This week, I am presenting at the IBM Systems Technical University in Orlando, Florida, May 22-26, 2017. Day 1 included keynote sessions. Here is my recap for the morning.
This was a great way to start the week!
technorati tags: IBM, #ibmtechu, Amy Hirst, Chris Schnabel, IBM Q, Quantum Computing, Quantum Easy, Converged Systems, IBM PureSystems, VersaStack, Hyperconverged Systems, HCI, Nutanix, Simplivity, EVO:RAIL, VMware VSAN, Spectrum Accelerate, Spectrum Scale FPO, Supermicro, VCE, Vblock, NetApp, Flexpod, Cloud Storage, IBM Bluemix
(FCC Disclosure: I work for IBM. I have no financial interest in SUSE, Scality, or any other storage vendor mentioned in this post. This blog post can be considered a "paid celebrity endorsement" for IBM Storwize, IBM Cloud Object Storage, and IBM Spectrum Storage software mentioned below.)
The study takes a realistic request for 250 TB of storage, at 25 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR), to store infrequently accessed data in an online archive, and then looks at the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) over five year period.
The study compares five different Software-Defined Solutions and three pre-built systems. The Software-defined solutions come as software-only, requiring that you purchase the hardware separately and build it yourself. The three pre-built systems were chosen from the top three storage vendors in the marketplace: Dell EMC, IBM and NetApp.
The cost of support is factored in, as it should be. To keep things equal, no data reduction like data deduplication or compression were used.
In an odd approach, the study mixes block, file and object based approaches all in the same study.
You can read the full 14-page study (linked above). I have organized the results into a single table, ranked from best to worst, color coded for the best deals in green ($100K to $200K), moderate solutions in yellow ($200K to $300K) and most expensive in red (over $300K). I put the software-only options on the left and pre-built systems on the right.
I am often asked, "Isn't the software-only, build-it-yourself approach, always the lowest cost option?" Now, I can answer, "Sometimes yes, sometimes no." Fortunately, IBM offers Software-Defined Storage in a variety of packaging options including software-only, pre-built systems, and in the Cloud as a service.
IBM Storwize V5010 is based on IBM Spectrum Virtualize software, which you can deploy as software-only on your own x86 servers. This was not mentioned in the study, and perhaps it is my job to remind people that this option is also available for those who want to build their own storage.
For that matter, IBM Cloud Object Storage System -- available as software-only, pre-built systems, and in the Cloud -- might also be a cost-effective alternative.
Next week I will be in Orlando, Florida for the IBM Systems Technical University. If you are attending, stop by one of my presentations, or look for me at the Solution Center at one of the IBM peds, or attend the "Meet the Experts for IBM Storage" on Thursday!
technorati tags: Storage Newsletter, IT Brand Pulse, Total Cost Ownership, TCO Case Study, CAGR, Software-Defined Storage, SDS, Dell EMC, IBM, NetApp, SUSE, SUSE Enterprise Storage, CEPH, CephFS, IBM Storwize, Storwize V5000, Storwize V5010, Spectrum Virtualize, IBM Cloud Object Storage
Comments (2) Visits (1532)
I have been blogging for more than 10 years now, so I am no stranger to commenting on competitive comparisons. In some cases, I am setting the record straight, and other times, poking fun at competitor results, claims or conclusions. This comparison from Brian Carmody was too juicy to ignore.
(FCC Disclosure: I work for IBM. I have no financial interest in Infinidat, Dell EMC, nor Pure Storage, mentioned in this post. I do have friends and former co-workers who now work for Infinidat. This blog post can be considered a "paid celebrity endorsement" for IBM FlashSystem products.)
Fellow blogger Brian Carmody, formerly with IBM but now Chief Technology Officer at a startup called Infinidat, wrote [Flash is not Fast, and the Sky is Falling].
Here is an excerpt, I have added (Infinidat) wherever Brian says "we" just so there is no confusion:
"... So last week we (Infinidat) finally got around to running the same profiles against an INFINIDAT F6230 in our Waltham Solution Center, configured with 1.1TB of DDR-4 DRAM, 200TB TLC NAND, and 480 3TB Nearline HDDs.
In summary, we (Infinidat) wrecked the Pure and EMC systems. Here are the results side by side with EMC's data:<<
By the way, we (Infinidat) took the liberty of running the test with a 200TB data set instead of Pure and EMC's 50TB because modern workloads require performance at scale, and we ran it with in-line compression enabled because our compression algorithm doesn't hurt performance.
This was an interesting test to run, and we (Infinidat) hope it helps the storage industry move away from media type wars and benchmarks (you will lose every time on performance if INFINIDAT is in the mix) ..."
Notice anything wrong here? anything missing?
The Tortoise beat "Hare 1" and "Hare 2", but did not invite the Cheetah to the race?
Brian was smart enough not to compare their product to anything from IBM. IBM has a wide variety of All-Flash Arrays, including the DS8880F models, the Storwize V7000F and V5030F models, and Elastic Storage Server models. However, for this workload, IBM would probably recommend the FlashSystem V9000, A9000 or A9000R.
Any All-Flash Array with a steady-state latency of 2 milliseconds or greater is embarassing, but then Infinibox is not really an All-Flash Array.
The architecture of their Infinibox appears much like the original XIV. It has a mix of DRAM memory and SSD cache, combined with spinning drives. It offers only compression, not data deduplication. Unlike the IBM XIV powered by six to 15 servers, the Infinibox appears under-powered with just three servers.
The Infinibox uses software-based in-line compression, which must put a huge tax on the few CPUs they have in those three servers. Infinidat chose not to compress the data in their cache, probably to reduce the additional overhead on their over-taxed CPUs.
The IBM FlashSystem V9000 has an innovative design, based on IBM Spectrum Virtualize, the mature software that you also find in the IBM SAN Volume Controller and Storwize family of products.
The FlashSystem V9000 offers hard
IBM compresses its cache, using a two-tier approach. The "upper cache" receives the data uncompressed, so that it can then tell the application to continue, for fastest turn-around time. Then the data is compressed, and stored in the "lower cache", optimizing the value and benefits of DRAM memory. Many databases get up to 80 percent savings, resulting in a 5-to-1 benefit in DRAM cache memory.
The IBM FlashSystem A9000 and A9000R also have an innovative, based on IBM Spectrum Accelerate, the code originally developed for IBM XIV storage system.
(Fun fact: Infinidat's founder, [Moshe Yanai], was formerly the founder and designer of XIV, and it appears that Infinidat is just a re-design of old XIV technology architecture, re-packaged with a few differences. Since Moshe left, IBM has drastically enhanced the IBM XIV.)
Like the IBM Spectrum Virtualize family, the IBM FlashSystem A9000 and A9000R have hard
The IBM FlashSystem A9000 and A9000R also offer in-line data deduplication. Modern workloads are virtualized, and Virtual Machine (VM) and Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) get significant benefits from data deduplication. Infinidat does not play here. For the FlashSystem A9000, most of the metadata related to data deduplication is in cache, minimizing the overhead.
IBM FlashSystem A9000 and A9000R have full performance that blows these published Infinibox results away WITH compression and deduplication turned on.
Brian ran a workload that used the DRAM and SSD cache exclusively, eliminating the reality that any REAL WORLD workload would have to tap into those much slower spinning drives. This is not really a side-to-side benchmark. He is comparing his live run on Infinibox to published numbers from a previous comparison run on a completely different set of data.
This raises the question, why pay for all those spinning drives at all, if you plan to only use the DRAM and Flash storage for your workloads?
A week later, Brian followed up with another post [The INFINIDAT Challenge], acknowledging his comparison was bogus. Here's an excerpt. Again, I have added (Infinidat) wherever Brian is referring to his employer just so there is no confusion:
"... It's not likely that a room full of storage engineers will ever agree on parameters for a synthetic benchmark since storage evaluations are competitive and control of test parameters will invariably predetermine the 'winner'. However, I hope we can all agree that synthetic benchmarks are a waste of time, and that real world performance is what matters in the data center.
So, what can we (Infinidat) do about it?
We (Infinidat) cordially invite every enterprise storage customer who wants lower latency and lower storage cost to visit [Fas
Thanks again to all who participated in the dialog over the past week. I know the post generated some controversy. Traditional storage companies are fighting for their lives trying to keep enterprise storage expensive; indeed their business models are predicated upon maintaining price levels from a bygone era...."
As consolidation play doing full range of data services, I do not see this Infinibox working out. Talking to clients who have the Infinibox, the performance deteriorates in REAL WORLD workloads as you add more data to the unit.
The Infinibox seems fine for workloads that do not demand high performance, so I was surprised Brian compared it to All-Flash arrays. The Infinibox is out of its league!
(To be fair, Pure Storage and EMC XtremeIO aren't really in the same league as IBM FlashSystem, either, given that both of those products are based on commodity SSD. IBM FlashSystem models are consistently 4 to 10 times lower latency than these Commodity-SSD based competitors.)
The Infinibox also lacks features many people expect in an Enterprise-class storage array, like Call-Home capability to identify problems quickly, and Synchronous remote mirroring for disaster recovery. It is often common for startups like Infinidat to deliver a [Minimum Viable Product] as their first offering.
To paraphrase Brian himself, your applications will lose every time on performance if INFINIDAT is in your datacenter.
technorati tags: IBM, FlashSystem, A9000, A9000R, Brian Carmody, Infinidat, Infinibox, Pure Storage, EMC, EMC Unity, Infinidat F6230, Infinibox F6230, IBM XIV, Moshe Yanai, SSD, VDI, All-Flash Array, AFA, Call-Home, Synchronous Mirror, Disaster Recovery, Minimum Viable Product, Spectrum Virtualize, Intel QuickAssist, American Cancer Society
Well, it's Tuesday again, and you know what that means? IBM Announcements!
To learn more about these and other recent enhancements, come to the IBM Systems Technical University, May 22-26, 2017 in Orlando, Florida. I'll be there!
technorati tags: , IBM, TS7760, Virtual Tape Library, VTL, Virtual Tape System, VTS, TS3500, TS4500, TS1155, TS1150, SKLM, LTFS, Spectrum Archive, RDMA, RoCE, iSCSI, Spectrum Copy Data Management, Spectrum CDM, CDM, DevOps, Disaster Recovery, MS SQL, SAP HANA, EPIC, InterSystems, EHR, VMware, Vmotion, Spectrum Accelerate, IBM Bluemix, IBM Cloud, Hybrid Cloud
Over the past ten years, my co-workers have asked to write a "guest post" on this blog. This time, Moshe Weiss, IBM Senior Manager, Development and Design, has offered the following post, not in his own voice, but in the voice of his "baby", the Hyper-Scale Manager software.
You might think this is a strange approach, but today we have robots that can dance, and cars that can drive themselves! If software could talk, this is what IBM Hyper-Scale Manager would say:
"I was born a year ago.
It wasn't an easy birth… there were many complications. In fact, so many, that I was almost prematurely born!
Most of my development, in preparation for labor and delivery, was done within the last 6 months of the overall 18 months. I was shaped and designed, and sometimes re-shaped, three times. Lots of assumptions had to be made in hopes to ease a successful delivery and help bring me to full term of the birthing process.
During my first year of maturity, I focused on learning how customers used me; what frustrated them the most, and what they loved or 'almost' loved, while still needing refinement and redesign.
The number of customers adopting me grew higher and higher, as did the number of complaints and bugs that I had to deal with, and my users’ frustrations and dislikes because I wasn't yet a complete solution and still had some missing features.
I was renewed four times! Each time of which improved me and made my senses better, faster, adding new capabilities that helped make me more approachable, intuitive and delightful.
Choosing how to renew, and what to add to each renewal, is not an easy task. Basically, it was about prioritizing user experience versus gaps that were deferred from my birth, versus differentiators to make me unique and sell more, versus features in my roadmap, versus investing huge efforts in my quality.
Each renewal was a complex process with lots of features and behaviors to add, while trying to make my customers’ life a bit easier, since features that were important to them were sometimes considered low priority.
But, there were also good times during my first year:
If you are planning to attend the upcoming IBM Systems Technical University, Orlando Florida, May 22-26, There will also be a variety of hands-on labs. I recommend participating in the hands-on session to feel and witness the next release of IBM Hyper-Scale Manager.