RecoverPoint/SE

Just spent an hour comparing Oracle MAA + either NetApp SMO or EMC RecoverPoint.

And then suddenly, I noticed something incredibly fishy.  In addition to being a CLARiiON only solution, RecoverPoint/SE also only supports Windows. (My reference material was outdated… RPSE apparently supports most major OSes now, my apologies)

It make sense that SMB shops used to run only Windows and CLARiiONs, so the “Value Edition” of RecoverPoint supports that particular combination.  But SMB shops nowadays are venturing out to FOSS solutions such as LAMP based Alfresco to save some $. But if that translates to having to fork over a lot more money for the RecoverPoint “Deluxe Version”, it’d probably make SMBs look into some other storage vendors with more FOSS friendly price quotes. (However, RPSE does only limit you to CLARiiON-only storage, so for those wanting to save money by using less expensive boxes from a competing vendor, EMC will make you pony up for the full veresion of RP) After all, not everyone needs a Mercedes C class when a Toyota/Honda/Mazda works just fine :)   Remember, Linux is your friend.

Categorized under: NAS, Storage Virtualization

File Virtualization … remember then?

Back in 2006/2007, file (NAS) virtualization was the hottest buzz world in the storage world. Remember the giant stack of “File Virtualization for Dummies” book that Acopia gave away at all the IT events ?
At the peak of the hype cycle, a good number of product were competing for customers, but very few survived.

  • NuView StorageX (acquired by Brocade, OEM’ed to NetApp and IBM, EOL’ed this year)
  • Acopia ARX (acquired by F5)
  • Neopath File Director (Acquired by Cisco, EOL’ed soon after)
  • Rainfinity(?) (Acquired by EMC, sales force seems to have stopped pushing it, hinting the pending FAST for Celerra release)

Out of the above 4 major players, 1 survived, (1.5 if counting Rainfinity)

What happened ?

NAS virtualization solves the scalability problem of NAS devices and provides an easy way to migrate files and/or volumes between dissimilar NAS devices. Most NAS devices back then were simple X86 file servers running code optimized for file serving. Although highly tuned, most of these NAS devices only scaled up to a active/passive fail-over cluster for HA, which improves the availability, but does nothing for scalability. The 32bit filesystems used in these NAS devices limited the volume size to ~ 16TB and can only hold less than a hundred K’s of inodes (file/directories). While the limitation is adequate for most organizations, it is a nightmare for those with large data sets (ie. HPC), or large number of small files (ie. Web based image serving sites). NAS virtualization broke the limitation by creating virtual volumes that span multiple NAS systems, effectively raising the capacity/inode ceiling.

The migration service lets customers move volumes around  NAS devices from same or different vendors. This alleviates the pain of running long robocopy or rsync sessions and reduces the cutover window.  Some of the migration services also comes with policy based file movements that moves  files around automatically  based on user defined terms (such as file age, size, last access time, file type) between faster ($$) tier and slower ($) tier.

(The net result is a relatively easy way to implement something like looks like distributed filesystem of the early late 90s … think IBM DCE/DFS, AFS and HPSS, minus the tape part and all the nerd quotient mandatory for implementation/support)

NAS virtualization hype seems to have completely deflated, considering that major NAS players are now selling devices with either built-in single name-space capability (NetApp), online migration mechanism (EMC, NetApp) and massive scalability (NetApp, Pillar). The only buyers of NAS virtualization would be organizations that have not standardize their NAS on a single platform and wants to move files around easily – A pretty small crowd.

However, NAS virtualization still has a chance, and this life line is Open Source – Cloud Storage.
Similar to the way SAN virtualization controllers (IBM SVC,  HDS USP-V) improves the performance of the physical arrays by adding more cache and spreading out volumes across more spindles, NAS virtaulization device can create high performance virtual NAS devices by distributing a virtual volume onto a number of inexpensive Open Source file servers. The NAS virtualization in this sense then provides replica service to allow users to access their files from any of the replicated filesets that is either less busy or closer to the user. Since the filesets are replicated can also exist in multiple sites, all the data is always available – instant BC/DR function.  Imagine – an easy and inexpensive way to build your own gfs (google, not RH’s). Slapping in a Amazon S3 or EMC Atmos interface, you now have both internal and public cloud all in a nifty device.

Maybe it’s time for a major linux vendor to venture into storage business ?

Categorized under: NetApp, Simulator

Data Ontap 8 cluster mode (simulator) is out

NetApp just updated the simulator download page with Ontap 8 simulators for both 7 mode and cluster mode.
Get them while they’re hot. I most certainly will ;)

Categorized under: HDS, storage hardware

HDS woes

In my life as a storage consultant, I have worked with almost all the major storage vendors in the market. .. EMC, NetApp, IBM, Sun,3Par, StorageTek, Quantum/ADIC, Brocade, Cisco .. .the list goes on and on.

Curiously, HDS is the only big 3 vendors not listed, mainly because I’ve NEVER been able to get hold of their sales force.

Perhaps it’s because I’ve lately been concentrating on the public sector, where HDS had not been paying too much attention. Whenever I tried to call the fed sales number on the HDS site, it either goes directly to a voicemail box or answered by some receptionist who redirects me to a voicemail box. Either case, I’ve never gotten call-backs.

Initially I just had some unlucky time reaching HDS sales, but after talking to a few storage pros in the sector, I realized the mutual concerns about HDS’s responsiveness on both sales and tech support (post-sales) for the public sector.

HDS.. please wake up! EMC had already stolen your market dominance. Seeing IBM is completely losing the battle on the high end monolith storage devices, and that not many tier-1 buyer taking NetApp’s pseudo high-end FAS6080 seriously, I’m afraid if this trend continues, I can only recommend EMC SYMMs to my customers with Tier-1 needs.
I’ve heard so much about HDS’ innovation and technology (not to mention the user friendliness of their boxens, compared to the SYMMs) and I really hate to see the aforementioned scenario from happening.

Categorized under: Uncategorized

Seagate 7200.11 SNAFU

I’ve been a loyal Seagate user for the past 5 years or so.
One of the recent drives – 7200.11 Barracuda has been under heat on several IT media outlets for its high failure rate.
As a matter of fact, one of my 750GB drives had been RMA’ed with exactly the same symptom as described on various places online. The drive would run fine for a while and then suddenly developed weird data transfer problem and shortly after, refuses to even power on.

Seagate had just made an announcement (KB207931) acknowledging the problem with firmware and is now providing firmware fixes.

Owners of recent Seagate drives, please download the software to verify if your drive is on the affected firmware list. If so, email Seagate for firmware upgrade instructions before it’s too late.

For those with 7200.11 drives that just died, contact Seagate for free data recovery service.

Too bad my bad drive had already been RMA’ed a month ago :-/ no free data recovery service.