Looking around at the enterprise storage landscape, it is plain that certain archetypes rule: Monolithic enterprise arrays, dual-controller modular arrays, standard-sized hard disk units, NAS servers, tape libraries. Are these really the optimal designs for storage in our modern open systems world?

On the contrary, I suggest that the enterprise storage world we know was shaped by singular innovative products of the past. Without these, the IT world might look very different.

So let’s take a walk through history, identifying the ten most innovative and important enterprise storage hardware products. But let me note first that this list could be 100 items long, and we all have our favorites. Lots of the storage blogging world contributed their ideas, too! Continue Reading »

As I guessed on Friday, EMC has officially announced their Maui Atmos software layer today, calling it the “industry’s first COS (cloud-optimized storage) offering”, “a new era for IT”, and “a new category of storage.” So the new era for IT is a cloud with globally-distributed object stores with policy management?

Great! But I thought the new era for IT was a cloud with choice, mobility, and application support, as trumpeted by EMC’s VMware subsidiary! Wasn’t Cloud vServices from VDC-OS supposed to be the prototype cloud strategy for the datacenter?

What we have here is a simple clash of marketing amusingly taking place at (nearly) the same company. VMware figured out how to extend their server virtualization products outside the confines of the data center, and laid that technology out as a strategy with the trendy “cloud” name. Meanwhile, mother EMC is working on next-generation content storage software and decides to roll that out as a strategy and also jumps on the “cloud” meme. What’s an IT manager to do? Continue Reading »

This is part of an ongoing series of longer articles I will be posting every Sunday as part of an experiment in offering more in-depth content.

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.

Continue Reading »

As I mentioned on Monday, VMware’s Update 2 for ESX 3.5 includes support for 8 Gb Fibre Channel HBAs. This is an important development, so I went looking through the official ESX I/O Compatibility Guide to see which HBAs in particular were supported, but none were listed.

This was pretty puzzling, but Rich from VM /ETC and Duncan from Yellow Bricks were right - they just hadn’t updated the guide yet (even though the revision date was July 25).

So without further ado, the announcement:  You can now use Emulex and QLogic 8 Gb Fibre Channel HBAs with VMware ESX to give blazing I/O performance right where it’s needed.  Of course, 8 Gb storage arrays remain rare, but this will change soon.

An end-to-end 8 Gb FC SAN will likely provide all the performance of 10 Gb FCoE, and it’s available now instead of 2009 or 2010.  10 Gb iSCSI and NFS are also supported as of Update 2 if you’re more of a TCP/IP person…

VMware just released Update 2 for VMware ESX Server 3.5 (Virtual Infrastructure), and it includes some storage fixes of note:

1. Support for Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) for filesystems Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 guests.  This means VMware services like VCB and SRM can now signal Windows Server to quiesce filesystems before creating a clone or snapshot and is a major addition!
2. Windows Server 2003 guests also get application quiescing, where supported.
3. You can now extend a live, running VMFS volume as storage is added, just like Windows Vista and 2008 guests could already do with raw device mode (RDM).  Note that this only works for flat disks with no persistent snapshots open.

Continue Reading »

One of the hits from my TechTarget storage virtualization seminar this week was a discussion of the relative merits of different storage protocols. Sounds deadly, but this can be quite a religious issue for folks, and it generated lively debate. I’m firmly in the “do what works” camp - there is no always-right protocol, and they all can work.

In the interests of all, I’d like to point out two delicious sources of VMware storage protocol wisdom:

An internal paper from VMware’s performance folks titled Comparison of Storage Protocol Performance shows that, as expected, Fibre Channel has the lowest CPU overhead and best overall throughput. But, no surprise to anyone who’s tested alternatives, iSCSI and NFS also work pretty darn well! And you can knock that extra CPU load right down to the FC level with an iSCSI HBA.

Next up is a best practices paper from Network Appliance that is chock full of VMware storage goodness. If you’re curious about the potentials of NFS storage for VMDKs, this paper is a must-read! I’m pretty impressed with what VMware over NFS has to offer.

By the way, my next seminars are June 24 and 26 in Atlanta and San Francisco, respectively. I’ll also be presenting some related content at Storage Decisions in Chicago in May and Toronto in June.

Update:  Marc Farley talks back - isolate your networks, people!