Whew! I am glad that is over. The BarryB circus has left town, he has decided to [move on to other topics
], and I am now to clean up the ["circus gold"
] leftbehind. I would like to remind everyone that all of these discussions have been about the architecture,not the product. IBM will come out withits own version of a product based on Nextra later in 2008, which may be different than the product that XIV currentlysells to its customers.
- RAID-X does not protect against double-drive failures as well as RAID-6, but it's very close
BarryB calls this the "Elephant in the room", that RAID-6 protects better against double-drive failures. I don't dispute that. He also credits me with the term "RAID-X", but I got this directly from the XIV guys. It turns out this was already a term used among academic research circles for [distributed RAID environments]. Meanwhile, Jon Toigo feels the term RAID-X sounds like a brand of bug spray in his post[XIV Architecture: What’s Not to Like?]Perhaps IBM can change this to RAID-5.99 instead.
If you measure risk of a second drive failing during the rebuild or re-replication process ofa first drive failure, you can measure the exposure by multiplying the amount of GB at risk by thenumber of hours that the second failure could occur, resulting in a unit of "GB-hours". Here Ilist best-case rebuild times, your mileage may vary depending on whether other workloads existon the system competing for resources. Notice that 8-disk configurations of RAID-10 and RAID-5for smaller FC disk are in the triple digits, and larger SATA disk in five digits, but that with RAID-X it is only single digits. That is orders of magnitude closer to the ideal.
For each RAID type, the risk is proportional to the square of the individual drive size.Double the drive size causes the risk to be four times greater.This is not the first time this has been discussed. In [Is RAID-5 Getting Old?], Ramskovquotes NetApp's response in Robin Harris' [NetApp Weighs In On Disks]:
...protecting online data only via RAID 5 today verges on professional malpractice.
As disks get older, RAID-6 will not be able to protect against 3-drive failures. A similar chartabove could show the risk to data after the second drive fails and both rebuilds are going on,compared to the risk of a third drive failure during this time. The RAID-X scheme protects muchbetter against 3-drive failures than RAID-6.
- Nothing in the Nextra architecture prevents a RAID-6, Triple-copy, or other blob-level scheme
In much the same way that EMC Centera is RAID-5 based for its blobs, there is nothing in the Nextra architecturethat prevents taking additional steps to provide even better protection, using a RAID-6 scheme, making three copiesof the data instead of two copies, or something even more advanced. The current two-copy scheme for RAID-X is betterthan all the RAID-5 and RAID-10 systems out in the marketplace today.
- Mirrored Cache won't protect against Cosmic rays, but ECC detection/correction does
BarryB incorrectly states that since some implementations of cache are non-mirrored, that this implies they are unprotected against Cosmic rays. Mirroring does not protect against bit-flips unless both copies arecompared for differences. Unfortunately, even if you compared them, the best you can do is detect theyare different, there is no way of knowing which version is correct.Mirroring cache is normally done to protect uncommitted writes. Reads in cacheare expendable copies of data already written to disk, so ECC detection/correction schemes are adequateprotection. ECC is like RAID for DRAM memory. A single bit-flip can be corrected, multiple bit-flipscan be detected. In the case of detection, the cache copy is discarded and read fresh again from disk.IBM DS8000, XIV and probably most other major vendor offerings use ECC of some kind. BarryB is correctthat some cheaper entry-level and midrange offerings from other vendors might cut corners in this area.I don't doubt BarryB's assertion that the ECC method used in the EMC products may be differently implemented than theECC in the IBM DS8000, but that doesn't mean the IBM DS8000's ECC implementation is flawed.
ECC protection is important for all RAID systems that perform rebuild, and even more importantthe larger the GB-hours listed in the table above.
- XIV is designed for high-utilization, not less than 50 percent
I mentioned that the typical Linux, UNIX or Windows LUN is only 30-50 percent full, and perhaps BarryBthought I was referring to the typical "XIV customer". This average is for all disk storage systems connectedto these operating systems, based on IBM market research and analyst reports. The XIV is expected to run at much higher utilization rates, and offers features like "thin provisioning" and "differential snapshot" to make this simple to implement in practice.
- Pre-emptive Self-Repair
Most often, disks don't fail without warning. Usually, they give out temporary errors first, and then fail permanently.The XIV architecture allows for pre-emptive self-repair, initiating the re-replication process after detecting temporary errors, rather than waiting for a complete drive failure.
I had mentioned that this process used "spare capacity, not spare drives" but I was notified that there are three spare drives per system to ensure that there is enough spare capacity, so I stand corrected.
New drives don't have to match the same speed/capacity as the new drives, so three to five years from now, whenit might be hard to find a matching 500GB SATA drive anymore, you won't have to.
- No RAID scheme eliminates backups or Business Continuity Planning
The XIV supports both synchronous and asynchronous disk mirroring to remote locations. Backup software willbe able to backup data from the XIV to tape. A double drive failure would require a "recovery action", eitherfrom the disk mirror, or from tape, for the few GB of data that need to be recovered.
A third alternative is to allow end-users to receive backups of their own user-generated content. For example, I have over 15,000 photos uploaded over the past six years to Kodak Photo Gallery, which I use to share with my friends and family. For about $180 US dollars, they will cut DVDs containing all of my uploaded files and send them to me, so that I do not have to worry about Kodak losing my photos.In many cases, if a company or product fails to deliver on its promises, the most you will get is your money back, but for "free services" like HotMail, FreeDrive, FlickR and others, you didn't pay anything in the first place, andthey may point this limitation of liability in the "terms of service".
- XIV can be used for databases and other online transaction processing
The XIV will have FCP and iSCSI interfaces, and systems can use these to store any kind of data you want. I mentionedthat the design was intended for large volumes of unstructured digital content, but there is nothing to prevent the use of other workloads. In today's Wall Street Journal article[To Get Back Into the Storage Game, IBM Calls In an Old Foe]:
Today, XIV's Nextra system is used by Bank Leumi, a large Israeli bank, and a few other customers for traditional data-storage tasks such as recording hundreds of transactions a minute.
BarryB, thanks for calling the truce. I look forward to talking about other topics myself. These past two weeks have been exhausting!
technorati tags: IBM, XIV, RAID-X, RAID-5.99, RAID-5, RAID-10, RAID-6, EMC, BarryB, Risk, GB-hours, NetApp, Ramskov, Robin+Harris, StorageMojo, elephant, circus gold, Wall Street Journal, WSJ, Bank Leumi, traditional workloads, digital content, unstructured data, HotMail, FreeDrive, FlickR, KodakGallery, online, photos
Fellow Blogger BarryB mentions "chunk size" in his post [Blinded by the light
],as it relates to Symmetrix Virtual Provisioning capability. Here is an excerpt:
I mean, seriously, who else but someone who's already implemented thin provisioning would really understand the implications of "chunk" size enough to care?
For those of you who don't know what the heck "chunk size" means (now listen up you folks over at IBM who have yet to implement thin provisioning on your own storage products), a "chunk" is the term used (and I think even trademarked by 3PAR) to refer to the unit of actual storage capacity that is assigned to a thin device when it receives a write to a previously unallocated region of the device.For reference, Hitachi USP-V uses I think a 42MB chunk, XIV NEXTRA is definitely 1MB, and 3PAR uses 16K or 256K (depending upon how you look at it).
Thin Provisioning currently offered in IBM System Storage N serieswas technically "implemented" by NetApp, and that the Thin Provisioning that will be offered in our IBM XIV Nextrasystems will have been acquired from XIV. Lest I remind you that many of EMC's products were developed by other companies first, then later acquired by EMC, so no need for you to throw rocks from your glass houses in Hopkington.
"Thin provisioning" was first introduced by StorageTek in the 1990's and sold by IBM under the name of RAMAC Virtual Array (RVA). An alternative approach is "Dynamic Volume Expansion" (DVE). Rather than giving the host application a huge 2TB LUN but actually only use 50GB for data, DVE was based on the idea that you only give out 50GB they need now, but could expand in place as more space was required. This was specifically designed to avoid the biggest problem with "Thin Provisioning" which back then was called "Net Capacity Load" on the IBM RVA, but today is now referred to as "over-subscription". It gave Storage Administrators greater control over their environment with no surprises.
In the same manner as Thin Provisioning, DVE requires a "chunk size" to work with. Let's take a look:
- DS4000 series
On the DS4000 series, we use the term "segment size", and indicate that the choice of a segment size can have some influence on performance in both IOPS and throughput. Smaller segment sizes increase the request rate (IOPS) by allowing multiple disk drives to respond to multiple requests. Large segment sizes increase the data transfer rate(Mbps) by allowing multiple disk drives to participate in one I/O request. The segment size does not actually change what is stored in cache, just what is stored on the disk itself.It turns out in practice there is no advantage in using smaller sizes with RAID 1; only in a few instances does this help with RAID-5 if you can writea full stripe at once to calculate parity on outgoing data. For most business workloads, 64KB or 128KB are recommended. DVE expands by the same number of segments across all disks in the RAID rank, so for example in a 12+P rank using 128KB segment sizes, the chunk size would be thirteen segments, about 1.6MB in size.
- SAN Volume Controller
On the SAN Volume Controller, we call this "extent size" and allow it to be various values 64MB to 512MB. Initially,IBM only managed four million extents, so this table was used to explain the maximum amount that could be managedby an SVC system (up to 8 nodes) depending on extent size selected.
|Extent Size||Maximum Addressable|
IBM thought that since we externalized "segment size" on the DS4000, we should do the same for the SANVolume Controller. As it turned out, SVC is so fast up in the cache, that we could not measure any noticeable performance difference based on extent size. We did have a few problems. First, clients who chose 16MB andthen grew beyond the 64TB maximum addressable discovered that perhaps they should have chosen something larger.Second, clients called in our help desk to ask what size to choose and how to determine the size that was rightfor them. Third, we allowed people to choose different extent sizes per managed disk group, but that preventsmovement or copies between groups. You can only copy between groups that use the same extent size. The generalrecommendation now is to specify 256MB size, and use that for all managed disk groups across the data center.
The latest SVC expanded maximum addressability to 8PB, still more than most people have today in their shops.
- DS8000 series
Getting smarter each time we introduce new function, we chose 1GB chunks for the DS8000. Based on a mainframebackground, most CKD volumes are 3GB, 9GB, or 27GB in size, and so 1GB chunks simplified this approach. Spreadingthese 1GB chunks across multiple RAID ranks greatly reduced hot-spots that afflict other RAID-based systems.(Rather than fix the problem by re-designing the architecture, EMC will offer to sell you software to help you manually move data around inside the Symmetrix after the hot-spot is identified)
Unlike EMC's virtual positioning, IBM DS8000 dynamic volume expansion does work on CKD volumes for our System z mainframe customers.
The trade-off in each case was between granularity and table space. Smaller chunks allow finer control on the exact amount allocated for a LUN or volume, but larger chunks reduced the number of chunks managed. With our advanced caching algorithms, changes in chunk size did not noticeably impact performance. It is best just to come up with a convenient size, and either configure it as fixed in the architecture, or externalize it as a parameter with a good default value.
Meanwhile, back at EMC, BarryB indicates that they haven't determined the "optimal" chunk size for their newfunction. They plan to run tests and experiments to determine which size offers the best performance, and thenmake that a fixed value configured into the DMX-4. I find this funny coming from the same EMC that won't participate in [standardized SPC benchmarks] because they feel that performance is a personal and private matter between a customer and their trusted storage vendor, that all workloads are different, and you get the idea. Here's another excerpt:
Back at the office, they've taking to calling these "chunks" Thin Device Extents (note the linkage back to EMC's mainframe roots), and the big secret about the actual Extent size is...(wait for it...w.a.i.t...for....it...)...the engineers haven't decided yet!
That's right...being the smart bunch they are, they have implemented Symmetrix Virtual Provisioning in a manner that allows the Extent size to be configured so that they can test the impact on performance and utilization of different sizes with different applications, file systems and databases. Of course, they will choose the optimal setting before the product ships, but until then, there will be a lot of modeling, simulation, and real-world testing to ensure the setting is "optimal."
Finally, BarryB wraps up this section poking fun at the chunk sizes chosen by other disk manufacturers. I don't knowwhy HDS chose 42MB for their chunk size, but it has a great[Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy]sound to it, answering the ultimate question to life, the universe and everything. Hitachi probably went to theirDeep Thought computer and asked how big should their "chunk size" be for their USP-V, and the computer said: 42.Makes sense to me.
I have to agree that anything smaller than 1MB is probably too small. Here's the last excerpt:
Now, many customers and analysts I've spoken to have in fact noted that Hitachi's "chunk" size is almost ridiculously large; others have suggested that 3PAR's chunks are so small as to create performance problems (I've seen data that supports that theory, by the way).
Well, here's the thing: the "right" chunk size is extremely dependent upon the internal architecture of the implementation, and the intersection of that ideal with the actual write distribution pattern of the host/application/file system/database.
So my suggestion to EMC is, please, please, please take as much time as you need to come up with the perfect"chunk size" for this, one that handles all workloads across a variety of operating systems and applications, from solid-state Flash drives to 1TB SATA disk. Take months or years, as long as it takes. The rest of the world is in no hurry, as thin provisioning or dynamic volume expansion is readily available on most other disk systems today.
Maybe if you ask HDS nicely, they might let you ask their computer.
technorati tags: IBM, thin provisioning, XIV, Nextra, N series, chunk size, BarryB, EMC, Symmetrix, virtual provisioning, 3PAR, Hitachi, HDS, USP-V, StorageTek, RAMAC Virtual Array, RVA, dynamic volume expansion, DVE, 42MB, Hitchhiker's Guide, CKD, System z, mainframe, SATA, DS8000, DS4000, SAN Volume Controller, SVC
Wrapping up my week's theme on IBM's acquisition XIV, we have gotten hundreds of positive articles and reviews in the press, but has caused quite a stir with the[Not-Invented-Here
] folks at EMC.We've heard already from EMC bloggers [Chuck Hollis
] and [Mark Twomey
].The latest is fellow EMC blogger BarryB's missive [Obligatory "IBM buys XIV" Post
], which piles on the "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" [FUD
], including this excerpt here:
In a block storage device, only the host file system or database engine "knows" what's actually stored in there. So in the Nextra case that Tony has described, if even only 7,500-15,000 of the 750,000 total 1MB blobs stored on a single 750GB drive (that's "only" 1 to 2%) suddenly become inaccessible because the drive that held the backup copy also failed, the impact on a file system could be devastating. That 1MB might be in the middle of a 13MB photograph (rendering the entire photo unusable). Or it might contain dozens of little files, now vanished without a trace. Or worst yet, it could actually contain the file system metadata, which describes the names and locations of all the rest of the files in the file system. Each 1MB lost to a double drive failure could mean the loss of an enormous percentage of the files in a file system.
And in fact, with Nextra, the impact will be across not just one, but more likely several dozens or even hundreds of file systems.
Worse still, the Nextra can't do anything to help recover the lost files.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If any disk drive module failed, the system would know exactly whichone it was, what blobs (binary large objects) were on it, and where the replicated copies of those blobs are located. In the event of a rare double-drive failure, the system would know exactly which unfortunate blobs were lost, and couldidentify them by host LUN and block address numbers, so that appropriate repair actions could be taken from remote mirrored copies or tape file backups.
Second, nobody is suggesting we are going to put a delicateFAT32-like Circa-1980 file system that breaks with the loss of a single block and requires tools like "fsck" to piece back together. Today's modern file systems--including Windows NTFS, Linux ext3, and AIX JFS2--are journaled and have sophisticated algorithms tohandle the loss of individual structure inode blocks. IBM has its own General Parallel File System [GPFS] and corresponding Scale out File Services[SOFS], and thus brings a lotof expertise to the table.Advanced distributed clustered file systems, like [Google File System] and Yahoo's [Hadoop project] take this one step further, recognizing that individual node and drive failures at the Petabyte-scale are inevitable.
In other words, XIV Nextra architecture is designed to eliminate or reduce recovery actions after disk failures, not make them worse. Back in 2003, when IBM introduced the new and innovative SAN Volume Controller (SVC), EMCclaimed this in-band architecture would slow down applications and "brain-damage" their EMC Symmetrix hardware.Reality has proved the opposite, SVC can improve application performance and help reduce wear-and-tear on the manageddevices. Since then, EMC acquired Kashya to offer its own in-band architecture in a product called EMC RecoverPoint, that offers some of the features that SVC offers.
If you thought fear mongering like this was unique to the IT industry, consider that 105years ago, [Edison electrocuted an elephant]. To understand this horrific event, you have to understand what was going on at the time.Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, wanted to power the entire city of New York with Direct Current(DC). Nikolas Tesla proposed a different, but more appropriate architecture,called Alternating Current(AC), that had lower losses over distances required for a city as large and spread out as New York. But Thomas Edison was heavily invested in DC technology, and would lose out on royalties if ACwas adopted.In an effort to show that AC was too dangerous to have in homes and businesses, Thomas Edison held a pressconference in front of 1500 witnesses, electrocuting an elephant named Topsy with 6600 volts, and filmed the event so that it could be shown later to other audiences (Edison invented the movie camera also).
Today's nationwide electric grid would not exist without Alternating Current.We enjoy both AC for what it is best used for, and DC for what it is best used for. Both are dangerous at high voltage levels if not handled properly. The same is the case for storage architectures. Traditional high-performance disk arrays, like the IBM System Storage DS8000, will continue to be used for large mainframe applications, online transaction processing and databases. New architectures,like IBM XIV Nextra, will be used for new Web 2.0 applications, where scalability, self-tuning, self-repair,and management simplicity are the key requirements.
(Update: Dear readers, this was meant as a metaphor only, relating the concerns expressed above thatthe use of new innovative technology may result in the loss or corruption of "several dozen or even hundreds of file systems" and thus too dangerous to use, with an analogy on the use of AC electricity was too dangerous to use in homes. To clarify, EMC did not re-enact Thomas Edison's event, no animalswere hurt by EMC, and I was not trying to make political commentary about the current controversy of electrocution as amethod of capital punishment. The opinions of individual bloggers do not necessarily reflect the official positions of EMC, and I am not implying that anyone at EMC enjoys torturing animals of any size, or their positions on capital punishment in general. This is not an attack on any of the above-mentioned EMC bloggers, but rather to point out faulty logic. Children should not put foil gum wrappers in electrical sockets. BarryB and I have apologized to each other over these posts for any feelings hurt, and discussion should focus instead on the technologies and architectures.)
While EMC might try to tell people today that nobody needs unique storage architectures for Web 2.0 applications, digital media and archive data, because their existing products support SATA disk and can be used instead for these workloads, they are probably working hard behind the scenes on their own "me, too" version.And with a bit of irony, Edison's film of the elephant is available on YouTube, one of the many Web 2.0 websites we are talking about. (Out of a sense of decency, I decided not to link to it here, so don't ask)
technorati tags: IBM, XIV, EMC, BarryB, FUD, Nextra, blob, Thomas Edison, Nikolas Tesla, Web2.0, scalability, Petabyte-scale, self-tuning, self-repair, DS8000, disk, systems, Topsy, elephant, light bulb, movie camera, invention, DC, AC, YouTube
Yesterday's announcement that IBM had acquired XIV to offer storage for Web 2.0 applicationsprompted a lot of discussion in both the media and the blogosphere. Several indicated thatit was about time that one of the major vendors stepped forward to provide this, and it madesense that IBM, the leader in storage hardware marketshare, would be the first. Others were perhaps confused on what is unique with Web 2.0 applications. What has changed?
I'll use this graphic to help explain how we have transitioned through three eras of storage.
- The first era: Server-centric
In the 1950s, IBM introduced both tape and disk systems into a very server-centric environment.Dumb terminals and dumb storage devices were managed entirely by the brains inside the server.These machines were designed for Online Transaction Processing (OLTP), everywhere from bookingflights on airlines to handling financial transfers.
- The second era: Network-centric
In the 1980s and 1990s, dumb terminals were replaced with smarter workstations and personalcomputers; and dumb storage were replaced with smarter storage controllers. Local Area Networks (LANs)and Storage Area Networks (SANs) allowed more cooperative processing between users, servers andstorage. However, servers maintained their role as gatekeepers. Users had to go through aspecific server or server cluster to access the storage they had access to. These servers continuedtheir role in OLTP, but also manage informational databases, file sharing and web serving.
- The third era: Information-centric
Today, we are entering a third era. Servers are no longer the gatekeepers. Smart workstationsand personal computers are now supplemented with even more intelligent handheld devices, Blackberryand iPhones, for example. Storage is more intelligent too, with some being able to offer file sharingand web serving directly, without the need of an intervening server. The roles of servers have changed,from gatekeepers, to ones that focuses on crunching the numbers, and making information presentableand useful.
Sam Palmisano, CEO and chairman of IBM, first introduced this in March 2006 as the [Globally Integrated Enterprise],but the concept applies to organizations of all sizes, from large multi-nationals to the local [Mom and Pop shops].
Here is where Web 2.0 applications, digital media and archives fits in. These are focused on unstructured data that don't require relational database management systems. So long as the useris authorized, subscribed and/or has made the appropriate payment, she can access the information. With the appropriate schemes in place, information can now be mashed-up in a variety of ways, combined with other information that can render insights and help drive new innovations.
Of course, we will still have databases and online transaction processing to book our flights andtransfer our funds, but this new era brings in new requirements for information storage, and newarchitectures that help optimize this new approach.
technorati tags: IBM, XIV, Web2.0, server-centric, network-centric, information-centric, OLTP, database, disk, tape, systems, dumb terminal, workstations, storage controller, LAN, SAN, digital media, archive, servers, handheld, devices, file sharing, web serving, insight, innovation
IBM came out with their latest "5 in 5". These are five predictions for technologies that will havean impact over the next five years, summarized on 5 pages. Before I give my take on this year's set,here is a quick recap of[Last Year's 5 in 5
- Access health care remotely
- Real-time speech translation
- 3-D internet, based on systems like [Second Life]
- Nanotechnology for cleaning up and improving the environment
- "Presence aware" cell phones that learn our preferences and habits
Here's my take on the [Next 5 in 5]:
- 3-D representations of the human body to improve health care
This prediction is based on the idea that most medical mistakes result from lack of informationabout the patient. A 3-D avatar of the patient would allow the doctor to click on the section ofthe body, and this would trigger retrieval of patient records, relevant X-rays, MRI images, and so on.For example, IBM System Storage Grid Medical Archive Solution (GMAS) provides the storage that wouldallow any doctor to access these records, even if the image was taken at a different facility.
Unfortunately, this prediction only applies to patients who can actually afford to see a doctor. Apparently,no amount of technology, no matter how cool it is, can convince governments to make health care somethingeveryone has access to. Michael Moore has done a good job explaining this in his film documentary [Sicko].
- Digital passport for food
Using RFID tags and second generation barcodes, you will have access to details of a food's origin,transportation conditions, and impact to the environment. Much of this information is already gathered,just not stored in a database accessible to the consumer.
Last year, the term "locavore" was the2007 Word of the Year for the Oxford American Dictionary, referring to people who limit what they eatto food produced within a certain radius, from family farms and locally-owned businesses.Here is an excerpt from a [Locavores] website:
Our food now travels an average of 1,500 miles before ending up on our plates. This globalization of the food supply has serious consequences for the environment, our health, our communities and our tastebuds.
Certainly, I am all for selling storage capacity to the food industry to help store vasts amount ofinformation for this, and certainly some people will be able to make smarter decisions based on thisinformation. This is not the first time this idea came up. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration introduced [nutrition labeling requirements] on thehope that people would choose more healthier foods. Despite this, people still opt for white bread, iceberg lettuce, and processed meats, so possibly having more information about where food comes from, and how it was transported, may not mean much to some consumers.
- Technology to manage your own carbon footprint
"Smart energy" technologies allow you to walk the talk, by managing your own carbon footprint inyour home. For example, if you forgot to turn off the heat or air conditioner before leaving thehouse on your commute to work, your home would call your mobile phone, so that you can turn aroundand go back and correct that mistake. Better yet, IBM is working with others to provide web-enabledelectric meters that would allow you to turn off systems from work or cell phone browser.
Of course, such technology already exists for the data center. IBM Systems Director Active EnergyManager (AEM) allows you to monitor the actual usage of your servers and storage devices, and insome cases make adjustments to control energy consumption. This can feed into the IBM TivoliUsage and Accounting Manager software to incorporate energy usage as part of the charge-backcalculations. See the [IBM Press Release] formore details.
- Cars that drive themselves
Not only will cars that drive themselves reduce the number of drunk-driving accidents, it canalso help reduce congestion in big cities, by routing traffic to different directions, based onGPS and presence-aware technologies. Stockholm (Sweden) has already reduced peak hour traffic by 20 percentusing this approach.
While I admire the concept, cars are perhaps the least energy-efficient mode of transportation.Often, a family can only afford a single vehicle, and it is purchased based on the worst-case scenario.A friend of mine has only two children, but a sever-person mini-van that gets only 17 MPG. Why suchan energy-inefficient vehicle? Because she occasionally drives her daughter and her friends tosoccer practice, and that represents the worst-case scenario, minimizing the parent/child ratio. Theother 99 percent of the time, she is driving by herself, or with one child, and consuming a lot ofgasoline in the process.
A better approach would be to find technology that connects airports, trains, buses and light rail forpublic transportation to greatly reduce the need to drive a car in the first place.
The idea that a family can have only one vehicle plays in the storage arena as well. Larger companiescan afford to have different storage for different workloads. The IBM System Storage DS8000 high-end disk system for their large OLTP anddatabase workloads, an XIV Nextra for their Web 2.0 storage needs, DR550 to hold their compliance data,and so on. Smaller companies are often tasked to find a single solution for all their needs, andfor them, IBM offers the IBM System Storage N series, providing a "unified storage" platform.
- Increased dependence on cell phones
Before the cell phone, the last don't-leave-home-without-it technology most of us carried was the credit card. Now, IBM predicts that we will be even more dependent on our cell phones, becoming our banker, ticket broker, and shopping buddy.For example, you could use your cell phone to take a picture of a shirt at the mall, and it will then show you what youwould look like wearing that shirt, on a 3-D avatar representation of yourself, or perhaps your spouse, and getinformation on what discounts are available, or where else the shirt is being offered.
None of this example actually uses the "phone" part of the cell phone, however the cell phone is one device thatnearly everyone carries, so it becomes the development platform for all other technologies to be based on.
The common theme running through these is that it can be helpful to store more information than we do today,provided we make it accessible to the people who need it to make better decisions.
technorati tags: IBM, predictions, health care, nanotechnology, secondlife, speech translation, 3-D, avatar, GMAS, Michael Moore, Sicko, digital passport, food, nutrition labeling, FDA, carbon footprint, AEM, locavore, Tivoli, Usage Accounting Manager, DS8000, XIV, Nextra, DR550, unified storage, cell phones, decisions