Continuing my business trip through Asia, I have left Chengdu, China, and am now in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
On Sunday, a colleague and I went to the famous Petronas Twin Towers, which a few years ago were officially the tallestbuildings in the world. If you get there early enough in the day, and wait in line for a few hours, you can get a ticket permitting you to go up to the "Skybridge" on the 41st floor that connects the two buildings. The views are stunning, and I am glad to have done this.(If you are afraid of heights, get cured by facing your fears with skydiving)
You would think that a question as simple as "Which is the tallest building in the world?" could easily be answered, given that buildings remain fixed in one place and do not drastically shrink or get taller over time or weather conditions, and the unit of height, the "meter", is an officially accepted standard in all countries, defined as the distance traveled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.
The controversy stems around two key areas of dispute:
- What constitutes a building?
A building is a structure intended for continuous human occupancy, as opposed to the dozens ofradio and television broadcasting towers which measure over 600 meters in height. The Petronas Twin Towers is occupied by a variety of business tenants and would qualify as a building. Radio and Television towers are not intended for occupation, and should not be considered.
- Where do you start measuring, and where do you stop?
Since 1969, the height was generally based on a building's height from the sidewalk level of the main entrance to the architectural top of the building. The "architectural top" included towers, spires (but not antennas), masts or flagpoles. Should the measurements be only to the top to the highest inhabitable floor?
What if the building has many more floors below ground level? What if the building exists in a body of water, should sidewalk level equate to water level, and at low tide or high tide? (Laugh now, but this might happen sooner than you think!)
To bring some sanity to these comparisons, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has tried to standardize the terms and definitions to makecomparisons between buildings fair. Why does all this matter whose building is tallest? It matters in twoways:
- People and companies are willing to pay more to be a tenant in tall towers, affording a luxurious bird's-eyeview to impress friends, partners and clients, and so the rankings can influence purchase or leasing prices of floorspace in these buildings.
- Architects and engineers involved in building these structures want to list these on their resume.These buildings are an impressive feat of engineering, and the teams involved collaborate in a global mannerto accomplish them. If an architecture or engineeering company can build the world's tallest building, you can trust themto build one for you. The rankings can help drive revenues in generating demand for services and offerings.
What does any of this have to do with storage? Two weeks ago, IBM and the Storage Performance Councilanswered the question "Which is the fastest disk system?" with apress release. Customers thatcare about performance of their most mission critical applications are often willing to pay a premium to run theirapplications on the fastest disk system, and the IBM System Storage SAN Volume Controller, built through aglobal collaboration of architects and engineers across several countries, is (in my opinion at least) an impressive feat of storage engineering.
EMC bloggerChuck Hollis was the first to question the relevance of these results, and I failed to "turn the other cheek" and responded accordingly. The blogosphere erupted, with more opinions piled on by others, many from EMC andIBM, found in comments on these posts or other blogs, some have since been retracted or deleted, while othersremain for historical purposes.
At the heart of all this opinionated debate, lies a few areas of exploration:
- What constitutes a "disk system"? What should or should not be considered for comparison?
- What metrics should be used to measure performance? What is a version of the "meter" everyone can use?
- How should the measurements occur? Who should perform them?
- Do the measurements provide sufficient value for the purpose of aiding the purchase decision making process?
I will try to address some of these issues in a series of posts this week.
technorati tags: IBM, KL, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Petronas, Twin Towers, SkyBridge, tallest, building, structure, tower, fasted, disk, system, SVC, SAN Volume Controller, EMC, Chuck Hollis, SPC, Storage Performance Council
While HDS blogger Hu Yoshida and IBM blogger Barry Whyte make a [great case for why you should buy IBM SAN Volume Controller
], my favorite arch-nemesis and fellow blogger BarryB on his Storage Anarchist
blog feels the SVC is "blue spray paint".
BarryB's latest round of red-meat rhetoric is his amusing post [This is like déjà vu all over again], titled after a [quote from Yogi Berra].BarryB pokes fun at Andy Monshaw's commentsin Chris Preimesberger's eWeek article [IBM's Big Storage Picture], andmy post ealier this week about Sun's "Open Storage" initiative [Simply Dinners and Open Storage from Sun], as if the two were somehow connected.
He feels I was unfair to accuse EMC of "proprietary interfaces" without spelling out what I was referring to. Here arejust two, along with the whines we hear from customers that relate to them.
- EMC Powerpath multipathing driver
Typical whine: "I just paid a gazillion dollars to renew my annual EMC Powerpath license, so you will have to come back in 12 months with your SVC proposal. I just can't see explaining to my boss that an SVC eliminates the need for EMC Powerpath, throwing away all the good money we just spent on it, or to explain that EMC chooses not to support SVC as one of Powerpath's many supported devices."
- EMC SRDF command line interface
Typical whine: "My storage admins have written tons of scripts that all invoke EMC SRDF command line interfacesto manage my disk mirroring environment, and I would hate for them to re-write this to use IBM's (also proprietary) command line interfaces instead."
Certainly BarryB is correct that IBM still has a few remaining "proprietary" items of its own. IBM has been in business over 80 years, but it was only the last 10-15 years that IBM made a strategic shift away from proprietary and over to open standards and interfaces. The transformation to "openness" is not yet complete, but we have made great progress. Take these examples:
- The System z mainframe - IBM had opened the interfaces so that both Amdahl and Fujitsu made compatible machines.Unlike Apple which forbids cloning of this nature, IBM is now the single source for mainframes because the other twocompetitors could not keep up with IBM's progress and advancements in technology.
Update: Due to legal reasons, the statements referring to Hercules and other S/390 emulators havebeen removed.
- The z/OS operating system - While it is possible to run Linux on the mainframe, most people associate the z/OSoperating system with the mainframe. This was opened up with UNIX System Services to satisfy requests from variousgovernments. It is now a full-fledged UNIX operating system, recognized by the [Open Group] that certifies it as such.
- As BarryB alludes, the unique interfaces for disk attachment to System z known as Count-Key-Data (CKD) was published so that both EMC and HDS can offer disk systems to compete with IBM's high-end disk offerings. Linux on System zsupports standard Fibre Channel, allowing you to attach an IBM SVC and anyone's storage. Both z/OS and Linux on System z support NAS storage, so IBM N series, NetApp, even EMC Celerra could be used in that case.
- The System i itself is still proprietary, but recently IBM announced that it will now support standard block size (512 bytes) instead of the awkward 528 byte blocks that only IBM and EMC support today. That means that any storage vendor will be ableto sell disk to the System i environment.
- Advanced copy services, like FlashCopy and Metro Mirror, are as proprietary as the similar offerings from EMCand HDS, with the exception that IBM has licensed them to both EMC and HDS. Thanks to cross-licensing, you can do [FlashCopy on EMC] equipment. Getting all the storage vendors to agree to open standards for these copy services is still workin progress under [SNIA], but at least people who have coded z/OS JCL batchjobs that invoke FlashCopy utilities can work the same between IBM and EMC equipment.
So for those out there who thought that my comment about EMC's proprietary interfaces in any way implied thatIBM did not have any of its own, the proverbial ["pot calling the kettle black"] so to speak, I apologize.
BarryB shows off his [PhotoShop skills] with the graphic below. I take it as a compliment to be compared to anAll-American icon of business success.
|TonyP and Monopoly's Mr. Pennybags|
Separated at Birth?
However, BarryB meant it as a reference back to long time ago when IBMwas a monopoly of the IT industry, which according to [IBM's History
], ended in 1973. In other words, IBMstopped being a monopoly before EMC ever existed as a company, and long before I started working for IBM myself.
The anti-trust lawsuit that BarryB mentions happened in 1969, which forced IBM to separate some of the software from its hardware offerings, and prevented IBM from making various acquisitions for years to follow, forcing IBM instead into technology partnerships. I'm glad that's all behind us now!
technorati tags: HDS, Hu Yoshida, IBM, Barry Whyte, SVC, BarryB, Storage Anarchist, blue, spray paint, red-meat rhetoric, Yogi Berra, Andy Monshaw, Chris Preimesberger, eWeek, Open storage, Sun, proprietary interfaces, mainframe, z/OS, UNIX, Open+Group, CKD, NAS, NetApp, Photoshop
Modified by TonyPearson
Well it's Tuesday again, and you know what that means? IBM Announcements!
In my previous post, [How is Software Defined different than what we have now?], I explain how software can enable self-service automation through a "Control Plane" to request IT infrastructure resources, and a "Data Plane" to provision those resources.
IBM has chosen three particular Software Defined Environments. At one end, IBM is a platinum sponsor of OpenStack which supports x86 servers, POWER systems and z System mainframes. A problem with open source projects like this, however, is that they can be a bit like putting together IKEA furniture from pieces in a box: "Some assembly required."
At the other end, highly proprietary environments from VMware and Microsoft bring enterprise-ready out-of-the-box solutions. However, nobody wants to be limited to just x86-based solutions. IBM offers the best of both worlds, basing its IBM Cloud and SmartCloud software on OpenStack standards, but providing enterprise-ready solutions for x86, POWER Systems and z System mainframes. This includes IBM Cloud Manager with OpenStack, IBM Cloud Orchestrator, and IBM SmartCloud Cost Management software products.
(Analogy: If open source solutions were vanilla ice cream, and proprietary solutions were chocolate ice cream, then IBM Cloud and SmartCloud is vanilla ice cream with chocolate sauce on top! This is the same approach IBM used for WebSphere Application Server, based on Apache web server, and IBM BigInsights, based on Hadoop analytics.)
For some people, software defined can also refer to how the resources are deployed. Rather than using specialized hardware, solutions based on industry-standard hardware can be delivered either as pre-built appliances, services in the Cloud, or as software-only products.
Back in the 1990s, IBM came up with the [Seascape Storage Enterprise Architecture], deciding to focus the design of its storage systems to be based, where possible and practical, on industry-standard components.
Let's review a few products:
IBM SAN Volume Controller (SVC) and Storwize V7000: IBM storage hypervisors were originally designed to run on industry-standard x86 servers. The IBM scientists at Almaden Research Center referred to this as the "COMmodity PArts Storage System" (COMPASS) architecture.
That is still mostly true 12 years later, but SVC and Storwize V7000 does have specialized hardware, including host bus adapter cards and the [Intel® QuickAssist] chip for Real-time Compression.
IBM DS8000 disk system: The DS8000 is based on off-the-shelf IBM POWER servers. Originally, you could only purchase POWER-based servers from IBM, but now thanks to the [OpenPOWER Foundation], you now have more options.
The DS8000 does use some specialized hardware for its host and device adapters, taking advantage of ASICs and FPGAs to optimize performance.
IBM XIV storage system: IBM acquired XIV back in 2008, but its design is very similar to Seascape architecture. All of the Intellectual Property was in the software, installed on industry-standard x86 servers, cache memory, host bus adapters and 7200 RPM nearline disk drives. I joked that the entire hardware bill-of-materials could be ordered directly from the CDW catalog!
IBM FlashSystem: IBM is #1 rank in the All-Flash Array market. Rather than using off-the-shelf commodity Solid-State drives (SSD), the IBM FlashSystem employs specialized hardware based on FPGAs to optimize performance.
IBM FlashSystem came from the recent acquisition of Texas Memory Systems, and was not designed under the IBM Seascape architecture.
Combining the method the resources are controlled and managed with the way storage is deployed results in a quadrant. Let's take a look at this from a storage perspective:
Traditional storage products that are based on specialized hardware that do not support Software Defined Environment APIs.
Storage products that are based on specialized hardware, but have been enhanced to support Software Defined Environment APIs. For OpenStack, this refers to Cinder and Swift interfaces. For VMware, this would include VAAI, VASA and VADP interfaces and vCenter Console plug-ins.
Storage products that are basically software, either installed on pre-built hardware appliances, offered as services in the Cloud, or software you deploy on your own industry-standard hardware. Unfortunately, this category does not support software defined environment APIs, and so proprietary interfaces require administrator-intensive involvement instead.
Storage software for industry-standard hardware. You purchase the appropriate server, cache memory, flash and disk drives as needed. This category could also extend to pre-built appliance versions of this software, or as services in the Cloud. APIs for software defined environments are available to deploy this with self-service automation.
IBM Spectrum Storage is a family of Category IV software offerings. Here are the products announced:
Based on technology from...
IBM Spectrum Control™
Simplified control and optimization of storage and data infrastructure
SmartCloud Virtual Storage Center, Tivoli Storage Productivity Center
IBM Spectrum Protect™
Single point of administration for data backup and recovery
Tivoli Storage Manager
IBM Spectrum Accelerate™
Accelerating speed of deployment and access to data for new workloads
XIV storage system
IBM Spectrum Virtualize™
Storage virtualization that frees client data from IT boundaries
SAN Volume Controller
IBM Spectrum Scale™
High-performance, scalable storage manages exabytes of unstructured data
GPFS and codename:Elastic Storage
IBM Spectrum Archive™
Enables easy access to long term storage of low activity data
Linear Tape File System (LTFS)
Last year, IDC recognized IBM as #1 in this new emerging software defined storage market. This announcement reinforces IBM's lead in this area. See the [Press Release] for details.
technorati tags: BM, Spectrum Storage, Software Defined Environment, SDE, Software Defined Storage, SDS, Control Plane, Data Plane, OpenStack, IBM Cloud, SmartCloud, VMware, Microsoft, IBM Spectrum Control, IBM Spectrum Protect, IBM Spectrum Accelerate, IBM Spectrum Virtualize, IBM Spectrum Scale, IBM Spectrum Archive, DS8000, SAN Volume Controller, SVC, Storwize, Storwize V7000, Intel, QuickAssist, Real-time Compression, FlashSystem, XIV, Virtual Storage Center, Tivoli Storage, Productivity Center, GPFS, Elastic Storage, LTFS, Tivoli Storage Manager
Yesterday marked the first day of Spring here in the Northern hemisphere, and often this means it is timefor some "Spring cleaning". This is a great time to re-evaluate all of your stuff and clean house.
In the bits-vs-atoms discussion, Annie Leonard has a quick [20-minute video] about the atoms side of stuff,from extraction of natural resources, production, distribution, consumption, to final disposal.
On the bits side of things, the picture is much different.
We don't really extract information,rather we capture it, and lately that process is done directly into digital formats, from digital photography, digital recording of music, and so on. A lot of medical equipmentnow take X-rays and other medical images directly into digital format. By 2011, it is estimated that as much as 30 percent of all storage will be for holding medical images.
Production refers to the process of combining raw materials and making them into something useful. The sameapplies to information, there are a variety of ways to make information more presentable. In the Web 2.0 world, these are called Mashups, combiningraw information in a manner that are more usable.Fellow IBM blogger Bob Sutor discusses IBM's latest contribution, SMash, in his post[Secure Mashups via SMash].
According to Tim Sanders, 90 percent of business information is distributed by email, but less than 10 percentof employees are formally trained to distribute information correctly. Here's a quick 3-minute trailerto his "Dirty Dozen" rules of how to do email properly.
I have not watched the DVD that this trailer is promoting, but I certainly agree with the overall concept.
This week I also had the pleasure to hear [Art Mortell], author ofthe book The Courage to Fail: Art Mortell's Secrets to Business Success. He gave an inspirational talk about how to deal with our stressful lives. One key pointwas that stress often came from our own expectations. This is certainly true on how we consume information.Often times our expectations determine how well we read, watch or listen to information being presented.Sometimes information is factually correct, but presented in such a boring manner that it is just toodifficult to consume.
John Windsor on YouBlog takes this one step further, asking [Are you predictable?]He makes a strong case on why presenting in a predictable manner can actually hurt your chances of communication.
And finally, there is disposal. We are all a bunch of digital pack-rats. With atoms, you eventuallyrun out of closet space, with bits the problem is not as obvious, and often can be resolved by spendingyour way out of it. On average, companies are expanding their storage capacity by 57 percent every year. Thatworked well when dollar-per-GB prices of disk dropped to match, but now technology advancements are slowing down. Diskwill not be dropping in price as fast as you need, and now might be a good time to re-evaluate your"Keep everything forever" strategy.
Consider "Spring cleaning" to be an excellent excuse to evaluate the data you have on your disk systems.Should it be on disk? Will it be accessed often enough to justify that cost? Does it need immediateonline access times, or can waiting a minute or two for a tape mount from an automated library be sufficient?Does it represent business value?
I have been to customers that have discovered a lot of "orphan data" on their disk systems. This isdata that does not belong to anyone currently working at the company. Maybe the owners of the data retired,were laid off, or even fired, but nobody bothered to clean up their files after they left the company.
I've also seen a lot of "stale data" on disk, data that has not be read or written in the past 90 days.Are you spending 13-18 watts of energy to spin each disk drive just to contain data nobody ever looks at?
In some cases, orphan or stale data represents business value, and need to be kept around for businessor legal reasons. Perhaps some government regulation requires you to retain this information for someyears. In that case, rather than deleting it, move it to tape, perhaps using theIBM System Storage DR550 to protect it for the time required and handle its eventual disposal.
Certainly something to think about, while you snap the ears off those chocolate bunnies, watching yourkids run around looking for eggs. Enjoy your weekend!
technorati tags: Spring, cleaning, Annie Leonard, Bob+Sutor, IBM, SMash, Tim Sanders, email ettiquette, orphan, stale, data, compliance, retention, DR550
In his Backup Blog
, fellow blogger Scott Waterhouse from EMC has yet another post about Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) titled [TSM and the Elephant
]. He argues that only the cost of new TSM servers should be considered in any comparison, on the assumption that if you have to deploy another server, you have to attach to it fresh new disk storage, a brand new tape library, and hire an independent group of backup administrators to manage. Of course, that is bull, people use much of existing infrastructure and existing skilled labor pool every time new servers are added, as I tried to point out in my post [TSM Economies of Scale
However, Scott does suggest that we should look at all the costs, not just the cost of a new server, which we in the industry call Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Here is an excerpt:
Final point: there is actually a really important secondary point here--what is the TCO of your backup infrastructure. In some ways, TSM is one of the most expensive (number of servers and tape drives, for example), relative to other backup applications. However, I think it would be a really interesting exercise to critically examine the TCO of the various backup applications at different scales to evaluate if there is any genuine cost differentiation between them.
Fortunately, I have a recent TCO/ROI analysis for a large customer in the Eastern United States that compares their existing EMC Legato deployment to a new proposed TSM deployment. The assessment was performed by our IBM Tivoli ROI Analyst team, using a tool developed by Alinean. The process compares the TCO of the currently deployed solution (in this case EMC Legato) with the TCO of the proposed replacement solution (in this case IBM TSM) for 55,000 client nodes at expected growth rates over a three year period, and determines the amount of investment, cost savings and other benefits, and return on investment (ROI).
Here are the results:
"A risk adjusted analysis of the proposed solution's impact was conducted and it was projected that implementing the proposed solutions resulted in $16,174,919 of 3 year cumulative benefits. Of these projected benefits, $8,015,692 are direct benefits and $8,159,227 are indirect benefits.
Top cumulative benefits for the project include:
These benefits can be grouped regarding business impact as:
- Backup Coverage Risk Avoidance - $6,749,796
- Reduction in Maintenance of Competitive Products - $1,576,000
- Reduction in Existing Tivoli Maintenance (Storage and Monitoring) - $1,490,000
- Tape System Purchase Avoidance - $1,481,911
- Increased Availability - Storage Management - $1,409,431
- Normalized 11% growth (additional licenses cost avoidance) - $1,193,000
- IT Operations Labor Savings - Storage Management - $982,919
- Network Bandwidth Savings - $575,196
- Standardization - $366,667
- Future cost avoidance of addtional competitive licenses - $350,000
The proposed project is expected to help the company meet the following goals and drive the following benefits:
- $6,456,025 in IT cost reductions
- $1,559,667 in business operating efficiency improvements
- $8,159,227 in business strategic advantage benefits
To implement the proposed project will require a 3 year cumulative investment of $5,760,094 including:
- Reduce Business Risks $6,749,796
- Consolidate and Standardize IT Infrastructure $4,975,667
- Reduce IT Infrastructure Costs $2,057,107
- Improve IT System Availability / Service Levels $1,409,431
- Improve IT Staff Efficiency / Productivity $982,919
Comparing the costs and benefits of the proposed project using discounted cash flow analysis and factoring in a risk-adjusted discount rate of 9.5%, the proposed business case predicts:
- $0 in initial expenses
- $4,650,000 in capital expenditures
- $1,110,094 in operating expenditures
Note: The project has been risk-adjusted for an overall deployment schedule of 5 months."
- Risk Adjusted Return on Investment (RA ROI) of 172%
- Return on Investment (ROI) of 181%
- Net Present Value (NPV) savings of $8,425,014
- Payback period of 9.0 month(s)
IBM Tivoli Storage Manager uses less bandwidth, fewer disk and tape storage resources than EMC Legato. For even a large deployment of this kind, payback period is only NINE MONTHS. Generally, if you can get a new proposed investment to have less than 24 month payback period you have enough to get both CFO and CIO excited, so this one is a no-brainer.
Perhaps this helps explain why TSM enjoys such a larger marketshare than EMC Legato in the backup software marketplace. No doubt Scott might be able to come up with a counter-example, a very small business with fewer than 10 employees where an EMC Legato deployment might be less expensive than a comparable TSM deployment. However, when it comes to scalability, TSM is king. The majority of the Fortune 1000 companies use Tivoli Storage Manager, and IBM uses TSM internally for its own IT, managed storage services, and cloud computing facilities.
Last week, I presented IBM's strategic initiative, the IBM Information Infrastructure, which is part of IBM's New Enterprise Data Center vision. This week, I will try to get around to talking about some of theproducts that support those solutions.
There has been a lot of attention on XIV in the past few weeks, so I will start with that. Steve Duplessie, anIT industry analyst from Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) had a post [Adaptec buys Aristos, Tom Cruise, XIV, and Logical Assumptions] with some interesting observations and some sage advice.Val Bercovici on his NetApp Exposed blog, has a post [Has Storage Swift-Blogging Finally Jumped the Shark?] which blasts EMC for their negativity.
(For those not in the USA, swift-blogging is a reference tofalse accusations and negative remarks made during the U.S. 2004 presidential election by the[Swift Boat Veterans], and ["jumping the shark"] is a reference to [a TV show that ran out of interesting and relevant topics].For movie sequels, the comparable phrase is ["nuke the fridge"] in reference to the most recent Indiana Jones' movie.)
I was going to set the record straight on a variety of misunderstandings, rumors or speculations, but I think most have been taken care of already. IBM blogger BarryW covered the fact that SVC now supports XIV storage systems, in his post[SVC and XIV],and addressed some of the FUD already. Here was my list:
- Now that IBM has an IBM-branded model of XIV, IBM will discontinue (insert another product here)
I had seen speculation that XIV meant the demise of the N series, the DS8000 or IBM's partnership with LSI.However, the launch reminded people that IBM announced a new release of DS8000 features, new models of N series N6000,and the new DS5000 disk, so that squashes those rumors.
- IBM XIV is a (insert tier level here) product
While there seems to be no industry-standard or agreement for what a tier-1, tier-2 or tier-3 disk system is, there seemed to be a lot of argument over what pigeon-hole category to put IBM XIV in. No question many people want tier-1 performance and functionality at tier-2 prices, and perhaps IBM XIV is a good step at giving them this. In some circles, tier-1 means support for System z mainframes. The XIV does not have traditional z/OS CKD volume support, but Linux on System z partitions or guests can attach to XIV via SAN Volume Controller (SVC), or through NFS protocol as part of the Scale-Out File Services (SoFS) implementation.
Whenever any radicalgame-changing technology comes along, competitors with last century's products and architectures want to frame the discussion that it is just yet another storage system. IBM plans to update its Disk Magic and otherplanning/modeling tools to help people determine which workloads would be a good fit with XIV.
- IBM XIV lacks (insert missing feature here) in the current release
I am glad to see that the accusations that XIV had unprotected, unmirrored cache were retracted. XIV mirrors all writes in the cache of two separate modules, with ECC protection. XIV allows concurrent code loadfor bug fixes to the software. XIV offers many of the features that people enjoy in other disksystems, such as thin provisioning, writeable snapshots, remote disk mirroring, and so on.IBM XIV can be part of a bigger solution, either through SVC, SoFS or GMAS that provide thebusiness value customers are looking for.
- IBM XIV uses (insert block mirroring here) and is not as efficient for capacity utilization
It is interesting that this came from a competitor that still recommends RAID-1 or RAID-10 for itsCLARiiON and DMX products.On the IBM XIV, each 1MB chunk is written on two different disks in different modules. When disks wereexpensive, how much usable space for a given set of HDD was worthy of argument. Today, we sell you abig black box, with 79TB usable, for (insert dollar figure here). For those who feel 79TB istoo big to swallow all at once, IBM offers "capacity on demand" pricing, where you can pay initially for as littleas 22TB, but get all the performance, usability, functionality and advanced availability of the full box.
- IBM XIV consumes (insert number of Watts here) of energy
For every disk system, a portion of the energy is consumed by the number of hard disk drives (HDD) andthe remainder to UPS, power conversion, processors and cache memory consumption. Again, the XIV is a bigblack box, and you can compare the 8.4 KW of this high-performance, low-cost storage one-frame system with thewattage consumed by competitive two-frame (sometimes called two-bay) systems, if you are willing to take some trade-offs. To getcomparable performance and hot-spot avoidance, competitors may need to over-provision or use faster, energy-consuming FC drives, and offer additional software to monitor and re-balance workloads across RAID ranks.To get comparable availability, competitors may need to drop from RAID-5 down to either RAID-1 or RAID-6.To get comparable usability, competitors may need more storage infrastructure management software to hide theinherent complexity of their multi-RAID design.
Of course, if energy consumption is a major concern for you, XIV can be part of IBM's many blended disk-and-tapesolutions. When it comes to being green, you can't get any greener storage than tape! Blended disk-and-tapesolutions help get the best of both worlds.
Well, I am glad I could help set the record straight. Let me know what other products people you would like me to focus on next.
technorati tags: IBM, XIV, disk, storage, system, Steve Duplessie, ESG, Val Bercovici, NetApp, BarryW, SVC, DS8000, N6000, DS5000, mainframe, z/OS, CKD, SoFS, NFS, ECC, HDD, RAID, UPS, availability, reliability, performance, usability, blended disk-and-tape, green
Perhaps the recent financial meltdown is making storage vendors nervous.Both IBM and EMC gained market share in 3Q08, but EMC is acting strangelyat IBM's latest series of plays and announcements. Almost contradictory!
- Benchmarks bad, rely on your own in-house evaluations instead
Let's start with fellow blogger Barry Burke from EMC, who offers his latest post[Benchmarketing Badly] with commentaryabout Enterprise Strategy Group's [DS5300 Lab Validation Report]. The IBM System Storage DS5300 is one of IBM's latest midrange disk systems recently announced. Take for example this excerpt from BarryB's blog post:
"I was pleasantly surprised to learn that both IBM and ESG agree with me about the relevance and importance of the Storage Performance Council benchmarks.Nowhere in the ESG report says this, nor have I found any public statements from either IBM nor ESG that makes this claim. Instead, the ESG report explains that traditional benchmarks from the Storage Performance Council [SPC] focus on a single, specific workload, and ESG has chosen to complement this with a variety of other benchmarks to perform their product validation, including VMware's "VMmark", Oracle's Orion Utility, and Microsoft's JetStress.
That is, SPC's are a meaningless tool by which to measure or compare enterprise storage arrays."
Benchmarks provide prospective clients additional information to make purchasedecisions. IBM understands this, ESG understands this, and other well-respected companies like VMware, Oracle and Microsoft understand this. EMC is afraid that benchmarks mightencourage a client to "mistakenly" purchase a faster IBM product than a slower EMC product. Sunshine makes a great disinfectant, but EMC (and vampires) prefer their respective "prospects" remain in the dark.
Perhaps stranger still is BarryB's postscript. Here's an excerpt:
"... a customer here asked me if EMC would be willing to participate in an initiative to get multiple storage vendors to collaborate on truly representative real-world "enterprise-class" benchmarks, and I reassured him that I would personally sponsor active and objective participation in such an effort - IF he could get the others to join in with similar intent."
As I understand it, EMC was once part of the Storage Performance Council a long time ago, then chose to drop out of it. Why re-invent the wheel by creating yet another storage industry benchmark group? EMC is welcome to come back to SPC anytime! In addition to the SCP-1 and SPC-2 workloads, there is work underway for an SPC-3 benchmark. Each SPC workload provides additional insight for product comparisons to help with purchase decisions. If EMC can suggest an SPC-4 benchmark that it feels is more representative of real-world conditions, they are welcome to join the SPC party and make that a reality.
The old adage applies: ["It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness"]. EMC has been cursing the lack of what it considers to be acceptable benchmarks but has yet to offer anything more realistic or representative than SPC.What does EMC suggest you do instead? Get an evaluation box and run your own workloads and see for yourself! EMC has in the past offered evaluation units specifically for this purpose.
- In-house evaluations bad, it's a trap!
Certainly, if you have the time and staff to run your own evaluation, with your own applications in your own environment, then I agree with EMC that this can provide better insight for your particular situation than standardized benchmarks.
In fact, that is exactly what IBM is doing for IBM XIV storage units, which are designed for Web 2.0 and Digital Archive workloads that current SPC benchmarks don't focus on. Fellow blogger Chuck Hollis from EMC opines in his post[Get yer free XIV!]. Here's an excerpt:
"Now that I think about it, this could get ugly. Imagine a customer who puts one on the floor to evaluate it, and -- in a moment of desperation or inattention -- puts production data on the device.
Nobody was paying attention, and there you are. Now IBM comes calling for their box back, and you've got a choice as to whether to go ahead and sign the P.O., or migrate all your data off the thing. Maybe they'll sell you an SVC to do this?
Yuck. I bet that happens more than once. And I can't believe that IBM (or the folks at XIV) aren't aware of this potentially happening."
Perhaps Chuck is speaking from experience here, as this may have happened with customers with EMC evaluation boxes, and is afraid this could happen with IBM XIV. I don't see anything unique about IBM XIV in the above concern. Typical evaluations involve copying test data onto the box, test it out with some particular application or workload, and then delete the data no longer required. Repeat as needed. Moving data off an IBM XIV is aseasy as moving data off an EMC DMX, EMC CLARiiON or EMC Celerra, and I am sure IBM wouldgladly demonstrate this on any EMC gear you now have.
Thanks to its clever RAID-X implementation, losing data on an IBM XIV is less likely thanlosing data on any RAID-5 based disk array from any storage vendor. Of course, there will always be skeptics about new technology that will want to try the box out for themselves.
If EMC thought the IBM XIV had nothing unique to offer, that its performance was just "OK",and is not as easy to manage as IBM says it is, then you would think EMC would gladly encourage such evaluations and comparisons, right?
No, I think EMC is afraid that companies will discover what they already know, that IBM has quality products that would stand a fair chance of side-by-side comparisons with their own offerings.We have enough fear, uncertainty and doubt from our current meltdown of the global financial markets, don't let EMC add any more.
Have a safe and fun Halloween! If you need to add some light to your otherwise dark surroundings, consider some of these ideas for [Jack-O-Lanterns]!
technorati tags: IBM, DS5300, ESG, benchmarks, SPC, SPC-1, SPC-2, SPC-3, VMware, VMmark, Oracle, Orion, Microsoft, JetStress, EMC, BarryB, RAID-X, RAID-5, DMX, CLARiiON, Celerra, XIV, financial, global markets, crisis, meltdown, Halloween, Jack-O-Lantern
Next week, thousands will convene in Las Vegas for [IBM Pulse 2014], an IBM conference that will focus on Cloud, Service and Storage Management.
To lead up to this event, my colleague Steve Wojtowecz, or 'Woj' as we like to call him, IBM VP of Storage and Network Management Software Development, has a five part series that is worth a read. Here are some excerpts:
- Part 1: The Ities
In [Predictions for storage management in 2014], Woj introduces his five-part series with a discussion of the "..ities", namely Utility, Commodity, Simplicity,and Availability.
- "Storage-as-a-utility will pick up momentum. Call it [storage-as-a-service], or a storage / back-up cloud, or whatever name you prefer, deployments of this capability will ramp up dramatically."
- "Making something simple look complex is easy, making something complex look simple is hard. Like it or not, we all like things simple and easy to grasp."
- "Any data that a company is willing to store should be important enough to (1) be protected and backed up as part of a disaster recovery (DR) plan and (2) used for analytics for new business opportunities."
- Part 2: Software Defined Environments
In [Predictions.. Part 2], Woj covers the broad and deep impacts of [Software Defined Environments], abbreviated to just SDE.
- "SDE represents a deep form of change; instead of tying fixed resources to particular IT domains, you centralize and virtualize resources, then govern them with software policies."
- "With Software Defined Compute (SDC...), worldwide spend on x86 stuff since 2000 has declined from $70B to about $56B."
- "That doesn't suggest that fewer workloads are on x86 now (quite the opposite we know), it suggests a massive commoditization of the hardware and revenue shift to SDC."
- Part 3: Impatience
In [Predictions.. Part 3: Impatience], Woj discusses society's impatience with technology reaching the data center.
- "All types of admins (server, storage, network, VM, etc) want the big red EASY button."
- "This level of capability will require technologies to be implemented in an open and collaborative way. "
- "[OpenStack] will progress and be adopted at a much faster rate than other historical open source innovations--such as Linux when it was released--in an effort to deal with SSD and Flash sprawl."
IBM is a [platinum sponsor of OpenStack].
- Part 4: Hybrid Clouds
In [Predictions.. Part 4: Hybrid], Woj discusses Hybrid clouds.
- "Hybrid (specifically hybrid storage and data protection clouds) is no longer hype. Nearly every IT shop speculated that hybrid cloud storage was the future of enterprise storage and in 2014 the future is here."
- "... the industry will see accelerated adoption in enterprises (private cloud), as an off-premise managed service (public cloud), and across both (hybrid cloud) based on cost, compliance, security and criticality of data to the enterprise."
- "IT teams used to thinking of enterprise data as “their baby” are going to have to get comfortable with the idea that the baby is now living somewhere else."
- Part 5: Analytics
In [Predictions...Part 5: Analytics], Woj explains the benefits of analytics for data center operations.
- "Line of business organizations have been using analytics to uncover new revenue streams and business opportunities for years. Now, this technology is being turned inward and applied to the data center itself to drive operational efficiency."
- "This level of insight and predictability starts to dabble into the notion of cognitive computing as applied to storage and the data it holds."
- "Operational analytics will also be applied for productivity / performance gains for the infrastructure itself, like auto-tiering data for priority applications across heterogeneous hardware platforms."
For more insights into these predictions, attend [IBM Pulse 2014] in Las Vegas, next week, February 23-26.
Sadly, I won't be there in person. Although I helped launch the original IBM Pulse back in 2008, I have only been invited once to come back, and that was as a last minute replacement for another speaker in 2012. Unfortunately, I could not accept because of my [near-death experience].
technorati tags: IBM, Steve Wojtowecz, Woj, Pulse2014, Storage trends, Predictions, Hybrid Cloud, Analytics, Software Defined, SDE, SDS, SDC, x86, Cloud
Two blogs discuss Thick versus Thin storage virtualization.
This is a good discussion if you are interested in SAN Volume Controller and/or our N series disk systems.[Read More]
|Last week, I was in Austin, and had dinner at [Rudy's Country Store and BBQ]. They offer their self-proclaimed "Worst BBQ in Austin!" with brisket, sausage and other meats by weight. I got a beer, some potato salad, and creamed corn, all at additional cost, of course. When I went to the cashier to pay, I was offered all the white bread I wanted at no additional charge. Are you kidding me? You are going to charge me for beer, but give me 8 to 12 complimentary slices of white bread (practically half a loaf)? Honestly, I consider bread and beer to be basically the same functional food item, differing only in solid versus liquid form. I chose to have only four slices. The food was awesome!|
I am reminded of that from my latest exchange with EMC.It didn't take long after IBM's announcement yesterday of IBM's continued investment in its strategic product set, IBM System Storage DS8000 series, that competitors responded. In particular, fellow blogger BarryB from EMC has a post [DS8000 Finally Gets Thin Provisioning] that pokes fun at the new Thin Provisioning feature.
Interestingly, the attack is not on the technical implementation, which is straightforward and rock-solid, but rather that the feature is charged at a flat rate of $69,000 US dollars (list price) per disk array. BarryB claims that recently EMC Corporate has decided to reduce the price of their own thin provisioning, called Symmetrix Virtual Provisioning (VP) on select subset of models of their storage portfolio, although I have not found an EMC press release to confirm. In other words, EMC will bury the cost of thin provisioning into the total cost for new sales, and stop
shafting, er.. over-charging their existing Symmetrix customers that are interesting in licensing this feature.
BarryB claims this was a lucky coincidence that his blog post happened just days before IBM's announcement.
(Update: While the timing appears suspicious, I am not accusing Mr. Burke in anywrongdoing of insider information of IBM's plans, nor am I aware of any investigations on this matter from the SEC or any other government agency, and apologize if my previous attempt at humor suggested otherwise. BarryB claimsthat the reduction in price was motivated to counter publicly announced HDS's "Switch In On" program, that it is not a secret thatEMC reduced VP pricing weeks ago, effective beginning 3Q09, just not widely advertised in any formal EMC press releases.Perhaps this new VP pricing was only disclosed to just EMC's existing Symmetrix customers, Business Partners, and employees. Perhaps EMC's decision not to announce this in a Press Release was to avoid upsetting all the EMC CLARiiON customers that continue to pay for Thin Provisioning, or to avoid a long line of existing VP customers asking for refunds. In any case, people are innocent until proven otherwise, and BarryB rightfully deserves the presumption of innocence in this regard. I'm sorry, BarryB, for any trouble my previous comments may have caused you.)Instead, let's explore some events over the past year that have led up to this.
Let's start with what EMC previously charged for this feature. Software features like this often follow a common pricing method, based per TB, so larger configurations pay more, but tiered in a manner that larger configurations pay less per TB, combined with a yearly maintenance cost.
(Updated: EMC has asked me nicely not to post their actual list prices,so I will provide rough estimates instead. According to BarryB, these are no longer the current prices, soI present them as historical figures for comparison purposes only.)
|TBs Licensed ||150||100||25|
|Initial List price||$190,000||$160,000||$60,000|
| || || || |
|Software Maintenance (SWMA) percentage||15%||15%||15%|
|Software Maintenance per year||$30,000||$25,000||$9000|
|Number of years||4 years||4 years||4 years|
| || || || |
|Software License Cost (4 years)||$310,000||$260,000||$96,000|
Holy cow! How did EMC get away charging so much for this? To be fair, these are often deeply discounted, a practice common among the industry. However, it was easy for IBMers to show EMC customers that putting SVC or N series gateways in front of their existing EMC disks was more cost effective. Both SVC and N series, as well as IBM's XIV, provide thin provisioning at no additional charge.
HDS offers their own thin provisioning called Hitachi Dynamic Provisioning.Hitachi also offers an SVC-like capability to virtualize storage behind the USP-V. However, I suspect thatfewer than 10 percent of their install base actually licensed this capability because it cost so much. Under the cost pressure from IBM's thin provisioning capabilities in SVC, XIV and N series, Hitachi launched its ["Switch It On"] marketing campaign to activate virtualization and provide some features at no additional charge, including the first 10TB of Hitachi Dynamic Provisioning.
Last week, Martin Glassborow on his StorageBod blog, argued that EMC and HDS should[Set the Wide Stripes Free]. Here is an excerpt:
HDS and EMC are both extremely guilty in this regard, both Virtual Provisioning and Dynamic Provisioning cost me extra as an end-user to license. But this is the technology upon which all future block-based storage arrays will be built. If you guys want to improve the TCO and show that you are serious about reducing the complexity to manage your arrays, you will license for free. You will encourage the end-user to break free from the shackles of complexity and you will improve the image of Tier-1 storage in the enterprise.
Martin is using the term "free" in two contexts above. In the Linux community, we are careful to clarify "free, as in free speech" or "free, as in free beer". Technically, EMC's virtual provisioning is neither, as one has to purchase the hardware to get the feature, so the term "at no additional charge" is more legally correct.
However, the discussion of "free beer" brings me back to my first paragraph about Rudy's BBQ. Nearly everyone eats bread, with the exception of those with [Celiac Disease] that causesan intolerance for gluten protein in wheat, so burying the cost of white bread in the base cost of the BBQ meat is reasonable. In contrast, not everyone drinks beer, and there are probably several people whowould complain if the cost of beer was included in the cost of the BBQ meat, so charging separately forbeer makes business sense.
The same applies in the storage industry. When all (or most) customers of a product can benefit from a feature, it makes sense to include it at no additional charge. When a significant subset might not want to pay a higher base price because they won't use or benefit from a feature, it makes sense to make it optionally priced.
- For the IBM SVC, XIV and N series, all customers can benefit from thin provisioning, so it is included at no additional charge.
- For the IBM System Storage DS8000, perhaps some 30 to 40 percent of our clients have only System z and/or System i servers attached, and therefore would not benefit from this new thin provisioning. It may seem unfair to raise the price on everybody. The $69,000 flat rate was competitively priced against the prices EMC, HDS and 3PAR were charging for similar capability, and lower than the cost to add a new SVC cluster in front of the DS8000. IBM also charges an annual maintenance, but far lower than what others charged as well.
(Note: These list prices are approximate, and vary slightly based on whether you are on legacy, ESA, Servicesuite or ServiceElect software and subscription (S&S) service plans, and the machine type/model. The tables were too complicated to include here in this post, so these numbers are rounded for comparison purposes only.)
|TBs Licensed ||150||100||25|
|IBM flat rate||$69,000||$69,000||$69,000|
| || || || |
|Software Maintenance per year (approx)||$2,000||$2,000||$2,000|
|Number of years||4 years||4 years||4 years|
| || || || |
|Software License Cost (4 years)||$77,000||$77,000||$77,000|
Pricing is more art than science. Getting the right pricing structure that appears fair to everyone involved can be a complicated process.
technorati tags: IBM, Austin, BBQ, thin provisioning, EMC, Virtual Provisioning, SEC, SVC, XIV, N series, Martin Glassborow, HDS, Hitachi, Dynamic Provisioning, System z, System i, DS8000[Read More]