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.

There has been a lot of discussion in the storage industry about Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE), making it the toast of Storage Networking World, but this technology remains relatively unknown to end users. Like so many storage protocols before it, the $10,000 question is whether FCoE will take off like iSCSI or fizzle as a niche product like FCIP, DAFS, and so many others.

If it does succeed, another critical question is what this means for iSCSI, Fibre Channel, InfiniBand, and to a lesser extent AoE, expanded SAS, and other options for SAN storage. The enterprise data center is poised for a complete change in server connectivity, with 10 Gb Ethernet converged network adapters (CNAs) and new core switches carrying both network and storage traffic, and this holds promise, especially in virtualized environments. But CNAs do not equal FCoE, and iSCSI, conventional Fibre Channel, and other protocols are roaring ahead. What impact will FCoE really have?

Why FCoE Matters

With 8 Gb Fibre Channel and alternative storage solutions leveraging InfiniBand now available (and with 10 Gb iSCSI imminent), many would ask why we need another enterprise block storage medium. In real-world applications, FCoE at 10 Gb will likely deliver roughly the same performance as 8 Gb native FC. But FCoE will be one or two years late and (initially) more expensive. Although active standards participation and “plug fests” mean FCoE will likely be more interoperable than Fibre Channel was in its early years, the lack of support from operating system manufacturers is troubling. Plus, users will soon be able to build a very similar infrastructure by mixing iSCSI and 10 Gb Ethernet, and this will include all the advantages of IP and solid support.

So why pay more for the same performance from an untested protocol? It’s all about the future, and enterprise users will go where the market goes, just as wide availability of VHS tapes buried Betamax. Storage, network, and SAN vendors alike are lining up solidly behind FCoE as the next-generation enterprise interconnect. Although InfiniBand plays Betamax in this home video metaphor, with superior technology and availability, FCoE’s VHS camp has all the market ammunition. To paraphrase the (alleged) words of Bob Metcalfe, no matter what the technology looks like, the future of networking will be called Ethernet.

The biggest storage vendors are behind FCoE simply because they see that converging and leveraging I/O technology makes sense for them. They can swap out the physical and data link layers from Fibre Channel to Ethernet relatively easily, so the FCoE switch is an easier change than iSCSI. It is likely that they will be able to leverage commodity Ethernet hardware to reduce (their, not your) cost and increase profit margins once this switch is made. Plus, FCoE will potentially increase SAN attachment rates (and thus enterprise storage market penetration) thanks to the potential availability of converged network adapters (CNAs) on the server side, and the cost-effectiveness that sharing a CNA between network and storage implies. From the storage side, FCoE is all good.

Also see my posts on FCoE versus iSCSI and Cisco VFrame

The drive is similar on the network side. The era of differentiated SAN and LAN producers is over – all of the major networking and SAN vendors are repositioning themselves as next-generation I/O providers, setting up a battle in the network space to rival the mainframe shakeout of the 1980s and the PC wars of the 1990s. Converged I/O is the business model for connectivity vendors, and most are taking up the “data center Ethernet” (DCE) charge (also called “converged enhanced or enterprise Ethernet” or CEE) which includes FCoE as the storage protocol for virtual I/O. iSCSI is still there in a DCE world, but FCoE will take center stage for the enterprise market.

Counting the Benefits of FCoE

It may seem strange to declare an upstart like FCoE the winner when established options like InfiniBand, conventional Fibre Channel, and iSCSI are already out in the market, but this examination of the vendors indicates that it is indeed the case. Is this a case of the tail (vendors) wagging the dog (consumers)? Perhaps, but they will come along willingly given the strong case presented by converged and virtualized I/O.

Enterprise buyers are ready for a next-generation SAN technology, and some are beginning to look at 8 Gb Fibre Channel. The few that really need performance will certainly buy 8 Gb FC today, but this has little bearing on the overall prospect for FCoE. When an application requires performance and money is available, purchases will be made regardless of future strategy.

Enterprise storage and network architects are beginning to consider the implications of server consolidation and virtualization. As they see footprint shrink thanks to compact or blade servers and server virtualization, they will begin to question the proliferation of interconnects on the back end required to keep up with the I/O demands of these super servers. Already, virtual I/O purveyors like Xsigo are making hay in this market, and, as mentioned above, their SAN and LAN vendors are spreading the message, too. It won’t be long before they are convinced.

Also see my posts on VMware VDC-OS and VDC-OS vStorage

Many people mistakenly assume that DCE means pushing all protocols through a single LAN, but this is not the case. These networks will be engineered like SANs from the start, with redundant connections and transparent failover. Although storage and network connectivity will share the same physical “pipe”, they will certainly be segregated on separate VLANs and protected with quality of service technologies. They have to be separated – FCoE (lacking IP) will require a totally different network topology than LAN connections.

So Who Buys FCoE?

Note that, throughout this discussion, I am referring only to the large-scale enterprise data center storage market. Smaller corporate environments have already embraced iSCSI en masse, expanding the penetration of consolidated storage concepts beyond anything Fibre Channel could ever accomplish. And small office and home networks are beginning to embrace these concepts as well, but are relying on protocols like CIFS and AFP for file servers and may begin to look at ATA over Ethernet (AoE) and proprietary protocols like the one pushed by Zetera/NetGear instead of iSCSI.

This leaves us with a layer cake of appropriate protocols from the smallest to largest networks. But all have one thing in common: They are all converged and they are all carried in Ethernet packets. Bob Metcalfe was right!

Update: Storagebod points out that FCoE might see its first application in inter-switch links and other similar storage network infrastructure connections. And Chris Mellor at The Register points out that SAS is already displacing FC as an internal drive interconnect.

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

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2008. | Reality Check: The FCoE Forecast
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.

Homes now need data storage as well as closets...

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.

Along with my professional focus on enterprise storage systems, I’m enamored of home networking, and recently passed the three terabyte mark at home! This got me thinking about where home storage is heading.

As you can see in the photo, my office closet is overflowing with computer equipment (and one sweet guitar), but my data storage is much better organized. I have a hacked Linksys NSLU2 with 500 GB as a file server, a 500 GB PC backup disk, a 160 GB Time Machine disk, 1 TB of TiVo storage, and the rest. But wouldn’t it be nice if this could all be combined into some kind of super home server?

Past Failures: Home Servers

Home storage appliances and servers have come and gone over the year, with none seeming to make much of a mark. The market remains littered with UPNP media servers and home NAS boxes dashed on the shoals of an unappreciative public. Nearly every home network device company has produced one or two home storage servers, none of which have succeeded. Although I use a Linksys NSLU2 at home, I had to hack its Linux software and completely replace Linksys’ features to create a useful device! The un-hacked NAS devices of Buffalo, Western Digital, Netgear, and the rest have generally failed to find buyers as well. So far, consumers seem content with simple USB and FireWire external drives.

The most adventurous home storage servers came from Zetera and Ximeta, both of whom relied on proprietary IP SAN protocols. Note that these were SAN products, sharing block storage over Ethernet, rather than conventional NAS solutions. Both required drivers, limiting client support. The one Zetera buyer I know was pleased by the performance but never used the device as anything but a large hard drive for one PC.

Then there is Microsoft. Recall that the latest Windows Home Server is only their latest attempt to enter this market, and yet I know of no one who has adopted the device. The same can be said of the various media center servers from Microsoft and others. At this point, it seems likely that the future of home storage servers will not come from Microsoft, though their two XBox generations have great potential as clients.

Even EMC has entered the market with their nifty (but largely unnoticed) LifeLine product and Iomega acquisition. Supporting file services and backup for computers as well as audio and video for media players, EMC positions LifeLine much like their Retrospect backup product, but goes further in offering a complete software solution for hardware OEMs wanting to offer a non-Windows home server. Although an impressive offering, it is too early to tell if EMC will have much success with this product.

The Sleek, Shiny Elephant in the Living Room

Of course, there is one company that sells media players and servers by the bushel, complete with sleek, shiny interfaces. Apple’s tremendous success with the iPod has led to their iTunes software becoming the dominant media organization platform, complete with its own proprietary discovery and sharing protocol. Now, with the Apple TV and video iPods, the company is broadening into more media categories. Surely their dominance here puts them in a special position when it comes to setting the stage for a home server or storage revolution.

They also have a strong position in the world of dedicated home storage. Their Airport products are among the only routers to be widely implemented with shared storage. Although many other companies offer similar products, low customer understanding means that these functions are not widely used. And the new Time Capsule device is surely already the most widely-used home NAS product.

But Apple has not yet shown any home server strategy. Administering multiple iTunes servers can be frustrating for users, with no inter-iTunes synchronization or centralization capability. Although the Mac Mini, Apple TV, or Time Capsule could certainly be seen as a home server, the company does not position them as such in the market. Indeed, some iTunes users like myself rely on compatible third party media servers like Firefly and TwonkyVision rather than using iTunes itself. Still, rumors of an Apple home server persist.

One issue for Apple is their reliance on proprietary protocols. Although the Bonjour discovery protocol is certainly simpler than UPnP in practice, Apple stands alone in relying on it. They also steadfastly stick to AFP for NAS and DAAP for remote media streaming. This limits the number of third-party clients and servers that can be used with their hardware and software.

The Future is Friendly

Although Apple has not yet tipped a home storage strategy beyond Time Capsule and Airport Extreme, they are best positioned to deliver a real home storage solution. A simple step would be to create an iTunes media server integrated with Time Capsule and add client/server media synchronization. The company already has OS X backup and file services integrated, and this move would further centralize the digital home around Apple products. But the company’s reliance on closed protocols like DAAP is worrisome, since it locks consumers into nearly all-Apple solutions.

Microsoft’s Media Center and Home Server combination, based around UPnP, shows great promise, with many compatible third-party clients and servers already available. But my own experience with the solution has not been at all positive (I still can’t get my Roku SoundBridge, Vista Ultimate laptop, and Media Center PC to see each other!), leading me to question the viability of this option.

Although Apple or Microsoft could come to dominate, I suspect the future of home storage is out of both companies hands. A number of others are working on improved home server experiences, including EMC’s LifeLine and the expanding use of Debian Linux and open source tools. But all could be sidelined by improved Internet-based services. Google, Microsoft, and Apple continue to expand their online consumer suites with greater storage, synchronization, multimedia integration, and all have the potential to reduce or eliminate the need for in-home storage.

Although I cannot yet tell which service will win, one thing is certain: Consumers demand friendly, flexible solutions. They don’t want to fuss with their media, and they don’t want simple shared storage. They want integration with multiple devices and flexibility to access their content on any device. The first company to offer a simple, flexible storage server for the home will surely be on the right track!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2008. | The Future of Home Storage
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.