<   Previous Post  The maths must be...
Evolution of Storage  Next Post:   >

Comments (11)
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

1 localhost commented Permalink

Perhaps it doesn't quite blow it's brains out, but most stuff that I put behind it I will be paying an overhead for, since they need to recoup the development cost of all that functionality. I want to do all my smart stuff at SVC level - i.e. in the same place. <div>&nbsp;</div> Hmmm....pretty girls in skirts....throwing money at me...sounds good to me!! Sold! I am not really expecting the Xiotech kit to go under SVC any time soon, and I haven't seriously investigated it yet, i was just making the point that, like you by the sound of it, I want fast and dumb to go behind my SVC, and the Xiotech kit seems to be the first serious effort by a company to go down that route.<div>&nbsp;</div> Apologies for the long and painful sentence!<div>&nbsp;</div> If you find anything that fits the bill I would love to hear about it.

2 localhost commented Permalink

Personally I want the dumbest spinning rust I can to stick behind SVC - since it lobotomises the controllers anyway, I just want reliable speedy disks with no brains. Xiotech's ISE looks interesting, I looked for one whilst snooping round Hursley the other day, but alas, one was not to be seen.<div>&nbsp;</div> Perhaps there isn't enough of a market yet for dumb tin, but if someone offered it to me I would seriously consider it.<div>&nbsp;</div> Not exactly on-topic (I didn't bash any vendor at all!), but it's the best I can manage on a slow Thursday afternoon.<div>&nbsp;</div>

3 localhost commented Permalink

I saw the Xiotech ISE at SNW a few weeks ago. Lots of flash and blue LEDs. Their sales guy was literally throwing money into the crowd, and they hired a bunch of pretty girls to walk around in short skirts. Of course they also had IOmeter running, showing something like 700k IOPS IIRC... somehow I doubt these were random reads :). <div>&nbsp;</div> I wouldn't say the SVC totally "lobotomises" the controllers, it still takes advantage of the array cache that's available, and the more cache you have in your backend arrays, the less time the SVC has to hold on to an IO.<div>&nbsp;</div> We are also looking for fast (15k FC), relatively dumb arrays to attach to the SVC... we really don't care about the feature set so much anymore because we can do what we want with the SVC. We passed on evaluating the Xiotech products because they are not supported by the SVC, but frankly I doubt that we would look at one at this time even if it was supported. Still, it is an interesting product that I would like to play with, but I don't think I would bet the datacenter on it at this point.

4 localhost commented Permalink

Not sure if either of you have looked at the DS3400. It comes with 15K RPM SAS drives, gives the RAID protection you need, and a maxed out dual controller + 3x EXP3000 (48DDM) in just 8U can be saturated by the dual controllers even in RAID-5 flavour. They are cheap, and you don't need any additional host licenses, as you are only connecting it to SVC, so the 4 partition basic license covers that - you do need the EXP license, but its still about the cheapest out there for basic RAID at 15K RPM, without any bells and whistles which is what you need.<div>&nbsp;</div> Barry

5 localhost commented Trackback

Wow, BarryW, you seem a mite bit upset about something!<div>&nbsp;</div> Was it something I said?

6 localhost commented Trackback

Hey BarryW, the DS3400 is not supported behind the SVC as far as I know.<div>&nbsp;</div> As for sharbu's comment, I would prefer the term "commoditizes" rather than "lobotomizes" the back end disk. Basically you don't need to pay for multi-pathing or copy services or replication technology on the back end- you get to pay IBM for them on the SVC instead ;)

7 localhost commented Permalink

OSSG,<div>&nbsp;</div> Yup, it is supported, has to be at a specific NVSRAM level to enable the correct attachment mode for SVC, but as described in the support matrix, it is supported with SAS drives and in dual controller form.<div>&nbsp;</div> http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=591&amp;uid=ssg1S1003091

8 localhost commented Permalink

So of those 12,000 SVC installs, what percentage of the installs have non-IBM storage behind them?<div>&nbsp;</div> I'm not an Invista fan either - I just don't believe in the value of storage appliances.<div>&nbsp;</div> Perhaps the SVC commoditizes the storage and lobotomizes the customers? :)

9 localhost commented Permalink

Of all my customers running SVC, about 40% have a mix of IBM and non-IBM storage behind them (none of mine have ONLY non-IBM disk). Interesting to note that closer to 90% had non-IBM storage behind them at one time, and the SVC was used to migrate data from those aging systems onto newer gear. <div>&nbsp;</div> As mentioned here, it makes perfect sense to buy the cheapest (dumbest?) disk you can find to put it behind the SVC. And it's no secret that the more you buy from any one vendor, the bigger discount you can get for yourself...this is the reason most customers purchase IBM disk to put behind the SVC. I can personally attest that it is most definitely NOT because the SVC has any kind of problem supporting or performing well with non-IBM disk. <div>&nbsp;</div> I have SVC customers that (very happily) shop all the vendors to see who will give them the cheapest disk to stick behind the SVC. In my experience, IBM usually wins with the DS3400. I have two customers today running between 4-10 fully populated DS3400s behind their SVCs, with no end in sight. It's an awesome solution that is EXTREMELY difficult to compete against...the only really effective tool is FUD. I have to give credit where credit is due though...EMC is much more effective at this than IBM is. I will say this though - even with all the FUD, I have NEVER lost an SVC deal to an EMC Invista! How embarrassing would that be?!

10 localhost commented Permalink

mgbrit,<div>&nbsp;</div> I would say that some number more than 50% but not as high as 80% have a mix of non-IBM and IBM disk behind it. There are a lot of 'blue-sales' that are IBM shops that take on SVC, already have some of our storage. But equally, especially in the Business Partner channel, there the majority are non-IBM storage customers. Probably the largest non-IBM install base is EMC (partly why they dislike SVC so much - they lose their powerpath and copy services revenues, and it also removes that good old EMC vendor lockin!) I have been involved with a few customers that are 100% EMC storage behind SVC for example - and want to get off of it for various reasons. Its very common for an initial non-IBM disk customer to become an IBM disk customer once they have SVC in their SAN. But truely the best thing for customers is that, as the sarge says, the customer can tender many different vendors when they next need storage and go for the cheapest solution that provides the capacity, and performance they require.<div>&nbsp;</div> The Sarge,<div>&nbsp;</div> Thanks for the input, one of SVC's initial design goals as I've mentioned before was to commoditise storage. Moving the intelligence out of the array and into a common cross-vendor platform. All you need behind SVC is a 'low-cost RAID brick' which DS3400 provides nicely. As for FUD, EMC are much better than we are I agree ;) and I doubt you will ever lose an SVC deal to Invista, unless of course the customer has grown up lapping up his FUD. Even if you did, a few months later when the FUD had worn off and the reality of it all had sunk in, you would have a really easy job of selling SVC as a solution to get them out of the mess they were in!

11 localhost commented Permalink

I'd love to see a SVC come in as a solution to get someone out of Invista... how hilarious that would be virtualizing a virtualizer's storage in order to migrate them off to a better place. When will the SVC support the Invista? :) Seriously though, it may be a reality when customers find they have bought into something that wasn't all it was hyped to be.