- Rent warehouse space for tapes
I remember when various companies offered remote storage for tapes. These would be temperature and humidity-controlledrooms, with access lists on who could bring tapes in, who could take tapes out, and so on. In the event of thedisaster, someone would collect the appropriate tapes and take them to a recovery site location.
- Rent online/nearline storage from a Storage Service Provider (SSP)
SSPs rented storage space on disk, or provided automated tape libraries that could be written to. With tapes being ejected and stored in temperature/humidity-controlled vaults. Electronic vaulting eliminates a lot of theissues with cartridge handling and transportation, is more secure, and faster. Rented disk space, based on a Gigabytes-per-month rate, could be used for whatever the customer wanted. If these were for backups or archive,then the customer has to have their own software, to do their own processing at their own location, sending the data to the remote storage as appropriate, and manage their own administration.
- Backup-as-a-Service and Archive-as-a-Service
We are now seeing the SaaS model applied to mundane and routine storage management tasks. New providers can offerthe software to send backups, the disk to write them to, and as needed the tape libraries and cartridges to rollover when the disk space is full. Disk capacity can be sized so that the most recent backups are on immediately accessible for fast recovery.
The same concept can be applied to archives. The key difference between a backup and an archive is that backups areversion-based. You might keep three versions of a backup, the most recent, and two older copies, in case something is wrong with the most recent copy, you can go back to older copies. This could be from undetected corruption of the data itself, or problems with the disk or tape media. An archive, on the other hand, is time-based. You want this data to be kept for a specific period of time, based on an event or fixed period of years.
Since BaaS and AaaS providers know what the data is, have some idea of the policies and usage patterns will be, can then optimize a storage solution that best meets service level agreements.
Inside System Storage -- by Tony PearsonTony Pearson is a Master Inventor and Senior Software Engineer for the IBM Storage product line at the IBM Executive Briefing Center in Tucson Arizona, and featured contributor to IBM's developerWorks. In 2016, Tony celebrates his 30th year anniversary with IBM Storage. He is author of the Inside System Storage series of books. This blog is for the open exchange of ideas relating to storage and storage networking hardware, software and services. You can also follow him on Twitter @az990tony.
(Short URL for this blog: ibm.co/Pearson )
Rich Bourdeau has written a nice article on InfoStor titled [Software as a Service (SaaS) meets Storage]. Last year, IBM acquired Arsenal Digital, and he mentions both in this article.It is interesting how this has evolved over the years.
It's Tuesday, and you know what that means-- IBM makes its announcements.
Today, IBM announced a variety of storage offerings, but I am going to just focus this poston just the new DR550 models. The DR550 is the leading disk-and-tape solution forstoring non-erasable, non-rewriteable (NENR) data. This type of data, often called fixed-contentor compliance data, was previously writtento Write-Once-Read-Only (WORM) optical media. However, Optical technology has not advanced as fastas magnetic recording, so disk and tape have taken over this role. While there are still a fewlaws on the books that mandate "optical media" as the storage solution, new laws like SEC 17a-4and Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) allow for NENR solutions based on magnetic disk or tape instead.
As we had done for the IBM SAN Volume Controller (SVC), the DR550 was based on "off the shelf"components. The File System Gateway (FSG) was based on System x server, the DR550 hardwarebased on System p server and DS4000 disk arrays, with "hardened" versions of the AIX,DS4000 Storage Manager and IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) that we renamed the IBM SystemStorage Archive Manager (SSAM).
The DR550 is Ethernet-based, so it can be used with all IBM server platforms, from System xand BladeCenter, to System i, and System p, and even System z mainframe customers, as wellas non-IBM platforms from Sun, HP and others. There are two ways to get data stored ontothe DR550:
Generally, business applications like SAP or Microsoft Exchange don't do this directly, but ratheryou have an "archive management application" that acts as the go-between broker. IBM offers IBM Content Manager, IBM CommonStore for eMail (Exchange and Lotus Domino), and IBM CommonStore for SAP.IBM also recently acquired FileNet and Princeton Softech that provide additional support. Third partyproducts like Zantaz and Symantec KVS Enterprise Vault have also passed System Storage Provencertification for the DR550. These go-between applications understand the underlying storagestructure of their respective applications, and can apply policies to extract database rows, individualemails, or other attachments, as appropriate, and either move or copy them into the DR550.
The DR550 has built in support to move data from disk to tape, through policy-based automation behind the scenes. This is the key differentiator fromdisk-only solutions. Rather than filling up an EMC Centera, and watching it sit there idle burning energyfor five to seven years, or however long you are required to keep the data, you can instead use the disk for the most recent months worth of data on a DR550. The DR550 attaches to tapedrives or libraries, not just IBM TS1120 or LTO based models, but hundreds of systems from other vendorsas well. You can combine this with either rewriteable or WORM tape cartridge media, depending on yourcircumstances. This can be directly cabled, or through a SAN fabric environment. Storing the bulk ofthis rarely-referenced data on tape makes the DR550 substantially more affordable and more green thandisk-only alternatives.
Let's take a look at the specific models:
Common Information Model (CIM) and SMI-S interfaces have been added so that IBM Director can providea "single pane of glass" to manage all of the components of the DR550.
The system is based on high-capacity 750GB SATA drives, installed in half-drawer (eight drives, 6 TB)and full-drawer (16 drives, 12 TB) increments. Your choices will be 7+P RAID5 or 6+P+Q RAID6.Here is an Intel article that explains [RAID6 P+Q].In the future, as new disk technologies are introduced, the DR550 supports moving the disk datafrom old to new seamlessly, without disrupting the data retention policies enforcement.
For more information, here is a [6-page brochure] thathas specifications for both the DR1 and DR2 models.
Previous posts about the DR550: [DR550 File System Gateway | What happened to CAS? | Optimizing Data Retention and Archiving | Blocks, Files and Content-Addressable Storage | Dilemma over future storage formats | Storage Predictions for 2007]
I'll cover some of the other announcements in later posts this week. If you can't wait, you can go read the[IBM Press Release].
technorati tags: IBM, DR550, Express, DR1, DR2, SSAM, TSM, FSG, NFS, CIFS, NENR, WORM, fixed-content, compliance, SEC, SOX, SVC, XBSA, API, SAP, CommonStore, Microsoft Exchange, Lotus Domino, FileNet, Princeton Softech, Zantaz, EnterpriseVault, EMC, Centera, AIX, Linux, cabinet, RAID5, SATA, RAID6, P+Q, CAS[Read More]
Wrapping up my week on the Feb 12 announcements, I will finish off talking about thenew Half-High (HH) LTO4 drives available for our TS3100 and TS3200 tape libraries.
Small and medium sized business (SMB) clients are looking for small, affordable tapesystems. Tape is inherently green, using orders of magnitude less energy than disk,and is very scalable by simply purchasing more tape cartridges.
As a follow-on to our HH LTO3 drives, IBM is the first major storage vendor to offerthe new HH LTO4 drives in entry-level automation, which directly attach via 3Gbps SAS connections to your host servers. The HH models allows you to have two drives in the TS3100, and four drives in the TS3200.
You can mix and match, LTO3 and LTO4. Why would anyone do that? Well, the Linear Tape Open [LTO]consortium --made up of technology provider companies IBM, HP and Quantum--decided to support N-2 generation read, and N-1 generation read/write. So, anLTO3 can read LTO1 cartridges, and read/write LTO2 and LTO3 cartridges. TheLTO4 can read LTO2 cartridges, and read/write LTO3 and LTO4 cartridges. For SMBcustomers that still have some LTO1 cartridges they might want to read some day,mixing LTO3 and LTO4 is a viable combination.
Of course, IBM still offers full-high (FH) versions of LTO3 and LTO4, which offer a bit faster acceleration, back-hitch and rewind times than their HH counterparts, and also offer additional attachment choices of LVD Ultra160 SCSIand 4 Gbps Fibre Channel as well.
So, for SMB customers that are simply using their tape for backup and archive,and probably not driving maximum rated speeds, having twice as many slowerdrives might be just the right fit.
For more information on IBM's Feb. 12 announcement, see the[IBM Press Release].Read More]
I nearly fell out of my chair when I read EMC's press release[EMC a Leader in Virtual Tape Libraries Writes Top Independent Research Firm], as pointed to by fellow EMC blogger Chuck Hollis in his post[How The EMC Disk Library Came To Be]. The EMC Disk Library(EDL) was formerly known as the EMC CLARiiON Disk Library, but was renamed somewhere along the way to drop the CLARiiON brand. Given CLARiiON's poor reputation in the marketplace, this was probablya smart move.
First, an excerpt from the EMC Press Release:
EMC Corporation (NYSE:EMC) today announced it has been positioned as a leader in the Forrester Wave™: Enterprise Open Systems Virtual Tape Library (VTL), Q1 2008 by Forrester Research, Inc. (January 31, 2008), an independent market and technology research firm. EMC achieved a position as a leader in the Forrester Wave report on virtual tape libraries based on the largest installed base of the EMC® Disk Library family of systems, its broad ecosystem interoperability. Virtual tape libraries emulate tape drives and work in conjunction with existing backup software applications, enabling fast backup and restoration of data by using high-capacity, low-cost disk drives.
While the press release implies that "EDL equals VTL", Chuck tries to explain they are in fact very different. Here is an excerpt from his blog post:
Virtual Tape Libraries vs. Disk Libraries
For those new to the blogosphere, there is a difference between "Press Releases" as formalcorporate communications versus "Blog Posts" which are informal opinions of the individual blogger, whichmay or may not match exactly the views of their respective employer.As we've learned many times before, one should not treat termslike "first" or "leader" in corporate press releases literally! Let's explore each.
Was EDL the first "open systems" Virtual Tape Library?
This is implied by the Forrester report. Chuck mentions the "VTLs that had came before it" in his blog, and many people are aware that IBM and StorageTek had introduced mainframe-attached VTLs in the 1990s. But what about VTL for "open systems"?
(Hold aside for the moment that IBM System zmainframe is an open system itself, with z/OS certified as a bona fide UNIX operating system by the [the Open Group] standards body. Most analysts and research firms usually refer only to the non-mainframe versions of UNIX and Windows. Alternative definitions for "open systems" can be foundin [Web definitions or Wikipedia]. I will assume Forrester meantnon-mainframe servers.)IBM announced AIX non-mainframe attachment via SCSI connectivity to the IBM 3494 Virtual Tape Server (VTS) on Feb 16, 1999, with general availability in May 28, 1999. That's nearly FIVE YEARS before the April 2004 introduction of EDL. IBM VTS support for Sun Solaris and Microsoft Windows came shortly thereafter in November 2000, and support for HP-UX a bit later in June 2001. One of my 17 patents is for the software inside the IBM 3494 VTS, so like Chuck, I can takesome pride in the success of a successful product.
(I don't remember if StorageTek, which was subsequently acquired by Sun, had ever supported non-mainframe operating systems with their Virtual Storage Manager[VSM] offering, but if they did, I am sure it was also before EMC.)
Last week, another EMC blogger, BarryB (aka [the Storage Anarchist]),took me to task in comments on my post [IBM now supports 1TB SATA drives]. He felt that IBM should not claim support, given that the software inside the IBM System Storage N series is developed by NetApp. He compared this to the situation of HP and Sun re-badging the HDS USP-V disk system. If someone else wrote the software, BarryB opines, IBM should not claim credit for it. I tried to explain how IBM provides added value and has full-time employees dedicated to N series development and support, butdoubt I have changed his mind.
Why do I bring that up? Because the EMC Disk Library runs OEM software from FalconStor. Basically EMC is assembling a hardware/software solution with components provided from OEM suppliers. Hmmm? Sound familiar? Who is calling the kettle black?
If there is a clear winner here, it is FalconStor itself.Perhaps one of the worst kept industry secrets is that FalconStor software is also used in VTL offerings from Sun, Copan, and IBM, the latter embodied as the [IBM TS7520 Virtualization Engine] offering. If you like the concept of an EDL,but prefer instead one-stop shopping from an "information infrastructure" vendor, IBM can offer the TS7520 along with servers, software and services for a complete end-to-end solution.
Can EMC claim to be "a leader" in Virtual Tape Libraries?
The timing of all this couldn't have been better. IDC analyst firm just came out with their latest 3Q07 "Tape Tracker" analysis report of the tape industry.Here's an excerpt from [Report: IBM Number One in Worldwide Branded Tape Revenue]:
Let's take a look at the numbers. IBM has sold over 5,400 virtual tape libraries. Sun/STK has sold over 4,000 virtual tape libraries. Both are drastically more than the 1,100 mentioned in Chuck's post. Does IDC recognize EMC in third place? No, EMC chooses instead to declare EDL as disk arrays (probably toprop up their IDC "Disk Tracker" numbers), so they don't even earn an honorable mention under the virtual tape librarycategory. This of course includes the number of mainframe-attached models from IBM and Sun/STK. So, if EMC did call these tape systems instead, they might showup in third place, and as such EMC could claim to be "a leader" in much the same way an athlete can claim to be an "Olympic medalist" winning the bronze for third place. (If you limit thecount to just the FalconStor-based models from IBM, EMC, Sun and Copan, then EMC moves up to first or second, but then press release titles like "EMC a Leader in FalconStor-based non-mainframe Virtual Tape Libraries" can get too confusing.)
Chuck, if you are reading this, I feel you have every right to celebrate your involvement with the EDL. Despite having common software and hardware components, both IBM and EMC can rightfully declare their own unique value-add through their respective VTL offerings. Like the IBM N series, the EMC Disk Library is not diminished by the fact the software was written by someone else. BarryB might disagree.
technorati tags: EMC, VTL, Forrester, CLARiiON, disk library, EDL, mainframe, open systems, disk, cache, buffer, 3494, VTS, AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Microsoft, Windows, Sun, StorageTek, Chuck Hollis, HP, HDS, USP-V, FalconStor, Copan, OEM, LTO-4, Getty Images, patent[Read More]
IDC, an independent industry analyst firm, put out their 4Q07"Worldwide Disk Storage Systems Quarterly Tracker" report. Here is an excerpts from their [press release]:
"Worldwide external disk storage systems factory revenues posted 9.8 percent year-over-year growth in the fourth quarter of 2007 (4Q07) and totaling $5.3 billion (USD), according to the IDC Worldwide Disk Storage Systems Quarterly Tracker. For the quarter, the total disk storage systems market grew to $7.5 billion (USD), up 7.6 percent from the prior year's fourth quarter. Total disk storage systems capacity shipped reach 1,645 petabytes, growing 56.3 percent."
For those wondering how an industry could grow 56.3 percent in capacity, but only 7.6 percent in revenue, it isbecause the average dollar-per-GB dropped in 2007 from $6.63 down to $4.56 (USD), representing a 31 percent decline.In the past, disk prices dropped 40 to 60 percent each year, so making single digit growth was the best major vendorscould hope for. However, lately this has slowed down to 25 to 35 percent decline, but the client demand for capacity continues at the 60 percent pace, which means that vendors could achieve double digit revenue growth soon.
Once again, IBM was ranked number 1 in total disk storage. No surprise there. Here are the details:
"Total Disk Storage Systems Market
But why focus just on disk? IDC also released their"Worldwide Combined Disk and Tape Storage 3Q07 Market Share Update", and IBM was number one for that as well,taking in 21.9 percent share. Here's a quote of IBM VP Barry Rudolph in[CNN Money]:
"IBM's continued leadership in the storage hardware market reaffirms our strategy to provide the most comprehensive tiered portfolio of storage offerings, ranging from software and services to disk and tape storage solutions," said Barry Rudolph, Vice President, Storage Stack Solutions, IBM. "IBM is the clear choice for providing information infrastructure solutions that offer the most cost-efficient, streamlined approach to help our customers increase overall productivity and maximize performance."
It is looking like 2008 is going to be a good year for IBM!
A [recent survey] conductedby Fleishman-Hillard Researchindicates that the majority of disk-only customers are now lookingat adding tape back into their infrastructure. Here are some excerpts:
"Over two thirds of surveyed businesses said they were lookingto add tape storage back into their overall network infrastructure and of those respondents, over80-percent plan to add tape storage solutions within the next 12 months.The survey, which was taken in the fourth quarter of 2007, focused on the views of morethan 200 network administrators and mid-level tech specialists at mid-size to large companiesthroughout the United States.
While disk provides online data access and availability, tape provides additional data protectionand security, lower total cost of ownership (TCO), lower energy consumption (Tape is more "green"),and can be an important part of a long term data retention and compliance strategy.
Disk is more costly, more energy hungry, and some data, although it must be retained, may seldom, if ever be looked at, so why keep it spinning?
Speaking of TCO, in a recent 5-year TCO analysis by the Clipper Group titled[“Disk and Tape Square Off Again”]stored 2.4PB of data long term on SATA disk and on an LTO tape library, the disk system was:23:1 more costly, used 290 times the amount of energy than tapeEven with a data dedupe system like IBM System Storage N series, disk was still 5 times more costly than the tape system.
The Linear Tape Open (LTO) consortium --consisting of IBM, Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Quantum-- just released its "LTO-5" plans. With 2:1 compression,you will be able to pack up to 3TB of data on a single tape cartridge. And while dollar-per-GB declinefor disk is slowing down to 25-30 percent per year, tape continues to decline at a healthy 40 percent rate, so the price gap between diskand tape will actually widen even further over the next few years.
That's something to get excited about!Read More]
Jon Toigo over at DrunkenData writes in his post[A Wink and a Nod] about thebenefits of the new IBM System z10 Enterprise Class mainframe. Here's an excerpt about storage:
"The other key point worth making about this scenario is that storage behind a z10 must conform to IBM DASD rules. That means no more BS standards wars between knuckle-draggers in the storage world who continue to mitigate the heterogeneous interoperability and manageability of distributed systems storage using proprietary lock in technologies designed as much to lock in the consumer and lock out the competition as to deliver any real value. That has got to be worth something."
For z/OS and TPF operating systems, disk must support CCW commands over ESCON or FICON connections, or NFS commandsover the Local Area Network. However, most of the workloads that are being ported over from x86 platforms willprobably be running Linux on System z images, and as such Linux supports both CCW and SCSI protocols, the latterover native FCP connections through a Storage Area Network (SAN) or via iSCSI over the Local Area Network. Many SAN directors support both FCP and FICON, and the z10 also supports both 1Gbps and 10Gbps Ethernet, so you may not have to invest in any new networking gear.
The best part is that you may not have to migrate your data. The IBM System Storage SAN Volume Controller is supported for Linux on System z, and with "image mode" you can leave the data in its original format on its original disk array. Many file systems are now supported by Linux, including Windows NTFS with the latest NTFS-3G driver.
If your data is already on NAS storage, such as the IBM System Storage N series disk systems, then the IBM z10can access it directly, from z/OS, z/VM or Linux.
Have lots of LTO tape data? Linux on System z supports LTO as well.
Jon continues his rant with a question about porting Microsoft Windows applications. Here's another excerpt:
"For one, what do we do with all the Microsoft servers. There is no Redmond-sanctioned approach to my knowledge for virtualizing Microsoft SQL Server or Exchange Server in a mainframe partition."
Yes, it is possible to run Windows on a mainframe through emulation, but I feel that's the wrong approach. Instead, the focus should be on running "functionally equivalent" programs on the native mainframe operating systems, and again Linuxis often the best choice for this. Switching from Windows to Linux may not be "Redmond-sanctioned", but it getsthe job done.
Instead of SQL Server, consider something functionally equivalent like IBM's DB2 Universal Database, or perhaps an open source database like MySQL, PostgreSQL or Apache Derby. Well-written applications use standard SQL calls, so ifthe application does not try to use unique, proprietary features of MS SQL Server, you are in good shape.
In my discussion last November on [Microsoft Exchange email server], I mentioned that Bynari makes a functionally equivalent email server on Linux that works with your existing Microsoft Outlook clients. Your end-users wouldn't know you migrated to a mainframe! (well, they might notice their email runs faster)
So if your data center has three or more racks of Sun, Dell or HP "pizza box" or "blade" x86 servers, chances are you can migrate the processing over to a shiny new IBM z10 EC mainframe, save some money in the process, without too much impact to your existing Ethernet, SAN or storage system infrastructure. IBM can even help you dispose of the oldx86 machines so that their toxic chemicals don't end up in any landfill.
technorati tags: Jon Toigo, DrunkenData, IBM, z10, CCW, ESCON, FICON, SCSI, FCP, iSCSI, SAN Volume Controller, SVC, N series, NAS, NFS, NTFS, SAN, LAN, Ethernet, z/OS, TPF, z/VM, Linux, DB2, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Apache Derby, Microsoft, Windows[Read More]
As a consultant, I am often asked to help design the architecture for the information infrastructure. A usefulanalogy to gather requirements and preferences is the difference between area rugs and wall-to-wall carpeting. Arearugs are not secured to the floor and cover only a portion of the floor area. Carpets are generally tacked or cemented to the floor, often with an underlay of cushion padding, stretched across the entire floor surface, out to all four walls of each room.
Each has its pros and cons, and often is a matter of preference. Some people like area rugs because they can choosea different style for each room, match the decor and color scheme of furniture, and use these to define each livingspace. Ever since paleolithic man put animal skins on the floor of their cave, people recognize that cold, hard andugly floors could be covered up with something soft and more attractive.Others prefer wall-to-wall carpeting because they want to walk around the house barefoot, have their young children crawl on their hands and knees, and give the entire house a unified look and feel. This is often an inexpensive option when compared against the cost of individual rugs.
IBM can help you design an information infrastructure that fits either approach.Read More]
Well, its Tuesday, and that means more IBM announcements!!!
Let's do a quick recap of what was announced for storage:
I'm at a Business Partner conference today, discussing these announcements and other topics, so need to go back to those festivities.
technorati tags: IBM, SATA, SATA-II, 1000GB, 1TB, DS4000, DS4200, DS4700, DS4800, EXP420, EXP810, TS7700, TS7740, R1.4a, grid, cluster, 7214-1U2, DAT160, DAT72, DDS4, LTO-2, LTO-3, LTO-4, TS3100, TS3200, TS3310, TS3500, discount, promotion, Productivity Center, Replication, two-site, three-site, failover, failback, SVC, DS8000, DS6000, ESS800, Windows, Linux, z/OS, System z, z10 EC[Read More]
My IBM colleague Marissa Benekos brought her hand-held video camera to [Storage Networking World] conference in Orlando, Florida.I am not there, as I had a conflict with another conference going on here in Tucson, so am relyingon Marissa to feed me information to blog about.
In this segment, she interviews "booth babe" David Bricker. I've known David a long time,and if you are there at the conference, tell him I sent you to visit him at the IBM booth.
Sadly, I can't be in two places at once. SNW is a great conference to attend!Read More]
Last year, I started my post[Hu Yoshida should know better] with:
I am still wiping the coffee off my computer screen, inadvertently sprayed when I took a sip while reading HDS' uber-blogger Hu Yoshida's post on storage virtualization and vendor lock-in.
HDS is a major vendor for disk storage virtualization, and Hu Yoshida has been around for a while, so I felt it was fair to disagree with some of the generalizations he made to set the record straight. He's been more careful ever since.
However, his latest post [The Greening of IT: Oxymoron or Journey to a New Reality] mentions an expert panel at SNW that includedMark O’Gara Vice President of Infrastructure Management at Highmark. I was not at the SNW conference last week in Orlando, so I will just give the excerpt from Hu's account of what happened:
"Later I had the opportunity to have lunch with Mark O’Gara. Mark is a West Point graduate so he takes a very disciplined approach to addressing the greening of IT. He emphasized the need for measurements and setting targets. When he started out he did an analysis of power consumption based on vendor specifications and came up with a number of 513 KW for his data center infrastructure....
Obviously, I know better than to sip coffee whenever reading Hu's blog. I am down here in South America this week, the coffee is very hot and very delicious, so I am glad I didn't waste any on my laptop screen this time, especially reading that last sentence!
Last month, in my post [Disk only customers going back to tape], I mentioned some statistics from the Clipper Group's whitepaper[Disk and Tape Square Off Again —Tape Remains King of the Hill with LTO-4] by analysts David Reine and Mike Kahn.
In that report, a 5-year comparison found that a repository based on SATA disk was 23 times more expensive overall, and consumed 290 times more energy, than a tape library based on LTO-4 tape technology. The analysts even considered a disk-based Virtual Tape Library (VTL). Focusing just on backups, at a 20:1 deduplication ratio, the VTL solution was still 5 times per expensive than the tape library. If you use the 25:1 ratio that Hu Yoshida mentions in his post above, that would still be 4 times more than a tape library.
I am not disputing Mark O'Gara's disciplined approach.
(Update: My apologies to Mark and his colleagues at Highmark. The above paragraph implied that Mark was using badproducts or configured them incorrectly, and was inappropriate. Mark, my full apology [here])
If you do decide to go with a Virtual Tape Library, for reasons other than energy consumption, doesn't it make sense to buy it from a vendor that understands tape systems, rather than buying it from one that focuses on disk systems? Tape system vendors like IBM, HP or Sun understand tape workloads as well as related backup and archive software, and can provide better guidance and recommendations based on years of experience. Asking advice abouttape systems, including Virtual Tape Libraries, from a disk vendor is like asking for advice on different types of bread from your butcher, or advice about various cuts of meat at the bakery.
The butchers and bakers might give you answers, but it may not be the best advice.
technorati tags: HDS, Hu Yoshida, Mark O'Gara, Highmark, SNW, Orlando, Florida, de-duplication, deduplication, dedupe, robotic, tape library, virtual, VTL, Clipper Group, David Reine, Mike Kahn, SATA, disk, systems, HP, Sun, backup, archive, workloads, butcher, baker, bakery, meat, bread, advice, IBM, Tivoli Storage Manager, TSM, LTO, LTO-4[Read More]
Normally, IBM only makes announcements on Tuesdays, but today, Friday, IBM announces that it acquired Diligent Technologies. What? I got a lot ofquestions about this, so I thought I would start with this...
When I posted in January that[IBM Acquires XIV],fellow EMC blogger Mark Twomey of StorageZilla fame, sent me a comment:
"Ah now Tony I wasn't poking fun. Indeed I find it fascinating that Moshe who's been sitting out on the fringes for years having been banished for being an obstructionist to EMC entering the mid-market is now back.
As you might have guessed, I am privy to a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes at IBM that I can't talk about in this blog, and all these rumors in the blogosphere about IBM acquisition of Diligent was a topic I couldn't officially recognize, defend or deny, until official IBM announcements were made.
In his latest post, Mark wonders about[the last Tape and Mainframe sales person on earth]. He recounts my interaction with fellow HDS blogger Hu Yoshia about the energy benefits ofVirtual Tape Libraries. Knowing that we were going to announcement IBM's acquisition of Diligent soon, I thoughtthis would be a worthy exchange, driving up the sales of Diligent boxes (whether you buy them from IBM or HDS).Diligent already had reselling arrangements with HDS, and IBM plans to continue thosearrangements going forward with HDS. As I have explained before in my post [Supermarketsand Specialty Shops], IBM and HDS cater to different customers, so if a customer who wants the best technologyfrom a specialty shop, they can buy IBM Diligent products from HDS, but if they want one-stop shopping, they can buyIBM Diligent directly from IBM or its other IBM Business Partners.
(Perhaps a more tricky situation is that Diligent also had an arrangement with Sun Microsystems, which competesdirectly against IBM as another IT supermarket vendor, but I have not heard how IBM has decided to handle thisgoing forward.)
For more on this intricate mess of interconnected companies, alliances and partnerships, read Dave Raffo's article[Data dedupe dance cardfilling up] over at Storage Soup.
So, let's tackle the first question:
While TSM does a good job of "deduplicating" at the client first, backing up only changed data, Scott feels database and email repositories must be backed up entirely each time, which is what happens in many other backup software products. Some clients might have 80 percent database/email and only 20 percent files, while others might have less than 20 percent database/email and 80 percent files, so this might influence whether deduplication will have small or big benefit.If TSM has to backup the entire database, even though little has changed since the last backup, that is where deduplication on a virtual tape library can come in handy. For IBM DB2 and Oracle databases, IBM TSM application-aware Tivoli Data Protection module interface backs up only changed data, not the entire file. Thanks to IBM's FilesX acquisition-- (also coincidently from Israel) --IBM can extend this support now to SQL Server databases as well.However, to be fair, Scott is partly correct, TSM does backup some database and email repositories in their entirety, which is why it is a good idea to have BOTH an IBM virtual tape library with deduplication and Tivoli Storage Manager to handle all cases. This brings us to the next question:
Jon Toigo from DrunkenData asks[Did IBM Do Due Diligence Before Making Diligent Acquisition a Done Deal?] which is probably always a valid question. Unlike XIV, I wasn't part of the Diligent acquisition team, so I can't provide first hand account of the process. I am told that the IBM team did all the right things to make sure everything is going to turn out right.Sadly, many companies that make acquisitions in the IT industry fail to make them work. Fortunately, IBM is one of the few companies that has a great success record, with over 60 acquisitions in the past six years.In the Xconomy forum, Wade Rousch writes[IBM and the Art of Acquisitions]and gives some insight why IBM is different. Jon did not understand why Cindy Grossman, IBM VP of tape and archive solutions, ran the analyst conference call for this announcement, which brings me to the next question:
Some might remember that IBM already has deduplication in its IBM N series products, called Advanced Single InstanceStorage, or A-SIS. Here is an[IBM System Storage N Series A-SIS Deduplication Deployment and Implementation Guide. This brings up the fourth question:
As with any acquisition, there will be some changes. The 100 folks from Diligent will get to learn the IBM wayof doing things. This brings me to our fifth and final question:
That's all for now, I'm off to Chicago, Illinois tomorrow!
technorati tags: IBM, Diligent, acquisition, LOST, EMC, Mark Twomey, Moshe Yanai, Pam West, StorageZilla, HDS, Hu Yoshida, Sun Microsystems, virtual, real, tape library, VTL, SATA, LTO, LTO-4, TS3500, Scott Waterhouse, information infrastructure, email, database, backup, archive, Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, FilesX, SAN, LAN, IP, LAN-free, TSM, Tivoli Storage Manager, XIV, Nextra, A-SIS, Chicago, deduplication, Dave Raffo, dedupe[Read More]
I owe an apology to Mark O'Gara and his colleagues at Highmark for my post last week [Which is greener, Real or Virtual Tape?].
Last week's focus was on tape libraries, both virtual and real, leading up to our IBM announcement ofacquiring Diligent Technologies. I was focused on HDS blogger Hu Yoshida's post about his conversation with Mark,who was on an expert panel about these topics. Mark discovered that of the top energy consumersin his datacenter, his tape library was in the top five, a surprising result. Hu suggested that switching to a VTL with deduplicationtechnology was a potential alternative, and I pointed to a whitepaper from the Clipper Group that suggested otherwise.
My response was that perhaps Highmark's choice of backup software was poorly written, or that they had set it up with thewrong parameters, and just changing hardware might not be the right answer. I went too far given that I didn't know which software they had, which parameters theywere using, or which tape technology was involved. This came across wrong. I meant to poke fun at Hu's response.I did not mean to imply that Mark and his staff hadmade poor choices, or that they should automatically reject Hu's advice to consider other hardware alternatives.
I have discussed the situation with Mark, and agree that I should know his situation better before offeringsuggestions of my own.
Again, I'm sorry Mark.Read More]
The "Storage Symposium Mexico - 2008" conference was a great success this week!
Day 1 - The plan was for me to arrive for the Wednesday night reception. Eachattendee was given a copy of my latest book[Inside System Storage: Volume I] and I was planning to sign them. I thought perhaps we should have a "book signing" tablelike all of the other published authors have.
Things didn't go according to plan. Thunderstorms at the Mexico City airport forced our pilot to find an alternate airport. Nearby Acapulco airport was the logical choice, but was full from all the otherflights, so the plane ended up in a tiny town called McAllen, Texas. I did not arrive until the morning of Day 2,so ended up signing the books throughout Thursday and Friday, during breaks and meals, wherever they couldfind me!
Special thanks to fellow IBMer Ian Henderson who picked me up from the airport at such an awkward hour anddrive me all the way to Cuernavaca!
Day 2 - The event venue is the beautiful Japanese-theme[Camino Real Sumiya Hotel] in Cuernavaca, Mexico.
I was original scheduled to be first to speak, but with my flight delays, was moved to a time slot after lunch.After a big Mexican lunch, the conference coordinators were afraid the attendees might fall asleep,a Mexican tradition called [siesta], so I wasinstructed to WAKE THEM UP! Fortunately, my topic was Information Lifecycle Management, a topicI am very passionate about, since my days working on DFSMS on the mainframe. With 30percent reduction in hardware capital expenditures, 30 percent reduction in operational costs, and typical payback periods between 15 to 24 months, the presentation got everyone's attention.
Day 3 - Wrapping up the week, I presented two more times.
First, I covered IBM Disk Virtualization with IBM SAN Volume Controller. One interesting question was if the SAN Volume Controller could be made to looklike a Virtual Tape Library. I explained that this was never part of the original design, but that if you wantto combine SVC with a VTL into a combined disk-and-tape blended solution, consider using theIBM product called Scale-Out File Services[SoFS] which I covered in my post[Moredetails about IBM clustered scalable NAS].
Later, I covered Archive and Compliance Solutions to highlight our complete end-to-end set of solutions.When asked to compare and contrast the architectures of the IBM System Storage DR550 with EMC Centera, I explainedthat the DR550 optimizes the use of online disk access for the most recent data. For example, if you aregoing to keep data for 10 years, maybe you keep the most recent 12 months on disk, and the rest is moved,using policy-based automation, to a tape library for the remaining nine years. This means that the disk insidethe DR550 is always being used to read and write the most recent data, the data you are most likely to retrievefrom an archive system. Data older than a year is still accessible, but might take a minute or two for the tapelibrary robot to fetch.The EMC Centera, on the other hand, is a disk-only solution. It offers no option to move older data to tape,nor the option to spin-down the drives to conserve power. It fills up after the same 12 months or so, and then you get towatch it the remaining nine years, consuming electricity and heating your data center.
I don't know about you, butI have never seen anyone purposely put in "space heaters" into their data center, but certainly a full EMC Centeradoes little else. Both devices use SATA drives and support disk mirroring between locations, but IBM DR550 offers dual-parity RAID-6, and supports encryption of the data on both the disk and the tape in the DR550. EMC Centerastill uses only RAID-5, and has not yet, as far as I know, offered any level of encryption. IBM System StorageDR550 was clocked at about three times faster than Centera at ingesting new archive objects over a 1GbE Ethernet connection.
The conference wrapped up with a Mexican lunch with a traditional Mariachi band. I took pictures, but figured you allalready know what [Mariachi players] look like, and I didn't wantto detract from the otherwise serious tone of this blog post! This was the first System Storage Symposium in Mexico, butbased on its success, we might continue these annually.
technorati tags: IBM, Storage Symposium, Mexico, Cuernavaca, McAllen, Texas, Ian Henderson, Camino Real, Sumiya, Hachimaki, Mike Griese, Dave Larimer, John Hamano, SVC, VTL, SOFS, NAS, TSM, TotalStorage, Productivity Center, Cyntia Martinez, Claudia Aviles, Cesar Campos, Claudia Lopez, archive, compliance, DR550, NENR, EMC, Centera, SATA, RAID-5, RAID-6, encryption, Adriana Mondragon, Top Gun, Guadalajara,[Read More]
Continuing this week in Los Angeles, I went to some interesting sessions today at theSystems Technical Conference (STC08).
I'll expand on some of these topics in later blog posts.
technorati tags: IBM, SSPC, System Storage, TotalStorage, Productivity Center, Windows 2003, Linux, TPCTOOL, DB2, DS8000, SVC, GUI, CLI, CIMOM, PuTTY, SSH, Java, LDAP, CKD, Volume, LUN, HDD, workshops, Dominic Pruitt, Dan Marshall, Global Technology Services, GTS, archive, Jeff Ziehm, EKM, keytool, iKeyMan, LTO4, TS1120, VTL, Diligent, ProtecTier, HyperFactor, Jeff Mulliken, Abbe Woodcock, Randy Fleenor, TS7520, TS7530, x86-64, RHEL, deduplication, A-SIS, diff, LZH, compression, i5/OS, DLT7000, P3000, NDMP, iSCSI, shredding, DS4000, Westin Bonaventure, Web2.0, digital archive, XIV, SOFS, iDataPlex, Google Docs, Second Life, FlickR, Tivo[Read More]