all of these areas.

Rear this “best practices” piece, Use Process Solutions For Process Problems, Technical Solutions For Technical Ones

IT folks seem downright fearful of file-level storage protocols. Has NFS really burned them that badly over the decades? Can SMB/CIFS really be as bad as they think?

Loathing

I wonder if this terror has more to do with the products people have used than the fundamental concept of file services. Many NAS servers (and clients) are barely functional. Sadly, NFS and SMB are easy to get 80% right, but the 20% corner case interaction takes decades to overcome. My daily storage consulting work exposes me to a myriad of NAS configurations, and few of the multi-platform combinations end well.

Note: Although it has long been known by a variety of names, the Windows NAS protocol is currently called Server Message Block or SMB. Common Internet File System (CIFS) was a failed mid-1990′s attempt by Microsoft to make this protocol standard on the Internet.

Consider the Mac. Apple added an SMB client to OS X in 2001 but, despite many updates, it is far from reliable. Mac users in general loathe connecting to Windows file servers, and business users have located numerous bugs in the handling of Mac-specific file types. It’s bad enough that one company, GroupLogic, created an entire AFP server for Windows just to solve these tricky issues.

This situation often happens in reverse, too. Windows admins are justifiably cautious when deploying non-Windows SMB servers, whether software (Samba, Novell, etc) or system (NetApp, Celerra, BlueArc, etc). As a very early NetApp user, I watched their CIFS/SMB server evolve over a decade and a half into a fairly robust solution, but the early years were downright painful.

Lest you throw rocks at Redmond, know that SMB is not alone with functionality problems. The interoperability of NFS servers and clients is a bit better thanks to open(ish) standards and open source implementations, but its reputation is just as bad. And Apple’s proprietary AFP protocol is downright notorious.

I’ve been there myself many times. I tried to set up a home server based on open source software (Linux, FreeBSD, Samba, Netatalk, etc) but rejected it outright after many frustrating years. Today I use a Mac Mini for file sharing in OS X and serving iTunes music and movies (goodbye, Firefly!) And years of fighting with Samba in enterprise environments taught me two things: It’s possible to get it running well with Windows clients but it’s astonishingly easy to get it wrong.

Enterprise NAS?

We all know that interoperability is devilishly difficult. I don’t envy the NetApp and EMC engineers that have to tweak and tune their server for every possible client, bugs and all. And I am impressed that, after probably millions of man-hours of work, they were able to come up with something stable for a subset of use cases. But this just makes me even more cautious about third-party NAS servers.

I talk to storage vendors all the time, and many of their new products support NFS and SMB. But my internal alarms start going off when I hear about these products. There are two simple reasons for this:

1. As mentioned above, NAS is rare in primary data center applications. It may be common for user files (euphemistically called “unstructured data”) and certain distributed applications (simulation, rendering, etc), but most use cases still call for block SCSI (FC/iSCSI) storage.
2. As further mentioned, getting NAS right takes a massive amount of effort. New and small vendors tend to slap Samba on their (Linux-based) box and call it a day. This is very, very far from being sufficient for enterprise use.

This is why I usually ignore NAS functionality in storage systems except for long-tenured and deep-pocketed vendors. Although the world is turning to “Unified Storage” and multi-protocol support, I’m focusing primarily on block (SCSI) and cloud (REST) capability because the former has proven somewhat easier than NAS to get working and the latter is both simple and “green field” with no legacy concerns.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Why Do I Ignore NAS?
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History, Enterprise storage, Gestalt IT, 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.

Iomega's new ix12-300d brings EMC's SOHO company into the data center

EMC’s Iomega unit today released the 12-drive rack-mount storage product we have all been waiting for. It was never a question of whether Iomega could produce such a beast: The EMC LifeLine software and Iomega hardware were definitely up for it. The question was always if EMC would direct Iomega to fill the gaping hole in their storage lineup between the 4-drive ix4-200r and the entry-business AX4 arrays. The new ix12-300r packs 12 drive bays, scaling from 4 TB all the way to 24 TB, and backs it with quad gigabit iSCSI, redundant power, and everything else the small data center needs.

Stepping Up

The ix12 is a big step up. Although they sold multi-drive RAID systems even before the EMC acquisition, this new device is unlike anything we’ve seen before from Iomega. This slim (2U) chassis is all drives up front, with 12 hot-swap slots full of 3.5″ SATA storage. Under the hood is a dual-core 3 GHz Intel Core2duo E8400 “Wolfdale” CPU, a major horsepower upgrade from the single-core Celeron in the ix4-200r. It also has double the memory (2 GB) compared to that 4-drive product.

It all makes sense now: EMC's storage spectrum, from home to enterprise

If you’re concerned about performance after trying out a desktop ix4-200d, you needn’t worry. The desktop unit has a lowly 1.2 GHz Marvell 6281 and just 512 MB of RAM. While this might be enough for a desktop user, it could never handle the pounding of servers in a shared networked configuration. The ix4-200r, with its 3.2 GHz Intel Celeron D 352 “Cedar Mill“, offered much better performance even though its name was just one letter different. And the ix12′s CPU is three times faster still, though it remains a single-controller system.

More significant changes lurk around the back of the ix12. Dual redundant power supplies, a frequent request in this class, and variable-speed fans, surround four Ethernet ports. Each sports gigabit speed and the set supports Microsoft Windows MPIO, can be aggregated with 802.3ad, or used in VLAN configurations with up to 4 VLAN tags per port. The ix12 speaks just about every language, from NFS and SMB to AFP and iSCSI, and now adds WebDAV and DFS support, too.

A few limitations separate this new ix12 device from its enterprise-grade brothers, however. As noted, a single controller manages all access, so redundancy and parallel processing are limited. Although the ix12 sports 12 drive bays, it only has four SATA channels internally; each bay shares a channel with two others using SATA expanders. Don’t expect to push wire speed over all four Ethernet ports at once, even with all this newfound CPU power.

A Wall of Drives

Base ix12s ship with 4 drives installed, but we were disappointed to learn that additional drives must be purchased in 4-disk packs from Iomega. Although this decision is understandable, the ix series remains a holdout amid growing legions of bring-your-own-drive competitors. At least the company supports mixing and matching drive sizes, including 1 TB and 2 TB at present. We suspect that the unit uses the same reliable 5900 rpm Seagate Barracuda LP drives as the ix4-200d.

Iomega added a few tricks to the LifeLine software to take advantage of a possible 12 drives installed. First up is the addition of dual-parity RAID-6 for improved data protection. The company (and this reviewer) suggest this over RAID-5 once more than 5 drives are combined in one set. Don’t worry, though, because RAID configuration can be changed online and any unused drive can be used regardless of its location in the array. The ix12 also adds drive spindown, saving power when the RAID set isn’t in use.

Like the ix4, any portion of a RAID set can be carved out into an iSCSI LUN for Ethernet-connected hosts. Iomega claims that LUN provisioning times have improved with the added horsepower and software tweaks, and we hope this is true. A maximum of 256 LUNs can be configured in this way, though even 12 drives are unlikely to drive much performance to that many storage users.

Where to Use It?

Although not listed yet, Iomega promises that the ix12 will have a place on the Exchange ESRP, Windows Server and Hyper-V logo list, and VMware Compatibility Guide this month. It’s already the first Iomega product to be “EMC E-Lab Tested”, meaning it is on the EMC Support Matrix; this fact alone speaks volumes of EMC’s expectations for the unit. My own experience shows that Iomega iSCSI is fine for smaller VMware and Hyper-V deployments.

Clearly, the ix12 is a new kind of Iomega array. If the 200d and 200r were a sign that the company wanted to move out of the house, the ix12 is a demonstration that they have graduated. Starting at US $5,000, the ix12 is all business and its resume ought to impress in interviews. It can’t quite boast the scalability and redundancy of established arrays (including its brothers from EMC), but it ought to be an easy acquisition for companies looking for a little more storage here or there.

One is left with questions, though: How big will EMC let Iomega get? If 12 drives are acceptable, what about 24? Is SAS off limits? What about 10 Gigabit Ethernet and even Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) eventually? Can we dream of dual controllers? At some point, the Iomega lineup could even threaten the CLARiiON!

Then there is the competitive landscape. Iomega leapfrogged the 8-drive Data Robotics lineup and landed squarely in competition with the likes of the revitalized Overland Storage but at a much lower price. We also have Netgear, HP, Dell, and Promise, and there is an attractive D-Link box packing 15 drives and 10 GbE. Iomega also has to worry about its own big brother, the Dell/EMC AX4, starting around $12k. It’s a competitive market, and Iomega is in for a fight as even more vendors wake up to the possibilities in this market.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Iomega Graduates and Goes to Work with the ix12-300r
This post was categorized as Apple, 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.