Many people have asked me if there was any logic with the IBM naming convention of IBM Systems branded servers. Here's your quick and easy cheat sheet:
From a storage perspective, we often joked that the "i" stood for "island", as most System i machines used internal disk, or attached externally to only a fewselected models of disk from IBM and EMC that had special support for i5/OS using a special, non-standard 520-byte disk block size. This meant only our popular IBM System Storage DS6000 and DS8000 series disk systems were available. This block size requirement only applies to disk. For tape, i5/OS supports both IBM TS1120 and LTO tape systems. For the most part,System i machines stood separate from the mainframe, and the rest of the Linux, UNIX and Windows distributed serverson the data center floor.
Often, when I am talking to customers, they ask when will product xyz be supported on System z or System i?I explained that IBM's strategy is not to make all storage devices connect via ESCON/FICON or support non-standard block sizes, but rather to get the servers to use standard 512-byte block size, Fibre Channel and other standard protocols.(The old adage applies: If you can't get Mohamed to move to the mountain, get the mountain to move to Mohamed).
On the System z mainframe, we are 60 percent there, allowing three of the five operating systems (z/VM, z/VSE and Linux) to access FCP-based disk and tape devices. (Four out of six if you include [OpenSolaris for the mainframe])But what about System i? As the characters on the popular television show [LOST] would say: It's time to get off the island!
Last week, IBM announced the new [i5/OS V6R1 operating system] with features that will greatly improve the use of external storage on this platform. Check this out:
Now that's exciting!
technorati tags: IBM, System x, System p, System i, System z, island, COMMON, AIX, Linux, POWER, POWER6, Windows, EMC, DS6000, DS8000, TS1120, LTO, ESCON, FICON, 520-byte, z/VM, z/VSE, z/OS, z/TPF, OpenSolaris, mainframe, LOST, CPW, x86, VMware, VMotion, BladeCenter, JS22, i5/OS, V6R1, PowerVM, VIOS, LPAR, DS4700, DS4800, LTO, disk, SAN, tape, storage[Read More]
I got the following comment on my earlier post [A Recap of Storage Industry Acquisitions], Reuben wrote:
According to Gartner data (from 2005!), host-based storage accounts for 34 percent of the overall market for external storage, with the remaining 66 percent going to "fabric-attached" (network) storage, expect this share to grow from 66 percent to 77 percent by 2007.What is the current reality? SAN vs. NAS, FC vs iSCSI?
IBM subscribes to a lot of data from different analysts, they all have their methods for collecting this data, from taking surveys of customers to reviewing financial results of each vendor. While theymight not agree entirely, there are some common threads that lead one to believe they represent "reality". Hereare some numbers from an IDC December 2007 report:
Jon Toigo over at DrunkenData offers some additional data from ex-STKer:[Fred Moore Outlook on Storage 2008]. I met Fredat a conference. He had left STK back in 1998, and started his own company called Horison. NeitherJon nor Fred cite the sources of his statistics, but the following comment leads me to assume hehasn't been paying attention closely to the tape market:
With the demise of STK, who will be the leader in the tape industry?
Depending on how old you are, you might remember exactly where you were when a significant eventoccurred, for example the[Space Shuttle Chal
technorati tags: Gartner, IDC, host-based, fabric-attached, NAS, iSCSI, SAN, FC, ESCON, FICON, NFS, CIFS, internal, external, disk, systems, storage, DrunkenData, Fred Moore, STK, Sun, confetti, Challenger[Read More]
Comments (5) Visits (14700)
Last July, IBM and EMC traded blog postings over SPC-1 benchmark results. Fellow EMC bloggerChuck Hollis wrote his post [Does Anyone Take The SPC Seriously?]. Here is an excerpt:
I think most storage users have figured this out. We've never done an SPC test, and probably will never do one. Anyone is free, however, to download the SPC code, lash it up to their CLARiiON, and have at it.
I responded with [Getting Under EMC Skin], and then followed up with a series explaining IBM SVC and SPC benchmarks here:
So what is the good news?Yesterday, our friends at NetApp took up Chuck's challenge and posted results on their FAS3040 as well as their EMC CLARiiON devices. IBM sells the FAS3040 under the name IBM System Storage N5300 disk system. Knowing that NetApp maintains excellent performance when it is doing point-in-time copies, NetApp ran both with and without on both boxes. I include DS4700 and DS4800 as well for comparison purposes, but only have them without FlashCopy running.
One would expect some performance degradation with a box running point-in-time copies at the same time it is reading and writing data, but NetApp/IBM N5300 does not degrade by much, but EMC's drops a significant amount.
So what is the bad news? Last October, I welcomed HDS USP-V to the [Super High-End Club], but now we need to invite Texas Memory Systems as well.In 2006, I posted [Hybrid, Solid State and the future of RAID], and poked fun at Texas Memory Systems using the slogan "World's Fastest Storage", which at the time that honor belonged to IBM SAN Volume Controller instead.The VP of Texas Memory Systems, Woody Hutsell, explained the only reason their solid-state disk system, RAMSAN-320, didn't have faster results is that they didn't have the fastest IBM server to run against it. It may not surprise you that nearly everyone's SPC benchmarks use IBM servers because IBM has the fastest servers as well. I didn't have a million-dollar System p UNIX server to send Woody for this, but it looks like they have finally gotten one, and a new RAMSAN-400 device, as they have posted their latest results.
EMC doesn't publish numbers for their Symmetrix box, despite their announcement of faster SSD drives. They claim that SSD drives make their overall disk system performance faster, but without SPC benchmarks, we will never know. If you have a Symmetrix, this YouTube video may help you decide where it belongs:
technorati tags: IBM, EMC, Chuck Hollis, SPC, SPC-1, NetApp, FAS3040, N5300, CLARiiON, CX3-40, SnapShot, SnapDrive, FlashCopy, DS4800, DS4700, Texas Memory Systems, RAMSAN-320, RAMSAN-400, SSD, Hybrid, RAID, HDS, USP-V, Symmetrix,[Read More]
Comments (7) Visits (14034)
While EMC bloggers garnered media attention last year pointing out the faulty mathematics from HDS, an astute reader pointed me to EMC's own [DMX-4 specification sheet],updated for its 1TB SATA disk.I've chosen just the minimum and maximum number of drives RAID-6 data points for non-mainframe platforms:
Where EMC appears miscalculating is having 20x more drives, as the numbers don't match up. For 1920 drives inRAID-6, you would expect 20x more usable capacity than the 96 drive configurations. For 6+2 configurations, one would expect 720TB and 1440TB respectively. For 14+2 configurations, one wouldexpect 840TB and 1680TB, respectively.
Perhaps EMC DMX-4 can't address more than 600TB for the entire system? Does EMC purposely limit the benefitsof these larger drives? It does question why someone might go from 500GB to 1TB drives, if the maximum configuration only gives about 40TB more capacity.Fellow IBM blogger Barry Whyte questioned the use of SATA in an expensive DMX-4 system, in his post[One Box Fits All - Or Does It], and now perhaps there are good reasons to question 1TB from a capacityperspective as well.Read More]
Comment (1) Visits (8081)
Today is Tuesday, a good day for announcements and good news!
This week I am in Guadalajara, Mexico, and the focus in Mexico is Small and Medium sized Business (SMB). Smal This year, 42 percent our readers cast their lot with the [IBM System Storage DS3400]. The $6,495 system supports 12 hard disk drives for capacity of up to 3.6 terabytes a good match for tasks such as managing databases, e-mail and Web serving. Last year's winner, NetApp, takes a very respectable runner-up slot for the NetApp Store Vault S300, a $3,000 storage appliance that offers security, scalability, data protection and simplified management. Also, IBM's SMB departmental machine, the [System i515 Express] was named runner-up for servers.
This year, 42 percent our readers cast their lot with the [IBM System Storage DS3400]. The $6,495 system supports 12 hard disk drives for capacity of up to 3.6 terabytes a good match for tasks such as managing databases, e-mail and Web serving.
Last year's winner, NetApp, takes a very respectable runner-up slot for the NetApp Store Vault S300, a $3,000 storage appliance that offers security, scalability, data protection and simplified management.
Also, IBM's SMB departmental machine, the [System i515 Express] was named runner-up for servers.Read More]