This blog is for the open exchange of ideas relating to IBM Systems, storage and storage networking hardware, software and services.
(Short URL for this blog: ibm.co/Pearson )
Tony Pearson is a Master Inventor, Senior IT Architect and Event Content Manager for [IBM Systems for IBM Systems Technical University] events. With over 30 years with IBM Systems, Tony is frequent traveler, speaking to clients at events throughout the world.
Lloyd Dean is an IBM Senior Certified Executive IT Architect in Infrastructure Architecture. Lloyd has held numerous senior technical roles at IBM during his 19 plus years at IBM. Lloyd most recently has been leading efforts across the Communication/CSI Market as a senior Storage Solution Architect/CTS covering the Kansas City territory. In prior years Lloyd supported the industry accounts as a Storage Solution architect and prior to that as a Storage Software Solutions specialist during his time in the ATS organization.
Lloyd currently supports North America storage sales teams in his Storage Software Solution Architecture SME role in the Washington Systems Center team. His current focus is with IBM Cloud Private and he will be delivering and supporting sessions at Think2019, and Storage Technical University on the Value of IBM storage in this high value IBM solution a part of the IBM Cloud strategy. Lloyd maintains a Subject Matter Expert status across the IBM Spectrum Storage Software solutions. You can follow Lloyd on Twitter @ldean0558 and LinkedIn Lloyd Dean.
Tony Pearson's books are available on Lulu.com! Order your copies today!
Safe Harbor Statement: The information on IBM products is intended to outline IBM's general product direction and it should not be relied on in making a purchasing decision. The information on the new products is for informational purposes only and may not be incorporated into any contract. The information on IBM products is not a commitment, promise, or legal obligation to deliver any material, code, or functionality. The development, release, and timing of any features or functionality described for IBM products remains at IBM's sole discretion.
Tony Pearson is a an active participant in local, regional, and industry-specific interests, and does not receive any special payments to mention them on this blog.
Tony Pearson receives part of the revenue proceeds from sales of books he has authored listed in the side panel.
Tony Pearson is not a medical doctor, and this blog does not reference any IBM product or service that is intended for use in the diagnosis, treatment, cure, prevention or monitoring of a disease or medical condition, unless otherwise specified on individual posts.
The developerWorks Connections Platform is now in read-only mode and content is only available for viewing. No new wiki pages, posts, or messages may be added. Please see our FAQ for more information. The developerWorks Connections platform will officially shut down on March 31, 2020 and content will no longer be available. More details available on our FAQ. (Read in Japanese.)
Many thanks to the 186 people who registered for yesterday's webcast "Solving the Storage Capacity Crisis -- Tools and Practices for Effective Management!" We had some excellent questions posed during the live Q&A:
Do you recommend moving to a SAN before implementing the management techniques you described, or will these tactics work just as well on direct-attached storage?
How does data center tiering differ from hierarchical storage management?
How do you recommend decisions about data priority be made when there are multiple stakeholders competing for attention?
You didn't mention deduplication. Does that have much impact on capacity management?
When outsourcing to a storage service provider, do you have any recommendations of the merits of wholesale outsourcing vs. partial outsourcing?
What are the dangers of giving end-users the ability to manage their own storage? What kind of education should be put in place?
The webcast was recorded, so in case you missed it, or just want to hear it again, the recording is now available in the [On24 archives].
Now an avid reader of my blog has brought this to my attention. Apparently,
EMC has been showing customers a presentation
[Accelerating Storage Transformation with VMAX and VPLEX] with false and misleading comparison claims between IBM DS8000, HDS VSP and EMC VMAX 40K disk system performance.
(FTC Disclosure: This would be a good time to remind my readers that I work for IBM and own IBM stock. I do not endorse any of the EMC or HDS products mentioned in this post, and have no financial affiliation or investments directly with either EMC nor HDS. I am basing my information solely on the presentation posted on the internet and other sources publicly available, and not on any misrepresentations from EMC speakers at the various conferences where these charts might have been shown.)
The problem with misinformation is that it is not always obvious. The EMC presentation is quite pretty and professional-looking. It is the typical slick, attention-getting, low-content, over-simplified marketing puffery you have come to expect from EMC. There are two slides in particular that I have issue with.
This first graphic implies that IBM and HDS are nearly tied in performance, but that EMC VMAX 40K has nearly triple that bandwidth. Overall the slide has very little detail. That makes it difficult to determine what exactly is being claimed and whether a fair comparison is being made.
The title claims that VMAX 40K is "#1 in High Bandwidth Apps". Only three disk systems are shown so the claim appears to be relative to only the three systems. The wording "High Bandwidth Apps" is confusing considering the cited numbers are for disk systems and no application is identified. By comparison, IBM SONAS can drive up to 105 GB/sec sequential bandwidth, nearly double what EMC claims for its VMAX 40K, so EMC is certainly not even close to #1.
Is the workload random or sequential? That is not easy to determine. The use of "GB/s" along with the large block size of 128KB implies the I/O workload is sequential, which is great for some workloads like high performance computing, technical computing and video broadcasts. Random workloads, on the other hand, are usually measured in I/Os per second (IOPS) with a block size ranging 4KB to 64KB. (I am assuming the 128K blocks refers to 128KB block size, and not reading the same block of cache 128,000 times.)
The slide states "Maximum Sustainable RRH Bandwidth 128K Blocks". The acronym "RRH" is not defined; but I suspect this refers to "random read hits". For random workloads, 100 percent random read hits from cache represents one corner of the infamous "four corners" test. Real-world workloads have a mix of reads and writes, and a mix of cache hits and cache misses. It is also unclear whether the hits are from standard data cache or from internal buffers in adapters (perhaps accessing the same blocks repeatedly) or something else. So is this really for a random workload, or a sequential workload?
(The term "Hitachi Math" was coined by an EMC blogger precisely to slam Hitachi Data Systems for their blatant use of four-corners results, claiming that spouting ridiculously large, but equally unrealistic, 100 percent random read hit results don't provide any useful information. I agree. There are much better industry-standard benchmarks available, such as SPC-1 for random workloads, SPC-2 for sequential workloads, and even benchmarks for specific applications, that represent real-world IT environments. To shame HDS for their use of four-corners results, only for EMC themselves to use similar figures in their own presentation is truly hypocritical of them!)
The IBM system is identified as "DS8000". DS8000 is a generic family name that applies to multiple generations of systems first introduced in 2004. The specific model is not identified, but that is critical information. Is this a first generation DS8100, or the latest DS8800, or something in between?
The slide says "Full System Configs", but that is not defined and configuration details are not identified. Configuration details, also critical information in assessing system performance capabilities, are not specified. If the EMC box costs seven times more than IBM or HDS, would you really buy it to get 3x more performance? Is the EMC packed with the maximum amount of SSD? Were there any SSD in the IBM or HDS boxes to match?
The source of the claimed IBM DS8000 performance numbers is not identified. Did they run their own tests? While I cannot tell, the VMAX may have been configured with 64 Fibre Channel 8Gbps host connections. In that case each channel is theoretically capable of supporting about 800 MB/s at 100% channel utilization. Multiplying 64 x 800MB/s = 51.2GB/s, so did EMC just do the performance comparison on the back of a napkin, assuming there are no other bottlenecks in the system? Even then, I would not round up 51.2 to 52!
Response times were not identified. For random I/Os, response time is a very important metric. It is possible that the Symmetrix was operating with some resources at 100% utilization to get the highest GB/s result, but that would likely make I/O response times unacceptable for real-world random I/O workloads.
IBM and HDS have both published Storage Performance Council [SPC] industry-standard performance benchmarks. EMC has not published any SPC benchmarks for VMAX systems. If EMC is interested in providing customers with audited, detailed performance information along with detailed configuration information, all based on benchmarks designed to represent real-world workloads, EMC can always publish SPC benchmark results as IBM and other vendors have done. In past blog fights, EMC resorts to the excuse that SPC isn't perfect, but can they really argue that vague and unrealistic claims cited in its presentation are better?
The second graphic is so absurd, you would think it came directly from Larry Ellison at an Oracle OpenWorld keynote session. EMC is comparing a configuration with VMAX 40K plus an EMC VFCache host-side flash memory cache card to a configuration with an IBM and HDS disk system without host-side flash memory cache also configured. The comparison is clearly apples-to-oranges. Other disk system configuration details are also omitted.
FAST VP is EMC's name for its sub-volume drive tiering feature, comparable to IBM Easy Tier and Hitachi's Dynamic Tiering. The graph implies that IBM and HDS can only achieve a modest increment improvement from their sub-volume tiering. I beg to differ. I have seen various cases where a small amount of SSD on IBM DS8000 series can drastically improve performance 200 to 400 percent.
The "DBClassify" shown on the graph is a tool run as part of an EMC professional services offering called Database Performance Tiering Assessment, makes recommendations for storing various database objects on different drive tiers based on object usage and importance. Do you really need to pay for professional services? With IBM Easy Tier, you just turn it on, and it works. No analysis required, no tools, no professional services, and no additional charge!
VFCache is an optional product from EMC that currently has no integration whatsoever with VMAX. A fair comparison would have included a host-side flash memory cache (from any vendor) when the IBM or HDS storage system was configured. Or leave it out altogether and just focus on the sub-volume tiering comparison.
Keep in mind that EMC's VFCache supports only selected x86-based hosts. IBM has published a [Statement of Direction] indicating that it will also offer this for Power systems running AIX and Linux host-side flash memory cache integrated with DS8000 Easy Tier.
I feel EMC's claims about IBM DS8000 performance are vague and misleading. EMC appears to lack the kind of technical marketing integrity that IBM strives to attain.
Since EMC is not able or willing to publish fair and meaningful performance comparisons, it is up to me to set the record straight and point out EMC's failings in this matter.
Reminder: It's not to late to register for my Webcast "Solving the Storage Capacity Crisis" on Tuesday, September 25. See my blog post [Upcoming events in September] to register!
Can you believe it is September already? We have a number upcoming events that you might be interested in.
IBM Smarter Analytics by Design
Join the first of our 'Smarter Analytics by Design' virtual events to learn more from leading industry analyst IDC on how analytics can help you solve business challenges, and the capabilities you'll need to be successful in this ever-changing landscape. You'll also hear real case examples from AXTEL and Miami-Dade County and the results of their analytics approaches.
Webcast: IBM Smarter Analytics by Design Date: Thursday, September 13, 2012 Time: 1:00 pm ET / 12:00 pm CT / 10:00 am PT
Dan Vessett and Jean Bozman, International Data Corporation (IDC)
Gaspar Rivera Del Valle, AXTEL, Monterrey, Mexico
Adrienne DiPrima, Rosario Fiallos, Jaci Newmark, Miami-Dade County, South Florida
The problems that used to keep storage managers awake at night -- power, cooling and physical footprint -- are being successfully addressed by technology, but a more vexing issue still remains: How to get more out of the limited supply of skilled storage management professionals.
Webcast: Solving the Storage Capacity Crisis Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 Time: 12:00 pm ET / 10:00 am CT / 09:00 am PT
Demand for storage capacity continues to grow far faster than the pool of people to manage it. With no end in sight to data growth, businesses need to apply technology and practices that distribute management responsibility to the people who need storage, and multiply the volumes of storage that skilled professionals can handle.
In this presentation, in this session, I will cover best practices and new tools that are enabling leaps in productivity, in three main areas:
IBM is bringing back and expanding its Mini Briefing program to Oracle OpenWorld.
What is a Mini-Briefing you might ask? It is a small, customized briefing by the Executive Briefing Centers, held nearby a related conference, allowing conference attendees to take 1-2 hours out of their schedule to speak to IBM experts. These are intended to answer the question: Why choose IBM for your Oracle (and other) workloads?
Event: IBM Mini-Briefings Location: San Francisco Marriott Marquis, 55 Fourth Street, very close to the Moscone Center Dates: Monday through Wednesday, October 1-3, 2012
Last year, the Austin Executive Briefing Center had a room full of experts to help customers learn about IBM hardware to run Oracle applications. This year, IBM is back in San Francisco, with subject matter experts representing Power Systems, System x servers, PureSystems, Storage and System z mainframes.
Subject Matter Experts:
Pat O'Rourke, Austin Briefing Center, Power Systems
Dennis Wunder, Poughkeepsie Briefing Center, System z mainframes
Steve Loeschorn, Raleigh Briefing Center, System x servers
Curtis Neal, Tucson Briefing Center, Storage
Of course, IBM will also have a booth presence on the main Oracle OpenWorld showroom floor. Sadly, I will not be there myself this year. Please stop by and visit my colleagues!
To sign up for a Mini-Briefing at Oracle OpenWorld, for any or all of the topics above, visit the new [IBM STG Austin EBC] website.
I hope you can participate in one or more of these events!
This month, I am pleased to announce the new [IBM STG Executive Briefing Center] website, representing a huge improvement over the previous website we had been using over the past two years. STG refers to IBM's Systems and Technology Group, the division that focuses on servers, storage, switches and the system software that makes them run. This new website is for the dozen STG EBCs that span the globe. The new website reminds me of this famous quote:
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away"
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Let's take a quick look at what makes it so much better.
The previous website required registration. At every briefing, those of us who work in the EBCs had to pass around a sign-up sheet for email addresses from each attendee so that we could send them an invitation to register for the site. We would have a hard time reading people's handwriting, resulting in some emails coming back rejected.
Inspired by self-service gas stations, automated teller machines, and the many self-service portals of Cloud Computing, the new website has everything up-front, without registration. IBM Business Partners and sales representatives can easily request a briefing at any of the dozen briefing centers represented!
IBM-managed and IBM-hosted
We had a difficult time explaining to our attendees why our previous website was hosted on a lone machine and maintained by a third party. Think about it, IBM manages the data centers of over 400 clients. IBM has provided web hosting to the most mission critical workloads, with high levels of availability and reliability, and is recognized as one of the "Big 5" Cloud companies. I have done web design myself in my career, and we were terribly disappointed with the third party chosen to create and maintain our previous website, constantly having to point out errors in their HTML and CSS.
For the new website, IBM took back control. Staff from each EBC, myself included, came up with a simple page to bring the essence of each location to life. Special thanks to my colleage Hal Jennings, from the Austin EBC, for bringing this altogether!
Despite two years of manually registering attendees to use the previous website, Google Analytics showed that few people visited, and the few that did spent little time exploring the vast repository of content.
The new website is vastly simpler. The front page points to all twelve EBCs, and a single mouse click gets you to the location you are interested in, with all the details you need to make a decision to book a briefing, and the contact information to make it happen.
Elimination of Wasted and Duplicate Effort
In the previous website, we spent as much as 15 hours just to create, voice over, edit and produce a single 15-minute recorded presentation. Less than six percent of the previous website visitors watched more than five minutes of these videos, making us feel that most of our effort was wasted.
The EBC staff kept wasting their time, month after month, thanks to all-stick, no-carrot tactics that mandated minimums for contributions for more and more content that nobody was ever looking at. Even more disappointing was that much of our work duplicated the formal responsibilities of our IBM Marketing team. They weren't happy about this either, causing confusion between the roles of our two teams.
Finally, we said enough was enough! The new STG EBC website is a marvel in minimalism. If you want to see presentations, videos, expert profiles, or partake in on-going conversations, I welcome you to visit the [IBM Expert Network], the [IBM Storage YouTube Channel], and the [Storage Community] where they belong.
With all of the distractions this week, from the Republican National Convention in Florida, to the Tropical Storm Isaac that hit New Orleans on the 7th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, I thought I would continue this week's theme on the IBM zEnterprise EC12.
Processing an insurance claim: $56 U.S. dollars (USD) with mainframes, versus $92 USD with distributed servers.
Processing a mobile subscriber: $18.26 USD with mainframes, versus $26.12 USD with distributed servers.
IT cost for an ATM machine: $572 USD with mainframes, versus $1021 USD with distributed servers.
In the whitepaper [Total Economic Impact of IBM System z], Forrester Research interviews the executives of five existing mainframe clients, and through in-depth analysis of their deployments, is able to present a "composite" company with an IT-staff of 4,500 employees. The result is impressive: deploying an IBM System z had an ROI of 199 percent. That is a payback period of less than five months!
A finish this post with a quick [6-minute Youtube video], featuring my colleage, Nick Sardino. Nick and I have worked together in the past at various conferences and conventions.