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.

I invited two excellent guests to join me for this conversation:

1. Josh Goldstein, VP of Marketing, Cirtas
2. Andres Rodriguez, Founder and CEO, Nasuni

It was a pretty broad discussion, all packed into less than half an hour. I urge you to check out the podcast (and subscribe in iTunes, rss, or email) but I wanted to share a few excerpts. You can also read the entire transcript over at Foskett Services: I’ll be posting it as a series of articles over the next week!

Andres Rodriguez: I think one of the things that hurt StorageNetworks at the time was the fact that they couldn’t deploy the equipment in an efficient, multi-tenant way. And so, if you look at the new cloud architectures, (places like Nirvanix, places like Amazon) those systems are designed from the get-go to be shared among many, many users, and make very efficient use of the equipment and the software running it across that user base.

…

Josh Goldstein: Today, the cloud is built on top of process that are very difficult for most companies to replicate on their on. So, the price you’re paying to your cloud provider includes not just storing your data but also keeping multiple replicas of that data spread across different geographical sites.

You’re highly protected against not only a disk drive failure, but also an entire array failure or even an entire site failure where your information’s still is survived those kinds of events and is remaining accessible to your when you need it.

That’s something that for most organizations to engineer that level of reliability is extremely expensive and difficult for them. The cloud providers have been able to do that at scale and still deliver the capacity to you with that type of protection at a price point that’s really pretty amazing.

…

Andres Rodriguez: I’ll start there and I said anything that traditional storage world, we have file based systems. We have block based systems and that is exactly where Cirtas and Nasuni stand. We are the equivalent of say a company named EMC and NetApp for the cloud world. The approaches are complimentary. And they are both trying to solve the same problem. I’ll start on the file side but Josh can take on the block. But on the file level is really, look, if you want to have something that behaves very much like a file server, say like a NetApp box. It means you are going to have a file system, you want to have a protocol to export it locally on so something like CIFS, you are now going to have access to directory integration so that you can have access control. This is what makes a file server useful in the datacenter.

…

Andres Rodriguez: One of the really interesting things about that is that Josh is essentially describing thin provisioning in the classic sense. But unlike doing thin provisioning and this is the cloud is automatically provisioned. So he is essentially promising the volume. But then the volume is growing gradually, smoothly without any administrative interference. Without you having to worry about it; the volume is filling in its data as it goes. And that is one of the things we talked about in the beginning.

The cloud really allows you to build a different type of storage system, because automatic provisioning is really thin provisioning should be but isn’t. When you’re talking about physical linked arrays that are limited by actual hard drives, you know, running, spindles running in your datacenter.

Again, you can watch the video of the whole conversation right now over at Foskett Services, or you can read the transcripts that will be posted there over the next few days.

Disclaimer: I worked at StorageNetworks, and Nasuni is a client of Foskett Services.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Talking Cloud Storage Gateways With Nasuni and Cirtas
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, 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.

Most thin provisioning solutions are colossal hack jobs. How about real automatic provisioning instead?

I’ve never been a fan of thin provisioning as a storage management tool. Don’t get me wrong, I love having thin provisioning in my toolkit to overcome the limitations of conventional filesystems. Thin provisioning just gets under my skin when folks try to use it to solve business problems like long deployment time and slow purchasing cycles. If you attended any of the thin provisioning sessions I’ve presented at Storage Decisions, Interop, E-Storm, or elsewhere then you’ve heard my wistful dreaming of real automatic provisioning without the hackery of thin provisioning systems. But perhaps I didn’t mention that actual automatic provisioning actually exists today! It’s one of the many things I love about API-driven cloud storage!

Why Shouldn’t People Use Thin Provisioning?

I’ve gone into this many times, but I probably said it most-succinctly in my post, Use Process Solutions For Process Problems, Technical Solutions For Technical Ones:

I have a long-standing love/hate relationship with thin provisioning, one of the many proposed technical solutions to the utilization problem. Thin provisioning eliminates many technical challenges: It simplifies adding capacity to the Drobo that serves as my home office storage center; the ability to automatically grow VMware images makes virtualization practical in the tight confines of a laptop; and it contribute to the usefulness of advanced solid-state storage systems like the new Nimbus S-Class. But I have serious reservations about using thin provisioning to over-subscribe enterprise storage systems due to failures of capacity planning and IT-to-business communication. Thin provisioning will only make process issues worse.

This isn’t always the case, of course. Some people (including me) use thin provisioning to solve technical issues relating to inflexible filesystems. As Mr. Backup notes, you shouldn’t go around saying that everyone using thin provisioning is stupid. It’s just that some people (and vendors) over-rely on thin provisioning and use it to cover up a more-serious business problem.

So What’s Really Wrong With Thin Provisioning?

The biggest problem with most thin provisioning implementations is that they’re not really all that thin most of the time. I don’t blame the storage vendors: It’s really, really hard to “do” thin provisioning with conventional filesystems and block storage.

I spend lots of time talking about this in my “thin session” presentation, but I’ll sum it up here:

1. There’s a lack of information exchange between the application, file system, volume manager, and array controller so no one “knows” what to thin and when
2. De-allocating on delete is a pain because most filesystems don’t really delete data
3. There are two thin provisioning options, neither of which are simple or bulletproof:
   1. You can add smarts to the server, reporting back to the array when data is deleted
   2. Or you can add smarts to the array, snooping on the filesystem or reclaiming zeroes
4. Thin provisioning granularity has an impact on effectiveness, but not as much as you might think
5. Most arrays use lazy and ineffective thin reclamation; it takes real engineering to have in-line reclamation that doesn’t kill performance
6. Filesystems just weren’t designed to be thinned – they fragment, have alignment issues, etc…

It all boils down to a simple fact: Conventional systems expect to be stored “fat” on local disks, not thinned and virtualized and mangled. It’s possible to make it work, but takes so much engineering and processing power that you start wondering if it’s all really worth the bother.

We Need Automatic Provisioning Instead

I have a dream for automatic provisioning rather than reverse-engineering filesystem layouts, adding shims and semaphores, and hunting for zeroes. I want a “storage platform” that has a concept of data stored and deleted and allows applications to communicate needs beyond basic provisioning. In short, I want cloud storage.

Most people get so bound up thinking about the “cloud” part of cloud storage (service providers, REST, public/private, etc) that they overlook the obvious “storage” benefits! Cloud storage protocols enable applications to do amazing things with storage, decoupling them from the old assumptions about “my disk” and “my filesystem”. Yes, the Internet has a speed limit (both for throughput and latency). Yes, cloud storage is more expensive on a per-used-bit basis than on-site hardware. But these limits evaporate when one looks at total cost of ownership or deploys local equipment.

Real automatic provisioning is enabled by cloud storage access methods, made real by cloud gateways, and goes way beyond what any conventional thin provisioning system is capable of:

1. Imagine actually paying for exactly and only the storage capacity you are using! I use cloud storage services from Amazon and Nirvanix to host all of the images on this blog as well as the Field Day Roundtable Podcast video files. There is zero waste here: I’m paying only for used capacity and data transfer, and not a dime for empty space.
2. Imagine having unlimited scalability with no migrations! I don’t care where my service providers store my data and what equipment they use. They have an SLA to meet, and they’ve always met it. Internal or private clouds could do the same, liberated from the vendor support matrix lock-in game.
3. Imagine having your “bill” immediately reduced as soon as you delete data! I can temporarily use all the capacity I want, delete what I no longer need, and even switch providers with zero capacity “inertia” and clean-up. Public and private providers can immediately repurpose that capacity without any kind of reclamation process.

One of the dings against cloud storage is that it’s hard to start using. That is, since it uses a “proprietary protocol” it can’t be used by real-world applications. Well, more and more applications are supporting cloud providers directly. And cloud gateway products from companies like Nasuni, Cirtas, StorSimple, and others abound, allowing regular applications to go there, too. As Nasuni’s Rob Mason says, “there’s always more space available.”

Stephen’s Stance

We need to “get past” thin provisioning and the rest of the technical cruft that comes from using outdated concepts like block storage and filesystems. We need revolutionary storage that lets applications communicate in more-effective ways about capacity usage, retention requirements, replication, and similar needs. In short, we need cloud storage for a whole lot of reasons other than outsourcing of management. And it’s getting easier and easier to use cloud storage thanks to integration, cloud gateways, and the fact that the APIs are really simple and easy to use!

Watch my presentation, Extreme Tiered Storage: Flash, Disk, and Cloud for more detail on this topic!

Disclaimer: Although this is not a paid, sponsored, or for-hire article, Nasuni is a client of my consulting company, Foskett Services. I worked for Nirvanix and remain their customer. I am also a customer of Amazon and former customer or Rackspace. Symantec, maker of the Veritas storage products including the Thin API referenced here, is also a client and sponsor of Gestalt IT activities. I have lots of storage array companies as occasional clients and sponsors, including many like 3PAR, HP, Data Robotics, and EMC who make thin provisioning arrays.

Image Credit: “Push Pad to Open Automatic door. Right…” by @davestone

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Overcoming The Limits Of Thin Provisioning With Automatic Provisioning!
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.

We need to move beyond fake disks and deploy application-centric storage

Change is not a word normally associated with storage, and revolution is practically unheard of. Today’s modern enterprise storage systems and networks employ massive resources to do one simple thing: Emulate the basic hard disk drives used over three decades ago. But cracks are appearing in our mausoleum of fake disks: Application developers are discovering the value of object storage, and storage systems are appearing to support this need.

I also wrote about this two years ago, proclaiming that We Need a Storage Revolution and forecasting The Techie/Business Schism

The CAS Revolution

Caringo founder and CTO, Paul Carpentier, rose to prominence around 2000 at FilePool, one of the prime movers in the content-addressable storage (CAS) space. I recall a light going off in my head as Paul introduced me to FilePool’s CAS technology back then, imagining the possibilities of the concept. Files would be stored based on “what they were” rather than “where they were” and could be organized according to application needs rather than the conventional “extent of blocks” or tree heirarchy.

CAS discarded decades of filesystem and block storage baggage, introducing a new method for storing and retrieving data that better-matched the burgeoning web and enterprise applications of today. I had seen the failure of the first wave of storage service providers from inside StorageNetworks, and it was this desire for a real storage revolution that led me to dive into cloud storage at Nirvanix almost a decade later. Although I am now on my own, I remain convinced that the future belongs to storage systems that look nothing like today’s SAN and NAS.

Shortly after that 2001 meeting, EMC acquired FilePool and launched it as the Centera product line. But CAS systems quickly ran into a serious roadblock: Conventional applications cannot read and write to unconventional storage systems like Centera. EMC pushed key software vendors (especially in the archiving space) to create special Centera interfaces, and the industry bogged down developing the XAM standard. Other companies, like Seven Ten Storage Software, jumped in to help with the translation from proprietary CAS interfaces, but the transition from legacy files and blocks to object storage has been long and slow.

Cloud Storage: Another Dimension

Meanwhile, in an alternate dimension, web developers realized they had a serious problem. They were developing applications that scaled massively, spanning servers and exhausting conventional filesystems. Conventional systems just wouldn’t cut the mustard.

Since they were soaking in web applications, these developers applied the lessons of web services to storage: Why not just make an HTTP connection and ask for an object by a unique ID rather than walk a filesystem tree? Why not encapsulate the “state” of this request in the request itself rather than make a lasting connection and association between the client and server?

Thus was born cloud storage, and it was bookseller Amazon who opened the floodgates with their 2006 introduction of a “Simple Storage Service” or S3. They allowed anyone to store and retrieve objects from their massive web services infrastructure. S3 and similar services from Rackspace, Nirvanix, and others, are special-purpose web servers, and their simple interfaces are wonderfully attractive to web developers. For example, this WordPress-based blog uses cloud storage to serve images to your browser!

Similarities in CAS and Cloud

Although developed from vastly-differing starting points, CAS and cloud storage are essentially similar: Both reject conventional blocks and files in favor of object storage; both organize data with metadata databases; both multiply and scale out. There is one other major similarity between CAS and cloud storage: Both are attractive to service providers.

Imagine you operate a business that stores data for customers. You would want a flexible infrastructure that would scale with demand and segment each “tenant” from others for security and performance. As we learned at StorageNetworks, conventional SAN and NAS systems just weren’t meant to work in this kind of environment. Whether operating an internal service or a public cloud, service providers require something entirely different.

Cloud storage was designed from the start with service providers in mind, embedding per-object and per-”bucket” security, scalability, and abstraction between hardware and clients. Although quite complex to design, cloud storage is amazingly simple to use, provided an application can interface with it.

CAS wasn’t designed like this. Systems like EMC’s Centera were created for the needs of applications like enterprise archiving, but secure storage of content and extreme scalability are critical here as well. But early CAS systems didn’t need simple web-style interfaces or extreme hardware abstraction. These were enterprise systems, after all.

The CAS/Cloud Colission

CAS wasn’t exactly successful. Although object storage found a niche in enterprise archiving, the enterprise storage world has mostly continued with blocks and files. The major storage vendors all have some kind of object storage, but most are repurposed NAS rather than dedicated CAS like the Centera.

Although much skepticism has been raised about cloud storage in the enterprise, its impact on application development cannot be denied. Indeed, the majority of developers are now focused on programming platforms that abstract both compute and storage from conventional operating systems. The next generation of applications will run in “platform as a service” environments first, and cloud storage is a key component.

Storage vendors are rapidly moving to rework their conventional systems for cloud use. Although block and file systems from 3PAR, NetApp, Isilon, Symantec, HDS, HP, and others are useful in cloud environments, unconventional CAS becomes more valuable here. This is where EMC, Mezeo, and Caringo (with Dell) shine, and why HDS bought Parascale, NetApp bought Bycast, and what Overland could do with MaxiScale. In the mean time, “gateway” products from Nasuni, Cirtas, StorSimple, Twin Strata, and Asigra are awfully interesting.

Stephen’s Stance

The storage revolution is coming, whether we in the industry are ready or not. Developers are voting with their feet, targeting cloud storage and application platforms rather than conventional filesystems. Although the market for cloud storage products is slow to develop, the cloud storage concept will eventually dominate the landscape.

It seems most likely that this revolution will decimate the storage industry as we know it today. Unable to push high-margin storage arrays into the ballooning cloud space, product vendors will see their market share eroded by service providers with no use for these expensive systems. Monolithic file and block will soldier on in the new legacy applications, but the action will inevitably slip away.

The likely winners will be those who can leverage commodity hardware for scale-out cloud storage use. The proliferation of cloud platforms will settle down, with a few gaining traction and the rest discarded. Then we will see companies like HP, Dell, and Oracle rise to lead the storage sales charts with massive volume shipments to service providers.

Disclosure: I used to work for StorageNetworks (which is now defunct) and Nirvanix.

Image credit: Barcelona Graffiti by Aeioux

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | From CAS to Cloud: Revolutionary Storage
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.

The new Drobo FS brings native file sharing capability and a whole world of add-on "apps"

Data Robotics is back with yet another member in the rapidly-expanding Drobo family of “storage robots.” The newly-announced Drobo FS brings gigabit Ethernet, file-sharing protocols, and installable apps to the platform’s industry-leading flexibility and data protection. But Drobo FS is no slam dunk: It’s expensive, not found in (many) stores, and the value proposition can be difficult to comprehend. Will Drobo FS sink or swim?

Drobo FS: The File-Based Drobo

It used to be so easy: Drobo was a 4-drive SOHO storage device that protected your data, allowed easy and seamless drive swaps, and attached with a USB or FireWire cable. The lauded Drobo operational simplicity remains, but the newly-expanded Drobo family is starting to look awfully complex. Instead of a single product, Data Robotics now sells no fewer than five models of Drobo.

And baby makes five? The Drobo line runs from the old 4-drive direct-attach Drobo to the iSCSI SAN DroboElite and now includes the NAS DroboFS.

The original 4-drive direct-attach USB/FireWire Drobo was refreshed a few years ago. It remains the value leader, and I am totally committed to the gen-2 Drobo I purchased and rely on to protect my own data. Next up is the faster 5-drive eSATA/USB/FireWire Drobo S, upon which the Drobo FS was based. The Drobo family also includes two 8-drive iSCSI models: The single-computer DroboPro and full multi-server SAN capable DroboElite.

The new Drobo FS is an entirely different animal. Instead of presenting plain disk capacity (what we in the business call “block storage”), the FS acts like a file server. It “speaks” SMB/CIFS (the Windows protocol), AFP (the Apple Mac OS X protocol), and, through a free download, NFS (the UNIX protocol).

Plug the single gigabit Ethernet port of a Drobo FS into your home or office network and it will appear to be a Windows or Mac server with tons of available storage. This marks the first time a Drobo can be easily shared between many users: Although a front-end device like a PC or Mac (or the now-discontinued DroboShare) share the storage space from any Drobo over a network, it was a multi-step process that challenged some users. Of course, the DroboElite can share capacity using the iSCSI protocol, but that’s nowhere near as user-friendly as the Drobo FS NAS.

The Drobo FS shares much of its hardware with the impressive Drobo S, including its 5-drive chassis and dual-drive data protection. It also shares the high-performance CPU of the Drobo S, making the Drobo FS mighty fast for a small NAS. Although I have not benchmarked it myself, the company promises 40-50 MB/s read and 30-40 MB/s write performance, making it one of the fastest devices in this class. I’ll be eager to test those numbers out myself, since most of the competing devices have seriously disappointed me with their slow transfer speed.

The Drobo FS packs a single gigabit Ethernet port rather than the USB, FireWire, or eSATA found on other models

What’s missing from the Drobo FS is a USB, FireWire, or eSATA port. Like all Drobos but the DroboElite, the DroboFS is a single-purpose storage device. If you want to connect it to your PC, you have to use Ethernet and SMB, AFP, or NFS. This is not a limitation per se (competing devices, like the Iomega ix4 and Lacie Big5, are similarly limited to NAS-only), but may come as a surprise to the Drobo faithful. Note too that, unlike the DroboPro, DroboElite, and ix4, the Drobo FS is not VMware or Hyper-V certified, limiting its use as a virtualization lab target.

You might like reading some of the other pieces I’ve written about Drobo products.

The DroboApp Economy

Anyone who has unboxed a Drobo knows that the company has a serious crush on Apple. The single-purpose simplicity of the design similarly apes the boys from Cupertino. But the Drobo FS takes the fruit envy to a new level with DroboApps.

Like the iPad, the Drobo FS is a blank slate, waiting for you to customize and configure it as you like. At launch, Drobo FS can be upgraded to a media server for iTunes or UPnP/DLNA, a BitTorrent client, or a web server. All of these apps are free, and most are open source ports with varying degrees of stability. I long tried to use the Firefly media server on a similar NAS device, for example, but finally abandoned that buggy and limited software in favor of a real iTunes instance on my always-running iMac.

Most of these apps are inherited from the dead DroboShare, but new the revived platform is likely to spawn more interesting apps. Launching in May, Oxygen Cloud is particularly appealing. A “private cloud” service for the Drobo FS and public services including Amazon S3, Rackspace, Mozy, and Nirvainx, the Oxygen Cloud application allows clients to access files anywhere on many devices. Imagine sitting at Starbucks using your iPad to browse your home or office Drobo FS content! Oxygen Cloud also handles data replication and can even remotely wipe content from devices if needed.

Strangely, the Drobo FS lacks a web-based management interface. Instead, you must install the Drobo Dashboard application on a PC or Mac. And third-party apps each have their own management interface with little or no integration with the Drobo itself. This goes against my image of the Drobo, and I suggest that the company roll out a web-based plugin-friendly interface to integrate the user experience.

Should You Get A Drobo FS?

As a professional focused on data storage, my hearty endorsement goes to the Drobo platform. The BeyondRAID technology and solid engineering of these devices mitigate the serious risk of data loss posed by the unprotected “bare disk” storage devices that are so popular with computer users today.

I have had four hard disks crash in the last 12 months. Anyone less careful about backups than I would have lost data in three of those incidents, but the fourth deserves mention: I installed two brand new Samsung hard drives in my Drobo and started adding data. Within 48 hours, one of those drives had failed. I popped it out and returned it, inserting instead a Western Digital I found at Fry’s. When the replacement Samsung arrived, I popped that into the Drobo, too. Through it all, the Drobo protected my data and kept me up and running without a snag.

One nagging issue with the Drobo line is the price. List price for the Drobo FS with no disk drives installed is US$699 (that’s 469 quid or 519 of the fancy European ones). That’s a serious amount of money. The base Drobo is $300 cheaper, which is enough to buy a cheapie Windows or Linux box to use as a more full-featured NAS head. Shop around and you might be able to afford a used Mac Mini and a new Drobo for the same price as a Drobo FS!

Add in three 1.5 TB disks, and your Drobo FS investment is up to $1k. Is that too much to ask for peace of mind? Interestingly, the Drobo S lists for $100 more than the similar Drobo FS. Perhaps it’s time for Data Robotics to drop the price on that unit? Street prices for the Drobo S eliminate that $100 differential anyway.

The competing 4-drive 4 TB Iomega ix4-200d sells for about the same price as an empty Drobo FS. But the comparison reveals a fundamental difference between these products: The Iomega is only available with a full complement of drives and can not be upgraded. In contrast, the Drobo can be purchased empty, expanded on an as-needed basis, and easily upgraded in the future without data loss or even downtime. This is a huge difference, both in terms of initial cost and “live with it” longevity.

I decided that the Drobo was worth my own money. I bought an empty (heavily discounted) Drobo and two new (heavily discounted) hard disk drives for less than $500. Although I am happy with that choice, the Drobo S is simply too expensive for me to upgrade. I feel the same about the Drobo FS: My negative experience with many of the same open source apps used on the FS, combined with the high price tag, leave me happy with my current solution which combines a Drobo and an iMac.

One of the reasons I love the Drobo is the simple set-and-forget experience. Like the iPhone, the Drobo just works. But the Drobo FS suggests we should use third-party open-source apps, each with its own management interface and foibles. None of these will share files or serve media to Mac OS X and iTunes as well as OS X and iTunes itself, so why bother with the FS at all? Unless you want basic NAS connectivity or the coolness of Oxygen Cloud, I still recommend the original Drobo over any alternative, even the Drobo FS.

Disclaimer: Data Robotics is a paying sponsor of the Gestalt IT Tech Field Day, which I organize. I know many people at the company and was briefed ahead of this launch. Anyone reading this review will hopefully recognize that none of this influenced my opinion on this, or any, product.

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. | Review: Will Drobo FS Take The NAS Market By Storm?
This post was categorized as Apple, Features, Personal, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

CommVault is bringing a new dish to dinner: Cloud storage!

If your family was like mine, Thanksgiving was a two-tiered affair: The adults sat at the fancy dining room table while the kids had to sit in the kitchen, some even using a card table and folding chairs. You knew you were grown up when you moved up to the adult table. I guess this American coming-of-age ritual is pretty common with other rituals, too. There’s no formal ceremony, but everyone knows when little Johnny becomes just-plain John.

We see similar things happen in IT. New technologies and ideas are often given a pat on the head, a pinch on the cheek, but then sent to the kids table in the kitchen. Only mature technologies are taken seriously and granted equal status when enterprise architectures are defined!

One sure-fire way of determining when a technology is ready for prime time is when it is integrated with a major enterprise product. Sure, lots of products will support this or that, but thoroughly integrating a new technology requires serious effort. Not just any technology gets this kind of focus!

That’s why I’m pleased to see today’s announcement that CommVault has completely integrated API-driven public cloud storage with Simpana, their impressive data protection and archiving suite. It reminds me of that point when the backup products of yore finally adopted disk-based technology. Now there are three equal backup targets: Tape, disk, and cloud.

CommVault calls their new integrated cloud storage "Farline" - as opposed to "Nearline", get it?

CommVault’s reputation in the storage industry is like BMW’s in cars: They’re an engineering-driven company and focus on offering the best technology. There’s no way CommVault would cut corners when it came to a fundamental technology. So they applied considerable engineering resources and delivered a really advanced product.

I’ve previously noted that cloud storage is not backup, but that the combination of cloud storage with a solid backup platform makes a killer data protection value proposition. This is exactly what CommVault is delivering. Plus, Simpana’s integrated encryption and data deduplication technology work to reduce cloud-related angst. And CommVault will be supporting just about every public cloud provider, beginning with Amazon S3, Microsoft Azure, and Nirvanix (where I spend my days), and I hear Iron Mountain and EMC Atmos are on the way, too.

Read more over at Network World, DGIC, or check out my Nirvanix blog about CommVault’s cloud integration.

Note: Yeah, that’s a Tofurkey-brand vegetarian turkey in the photo above. Yum!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | CommVault Gives Cloud Storage A Seat At The Adult Table
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.

Everyone is a vendor - what are you selling?

We’re All Selling Something

I’ve always been a vendor blogger, and so have you. It took me a long time to come to terms with this, but nearly everybody is a vendor of one sort or another: Regardless of whether you deliver results to your employer, sell your own services, or push a product, we’re all selling something.

I’ve been delivering enterprise IT consulting for a living for almost 15 years now. It’s easy to pretend that human services like consulting are somehow more pure than the “box pushers”, but this is simply not the case. Even internal end-user employees are trying to keep themselves employed, and the most effective way to do this is to promote their company and themselves.

It’s not a black and white scale. If we are all selling ourselves and our employers,then we are all vendors to greater or lesser extents. We all have our axes to grind, our prejudices to expose, and only our experience to draw on. So no one is perfectly credible and no one is perfectly tainted.

I’ve long labored to maintain my credibility and independence, even as I have moved from an IT outsourcer (Sprint Paranet) to a storage service provider (StorageNetworks) to strategic consulting companies (GlassHouse Technologies and Contoural) to a cloud storage provider (Nirvanix). I’ve always remained separate from any product focus, but I’ve always been part of the sales and delivery process for consulting services.

Get Out Of Jail Free?

The fact that it’s all shades of gray does not mean, however, that we are free to twist the facts with impunity or that we should object when others pass judgement on our motivations. Quite the opposite: If we are all vendors, we all had better be careful what our actions say about us!

This is the most important lesson I have learned about blogging: Credibility is our currency, and no one has yet offered me enough reward to sacrifice mine. Can I be bought? Well, in the words of Jayne Cobb, “that’ll be an interesting day!”

Because I recognize the importance of credibility, I try to keep a level head and maintain a respectable persona. This means avoiding personality-driven battles and engaging in accptable business practices I would be proud for the world to know. This isn’t always easy: As your personal profile rises, there will be outside pressure (or inside temptation) to leverage it. Our shared challenge is to keep level heads.

The Messenger Matters

One inescapable fact remains: Employees of companies known for FUD are held to a higher standard of scrutiny. No matter how personally responsible and credible you are, if you work for a marketing-driven product vendor, you will be under the microscope.

Comments that would be considered innocuous or even respectably aloof from an “independent” might seem like mud slinging from a vendor employee. Imagine reading blog posts or tweets from an end user criticizing the products of Microsoft and IBM. If the exact same statements were made by employees of EMC or HP, wouldn’t they be seen in a different light? The message is the same, but the messenger matters.

I have personally experienced the doors that close when moving from a consulting company to a managed service provider. Certain publications and event organizers have strict rules denying “vendors” the right to participate; others have no such restrictions. I was sad to say goodbye to TechTarget after 5 years, but I respect their rules. Happily, as their door closed, others opened and I was able to write and present more last year than any year previous!

If you enjoyed reading this, you’ll probably also like my Foskett Services blog!

My Approach

My new role at Nirvanix explicitly allowed me to continue my personal social media presence, including organizing Gestalt IT and Tech Field Day. Management saw that my reputation was a benefit to the company and trusted I would remain objective and keep my work and non-work roles separated.

I’ve endeavored to do just that, launching a new blog, Enterprise Storage Strategies, specifically for cloud storage strategy and restricted crossover between the two domains. In the interest of objectivity, I’ve also “recused” myself from discussions of cloud storage on the Gestalt IT web site and at Tech Field Day.

I don’t want to say that this is the correct approach for everyone, but it’s worked well for me. What do you think? How can vendor bloggers remain credible in the increasingly social world?

Hot dog cart image by rollingrck

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | What I’ve Learned From Vendor Blogging
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Personal, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Are you a vendor blogger or an independent? Can you straddle the line and be both?

Why Do Vendor Bloggers Matter?

I suppose it’s best to get some definitions out of the way at the outset. Blogging and social media is a diverse and ill-defined region of the Internet, a world which itself in its infancy. What I write here is focused on my particular corner of the online world: Enterprise IT infrastructure, and enterprise storage in particular. I am sure that other areas, both inside and outside of IT infrastructure, have different norms and values.

In fact, this particular focus on who is a vendor and who is not will seem peculiar to many. Some areas are dominated by insiders blogging for their employer, other companies are entirely absent from the blogging sphere (Exhibit A: Apple), and still others don’t make much of a fuss over who someone works for. Yet concern about payola and bias runs deep even in the most liberal circles.

Can You Trust It?

It boils down to a simple question: How much can you trust what you read? Blogging and other social media activities (Twitter, conferences, forums, etc) have come to dominate discourse and drive search engine ranking. An outspoken social media maven can drive mind-space and thought leadership using these tools. Yet the democratic Internet is open to any and all.

This kind of influence can be very subtle. A connected employee can be expected to be part of the larger conversation about a product, service, or technology. Once also expects them to influence this discussion, and this will always be biased based on their experience and background within the company. Where outside critics see a profit-motivated monolith, an employee sees an all-too-human company trying its best to succeed. And since that success feeds their children, it’s hard to expect them to be too critical.

Certainly some content is inherently trustworthy, especially in technical areas like IT. I love Chad Sakac’s posts on EMC/VMware integration, for example. I also look forward to reading what the VMware and Microsoft employee bloggers write, since they’re so detailed and factual. And finding this kind of content of a personal blog, even without disclosure, wouldn’t raise my hackles. But even the most technical blogs sometimes get into “mine is better than yours” arguments between vendors.

The world of strategy and opinion is much less black and white. Consider just about anything on Chuck Hollis’ blog. He writes at EMC.com and his content is always on point for that company. But many others (from many companies) write similarly corporate-focused pieces with much less disclosure. This is an old PR trick, and the Internet makes it easier than ever both to get published and to disguise affiliation.

But even with the best of intentions, we are all biased in one way or another. Our experience, our employer, our friends, and indeed the entire world we live in influence our experience. It is not a simple thing to be independent of this, and we should expect everyone to be impacted to one extent or another. The trick is to detect overt bias and manipulation.

Throwing Stones

I’m not trying to throw stones here. In fact, I write a vendor blog myself for my employer, Nirvanix. I am very used to wearing multiple hats, and I pride myself on my ability to step into and out of the corporate shadow. But it’s a very difficult game to play, and I’ve failed on occasion.

Rather, I’m hoping that this series of articles will spark some discussion on the whole concept of vendor blogs. I’ll be posting about the spectrum of options that corporate bloggers have, non-blogging soapboxes they use, and best practices to keep everything straight.

If you enjoyed reading this, you’ll probably also like my Foskett Services blog!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Vendor Bloggers 1: Why Does It Matter?
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Personal, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Although Google insists that this is not GDrive, it provides the capability of this leaked concept:

1. “… reliable storage for all of your files, including photos, music and documents …” – This new offering supports any and all file types, regardless of whether Google supports them. Further, users (and enterprise Apps customers) can purchase extra capacity with no upper limit. This sounds like “all of your files” to me!
2. “… access your files from anywhere, anytime, and from any device — be it from your desktop, Web browser, or cellular phone” – Google Docs, as a web application, is already accessible from anything with a web browser. But Google has gone further and opened an access API, which third-party apps have slowly begun to support, and has built mobile phone-specific versions of the interface.

In my opinion, Google Docs will soon be a reasonable stand-in for GDrive, but it’s not really anything special. There are lots of services that support online storage of unstructured data, and many include impressive syncing, searching, and sharing capabilities that go well beyond what Google is offering. Third-party clients for Docs add much of this functionality, but they also add extra cost and complexity.

For example, Memeo Connect looks to be a nice front-end for Google Docs and will launch alongside this Google release, but Memeo tells me that this software will cost $9 per user annually. A small amount, to be sure, but a necessary expense to really make use of Google’s limited upload and access capabilities.

Cloud Storage On The Cheap?

One element of this release that did catch my eye was the pricing:

• Google Docs users will get one GB of capacity for free but can add additional capacity at the rate of $.25 per GB per year. This is an eye-opening rate, well below the established pricing of cloud storage and backup vendors.
• But this isn’t the whole story. Google wisely expects enterprise customers to require actual customer support and offers enterprise capacity at a rate of $3.50 per GB per year. This works out to $.29 per GB per month, much more in line with existing offerings. In fact, it’s more expensive than Rackspace Cloud Files, Amazon S3, Nirvanix (where I work), Zetta, and AT&T Synaptic Storage, though Google is bundling bandwidth costs.

Although the enterprise pricing of this offering is not compelling, it does illustrate two truisms of the cloud market:

1. If you want support, you need to pay for it – Chicken Littles out there have been crowing that “the cloud is falling” after watching poorly-architected and -supported solutions fail, yet complain when service providers try to talk about TCO. Well, guess what: You won’t get enterprise-grade cloud storage for free.
2. Disk capacity is a small component of TCO – Why does Google Docs cost 14 times more for business users? Because disk drives make up a very small part of the real cost of delivering storage services. If this doesn’t dispel the dumb disk fallacy, I don’t know what will!

So Google’s new Docs capability isn’t revolutionary, either in technology or cost. But I’m looking forward to trying it out over the coming months. It will certainly be interesting to see how this all resolves!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Is GDrive Finally Being Launched?
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, 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.

It’s that time again, when everyone who thinks they’re a pundit (that would be everyone with a blog or Twitter account) has to make predictions for the coming year. But predictions are perilous: Get it right and you look like a mere trend-watcher; get it wrong and you look like a fool. It’s such a hassle! So I’m doing something different this year: I’m going to make predictions for 2009 now that it’s over, and reflect on just how smart I am (not) to have made them. Or something.

What I Would Have Gotten Right

I definitely could have predicted a lot of what happened in 2009. I mean, these were slam dunks!

1. Twitter rocks the world – I wasn’t early to Twitter, but I spent the early part of 2009 evangelizing its benefits to companies and co-workers alike. Considering how common Twitter is today, it’s hard to believe how roundly criticized and misunderstood it was this time last year. Yet here we are, on the verge of 2010, and Twitter has seeped onto our business cards, presentation templates, and web sites. I might not have predicted how stable (!) Twitter got by the end of the year, though.
2. Apple’s Macs and iPhones rule – I switched to the iPhone and the Mac in 2007 and 2008, respectively, but it looks like I wasn’t much of an iconoclast after all: By November, half of the Tech Field Day delegates were using MacBooks, and the Windows and Blackberry holdouts have started vocally defending their operating system choice. Pretty much like Mac folks used to do way back in 2008.
3. The recession is a serious pain – Companies put the brakes on spending and hiring, many even shifting both into reverse in 2009. This came as no surprise to humans capable of thought. The impact on enterprise IT companies was similarly predictable: Although most were able to survive, the impact of 2009 will continue to be felt for years. I might have predicted it would be worse, though I’m glad to say I would have been wrong.
4. EMC, NetApp, HDS, HP, and IBM continue to quibble – Surprise: Big company bloggers spend way too much time criticizing the products and actions of each other and way to little time talking about the true value of their own products.

Non-IT slam-dunk predictions: Obama was reviled by the right; the war in Afghanistan continues; people do stupid stuff in the name of reality shows.

What I Probably Could Have Predicted

Although some details would likely have been missed, I think I would have seen these coming.

1. Cloud compute and storage hits the enterprise – I was a believer in the cloud this time last year, and I bet my future on it by taking a position at enterprise cloud storage provider, Nirvanix, in March. I would have predicted that enterprise buyers would be putting serious thought to buying cloud products, but the scope has surprised me. We’re talking enough petabytes that the non-cloud players felt compelled to strike back with the private cloud pitch. Awesome!
2. Sun and Data Domain were acquired – My money would have been on Dell, IBM, or HP as buyers for this pair, but EMC wouldn’t have been outside my guesses. Still, Oracle buying Sun and vocally committing to keep it going, SPARC and all, would never have come to mind. But I wouldn’t have guessed against it either, so I’ll give myself a point here!
3. Cisco and EMC buddy up – I’ve long thought an outright merger of these two was in the cards, but even the recession couldn’t make the financials work. A partnership would have been on the list, and Acadia came as no surprise to anyone.
4. Cloud outages and data loss – I definitely could have predicted that high-profile cloud services would fall over throughout the year, and that some would lose data. Not all are enterprise-grade, after all. But the outages at Google, Rackspace, and Amazon, and Microsoft’s Danger data loss, surprised me. Don’t those guys have their acts together?
5. IT conferences falter – I spoke at Interop in 2009, but it lacked the 20,000-strong crowd it once had. Storage Decisions and Storage Networking World managed to fill their halls, but the old-school IT conference has lost its luster. Although VMworld remains strong, attendance was definitely off.
6. FCoE and SSD are still starting – I’ve been lukewarm on Fibre Channel over Ethernet and Solid State Drives, but I’m a bit surprised that storage vendors didn’t push them harder in 2009. I might have guessed there would have been more customer uptake to match the buzz.
7. SMB storage is hot – There’s a hole in the storage market between $1,000 and $20,000, and companies like Drobo and Iomega are rushing in to fill it. Now that ESX has solid iSCSI support, I expect a world of innovation here. (Oops, that sounds kind of like a 2010 prediction!)

Also in the predictable category: Goldman Sachs and Bank of America thrived while others fell; Ford is the strongest of the remaining US automakers; Boeing finally got the 787 off the ground.

What I Never Would Have Guessed

I’m not perfect, even in retrospect. Some of the Tech news from 2009 was just completely off the wall.

1. Microsoft Bing: This time for sure! – Seriously, Microsoft should stick to in-house thinking instead of trying to copy its rivals. Yet somehow, miraculously, Bing appeared and did not suck. In fact, I’m hearing regular (non-techie) folks around town talking about using the search engine. I’ve even used it! Could they actually have a winner?
2. Windows 7 rocks – Really? Seriously? Could Microsoft have come up with a solid replacement for Windows XP?
3. Ship it! – It’s not even 2010, and enterprise storage buyers can go out and purchase NetApp’s OnTap 8, EMC’s FAST, EMC Atmos Compute, and unicorn tears. Well, maybe not unicorn tears.
4. Still no GDrive – Seemingly every company has a cloud storage platform, from Amazon to Rackspace, Nirvanix to EMC, so why not Google? Could GDrive join Duke Nukem Forever as the most famous vaporware of the decade?
5. The executive shuffle – Dave Donatelli was supposed to lead EMC, not HP. Alan Atkinson was supposed to launch another startup, not take over Xiotech. At least NetApp was gentle.
6. Mac OS X (still) lacks iSCSI and ZFS – Come on, Cupertino, what’s wrong with you guys? I’ve been hyping ZFS for years, and iSCSI is commonplace. Yet Snow Leopard is stingy with both. Makes me want to hiss like one of those blue folks in Avatar.
7. Gestalt IT is a success – On a personal note, Gestalt IT didn’t even exist this time last year, and now we have a successful IT infrastructure blog and social media event. Amazing!

Other total shockers: Everyone loves Michael Jackson again; digital Beatles tunes are available everywhere but iTunes; Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize arrives 10 years early.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | My 2009 IT Industry Predictions
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History, Enterprise storage, Everything, Personal, Terabyte home, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.