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.
Tony Pearson is a Master Inventor and Senior Software Engineer for the IBM Storage product line at the
IBM Executive Briefing Center in Tucson Arizona, and featured contributor
to IBM's developerWorks. In 2016, Tony celebrates his 30th year anniversary with IBM Storage. He is
author of the Inside System Storage series of books. This blog is for the open exchange of ideas relating to storage and storage networking hardware, software and services. You can also follow him on Twitter @az990tony.
(Short URL for this blog: ibm.co/Pearson
IDC announced that IBM was number #1 in storage hardware (disk and tape combined)for 2006. Here are some excerpts from the IBM press release:
The newly released May 2007 report  by leading industry analyst firm IDC, "Worldwide Combined Disk and Tape Storage 2006 Market Share Update," shows IBM in the #1 overall position for all disk and tape storage hardware for the full year 2006.
In a total disk and tape storage hardware segment that increased to $28.2 billion in 2006, IBM captured 22.2 percent of the combined revenue for full year 2006, besting HP's 20.9 percent and EMC's 13.2 percent.
Five years ago, IBM was only #3 in this area, butis this new standing from IBM doing things better, or HP and EMC doing things poorly? Probably a little of both, but since it's not polite to point out the flaws of others in a blog, I will focus on what IBM is doing right, and I think our leadership in tape accounts for a good measure of this.
The resurgence of tape comes from a variety of factors:
The focus on being "green", to conserve energy power and cooling costs. Tape is the cheapest storage in this regard, as the tape cartridges only consume power when read or written.
Government regulations where more data must be stored for longer periods of time, such as theFederal Rules of Civil Procedures (FRCP), Sarbanes-Oxley, SEC regulations, and so on.
The widening gap in dollars per MB. Advancements in tape are outpacing disk. Disk is slowing down to about 25% improvement year on year, but tape continues its 30-40% improvement curve. A solution like Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) that moves older less valuable data from disk to tape can result in excellent cost savings.
Exciting "combined storage" solutions like the IBM System Storage DR550 and the IBM Grid Medical Archive Solution (GMAS) that combine disk and tape with internal hierarchy storage management of data, based on policies.
This week I was in Palm Springs in meetings with clients, prospects, business partners and IBM sales reps.
Tuesday consisted of "outdoor meetings", but the high winds caused some people to arrive late, and others to land in the various sand traps and water hazards. A "welcome reception" event allowed everyone to socialize and get to know the IBM experts and executives. Two of my colleagues, Mike Stanek and Dave Wyatt, were with me also in Australia last week, and so the three of us were discussing recovery from jet lag.
Wednesday was organized as a main tent event, where everyone met into one large room to hear our strategy,latest set of offerings, and customer testimonials. This was done indoors, of course, which was a good thing as the winds were now gusting up to 50 miles per hour, knocking over windmills and making the local news.
Here's a quick sample from the testimonials:
An insurance company virtualized their IBM DS8000, DS4000, ESS 800 and EMC DMX3 high-end disk with theIBM System Storage SAN Volume Controller and got higher availability and performance. Data migrationefforts that used to take six(6) hours of admin time now took less than one hour, and with no system downtime.They have a total of 350TB virtualized under SVC now, but plan to extend this for a variety of other projects.
A bank presented their success using "Global Mirror" (IBM's asynchronous two-site replication disk mirroring capability).Their previous "business continuity" plan was called 2-20-24 for 2 sites that were 20 miles apart and recovery time objective (RTO) of 24 hours. With the events of Hurricane Katrina, this was considered inadequate, and a new2-200-6 plan was requested, across 200 miles with a recovery time objective of only 6 hours. The chose to deploythis one application at a time, to learn and grow by experience in each phase. They started with Microsoft Exchange e-mail application running under VMware on BladeCenter servers, and wereable to recover remotely within 1 hour. They are now looking to refine and automate the recovery process, perhapswith IBM TotalStorage Productivity Center for Replication and Geographically Dispersed Open Clusters (GDOC).
A healthcare provider presented their success with tiered storage, managing a 475TB mix of IBM DS8000, DS6000,DS4000 and HP EVA disk arrays. The key was having centralized storage management from IBM, which allowedthem to shrink provisioning time from 3 weeks average, to now 96% of their storage provisioning requests are completedin less than 1 week. Moving data between storage tiers was non-disruptive, and the significantcosts savings greatly justified the change in "mindset" that required some training on the new environment.
Thursday we offered a series of "workshops" on specific topics. These were interactive sessions to discuss installation, design and deployment of various solutions. The event ended early enough so that people couldreturn home, or go to the practice range, which reminded me of this inspiring video on How to play golf as well as Tiger Woods.
The event got great reviews, and I look forward to the next one. Until then, enjoy the weekend!
I hope everyone enjoyed the French Open in Second Life! Here are some upcoming events:
Rational Software Development Conference comes to Second Life
As part of its commitment to the developer community, IBM is broadening the experience for conference visitors and avatars visiting IBM CODESTATION, in the virtual world of Second Life. During RSDC this year, visitors can view the General Sessions, catch Rational product demonstrations, interact with Rational experts, and learn about the first CODESTATION "Coder's Challenge" kicking off in July.
For Rational Software Development Conference (RSDC) information and registration, running June 10-14:here
Virtual Technical Briefing in Second Life: Web 2.0
Join IBM developerWorks in Second Life for a virtual Web 2.0 Briefing on June 21, 2007 at 12:30 pm EDT/ 9:30 am PDT. During this briefing from IBM developerWorks you'll see presentations on Web 2.0 technologies, a flash demo of associated hot technologies and have a chance to have your questions answered by IBM experts.
In the last two years Web 2.0 has created one of the most remarkable growth surges in Web application history. The transition of consumer Web sites from isolated information silos to sources of shared content and functionality, make the Web a true computing platform serving web applications to end-users. Now it's time to take the lessons learned from that success and see how it can bring value to you and your business.
Based on our success for our April 26 event, we decided to have the next event in September. More details to follow,but we plan to have it open to customers, analysts and business partners. If you are interested in participating, now is a good time to get your avatar in second life up and running. If you need "System Storage", "IBM Business Partner" logo clothing for your avatar, send me a note.
(Chris doesn't actually name who is his source making such a claim, whether thatsomeone was employed by any of the parties involved at the time the events occurred,or is currently employed by a competitor like EMC bitterly jealous of the success IBM and HDScurrently enjoy with their offerings.)
As I already posted before about IBM'slong history of storage virtualization, SAN Volume Controller was really part of a sequence of major product in this area, after the successful 3850 MSS and 3494 VTS block virtualization products.
In the late 1990's, our research teams in Almaden, California and Hursley, UK were exploring storagetechnologies that could take advantage of commodity hardware parts and the industry-leadingLinux operating system.
As is often the case, while IBM was working on "the perfect product", small start-ups announce "not-yet-perfect" products into the marketplace. Tactical moves like partneringwith DataCore was a smart move, for the following reasons:
Helps identify market segments. Identify which subset of customers would most benefit fromdisk virtualization. While our 3850 MSS and 3494 VTS were focused on mainframe customers, this newtechnology was focused on distributed Unix, Windows and Linux servers.
Helps prioritize market requirements. What are the most appealing features?What drives clients to buy disk virtualization for distributed systems platforms?
Helps evaluate packaging options. Should we deliver pure software and expect customersto purchase their own servers? Should we offer this as a "service offering" with installation anddeployment services included? Should we offer this as hardware with software pre-installed?
The partnership proved worthwhile, not just to prove to IBM that this was a worthwhile market to enter, but also how "NOT" to package a solution. Specifically, DataCore SANsymphony was software that you had to install on your own Windows-based server. The client was left with the task of orderinga suitable Intel-based server, with the right amount of CPU cycles, RAM and host bus adapter ports,and configure the Windows operating system and DataCore software.
It didn't go well. Basically, customers were expected to be their own "hardware engineers", having to knowway too much about storage hardware and software to design a combination that worked for theirworkloads. Most clients were disappointed with the amount of effort involved, and the resulting poor performance.
To fix this, IBM delivered the SAN Volume Controller, with an optimized Linux operating system and internally-writtensoftware that runs on IBM System x(tm) server hardware optimized for performance.
I can't speak for HDS, but I suspect they came to similar conclusions that resulted in a similar decisionto build their product in-house. I welcome Hu Yoshida to correct me if I am wrong on this.
One of the differences between IBM and the other storage vendors is that IBM is also in the business of middleware, application-aware backup software, and advanced copy services. This allows IBM to put togethersolutions that work to address specific challenges for our clients.
IBM has written a whitepaper on a cleverVSS Snapshot Backup for Exchange using IBM Tivoli Storage Manager and the point-in-time copy capabilities of IBM System Storage disk systems.
A problem in the past was that each vendor's point-in-time copy method had its own unique proprietary interface.Microsoft Developed Volume Shadow Copy Services (VSS) as a common interface front-end to resolve this concern.IBM Tivoli Storage Manager for Mail can invoke standard VSS interfaces, and this in turn can invoke FlashCopyon the IBM System Storage SAN Volume Controller, DS8000 series, or DS6000 series disk system.
You might be thinking: Wouldn't it have been less effort to just have TSM for Mail invoke IBM proprietary interfaces,rather than having to put full VSS support into TSM for mail, and then full VSS support into IBM's various disksystems? Perhaps, but IBM doesn't decide to do things because it is the cheapest way, we focus on what is theright way, and in this case, customers now have more choices, then can use TSM for Mail with IBM or non-IBM disksystems that support the VSS interface, and IBM disk systems can be employed into other uses for VSS snapshot.
Of course, we would like our clients to consider both TSM and IBM System Storage disk systems for a combined solution,not because they are required to make the solution work, but because both are best-of-breed, and whitepapers likethis show how they can provide synergy working together.
Last week, I opined that Monday's IDC announcement "IBM #1 in combined disk and tape storage hardwaresales for 2006" was in part because of a resurgence of interest in tape, with four specific examples. There was a lot of reaction and reflection fromboth sides.
On the one side...
EMC blogger Mark Twomey at Storagezilla admits that perhapsTape Isn't Dead after all,is perhaps the best place to put long-term archive data, but not for backup? EMC's "creative marketing types" put out this Fun With Tape video that I found amusing. (It asks for a first name,last name, and e-mail address, which are then embedded into the resulting video itself, and perhaps forwarded to your nearest EMC sales rep, so answer according to your wishes for privacy).
The "mummy wrapped in tape media" seems to be a common theme, and shows up again in LiveVault'svideo with John Cleese, which makes the same argument asthe EMC video above, namely: switch your backups from tape to disk because we are a disk-only vendor.
... and on the other side
JWT over at DrunkenData asks Which is greener, disk or tape?Tape is, of course, by a long shot, and an essential part of IBM's Big Green initiative, a project to invest$1US Billion dollars per year for data centers to be more efficient for power and cooling.
Sun/StorageTek blogger Randy Chalfant questions the Death of Tape, and argues thatdisk-only solutions suffer from atrophy.The results he posts from a survey of 200 customers are similar to those we've seen with customers using IBM TotalStorage Productivity Center, our software to help evaluate data usage, and identify misuse, in your data center.
To my readers in the USA, United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, China and Japan, and a few other countries, Happy Father's Day!
This week I am off to Budapest, Hungary, for business meetings. It is the closest major city to IBM'smanufacturing plant in a small town called Vac (rhymes with "knots") where the IBM System Storage DS8000 seriesand SAN Volume Controller are assembled.
A client complained that their tape drives were not compressing data as well as it used to. Investigating further reminded me of a scene from the 1970's television show "All in the family", summarized well inAmerican Scientist:
... in one episode of All in the Family, Archie Bunker's son-in-law, Mike, watches Archie put on his shoes and socks. Mike goes into a conniption when Archie puts the sock and shoe completely on one foot first, tying a bow to complete the action, while the other foot remains bare. To Mike, if I remember correctly, the right way to put on shoes and socks is first to put a sock on each foot and only then put the shoes on over them, and only in the same order as the socks. In an ironic development in his character, the politically liberal Mike shows himself to be intolerant of differences in how people do common little things, unaccepting of the fact that there is more than one way to skin a cat or put on one's shoes.
Both agreed that socks go first, then shoes, but the actual deployment was different.
In the case of this customer, a recent change was the use of "encryption" before the data reached the tape drive. In regards to compression and encryption, you should always compress first, then encrypt. Compression algorithms rely on frequency of data, for example the letter "E" appears more often in the English language than the letter "Z". However, once you encrypt data, those data patterns are randomized, and any attempt to compress the data afterwards is wasted effort.
With IBM tape encryption on either the TS1120 or LTO4 tape drives, we compress, then encrypt, the data when it arrives to the tape drive, so that the compression has some chance of getting up to 3:1 reduction. This compress-then-encrypt process can be done at the host as well, either from the application software or feature of the operating system.
So, just as the case between Archie Bunker and his son-in-law, there are many ways to deploy compression and encryption, just make sure you do them in the right order to get the most benefit.
Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, I was one of the architects for DFSMS on z/OS, and customers always asked, "What is the clip level?", in other words, how big does a customer have to be to take advantage of DFSMS. We worked it out that if you had more than 100GB of disk data, DFSMS is worthwhile. DFSMS is now just standard by default, as everyone now easily has more than 100GB of data.
Later, in the late 1990's, I worked on Linux for System z. Again, customers asked how many Linux guest images would justify deploying applications on a mainframe. We worked it out to about 10 images. 10 Linux logical partitions, or Linux guests under z/VM was enough to cost justify the entire investment.
So what is the "clip level" for SANs? How many servers does an SMB need to have to justify deploying a SAN? IBM announced the new BladeCenter S designed specifically for mid-sized companies, 100 to 1000 employees, typically running 25 to 45 servers. However, I suspect companies as small as 7-10 servers would probably benefit from deploying an FC or IP SAN.
What do you think? Send me a comment on how many servers should be the clip level.
Use more efficient disk media, such as high-capacity SATA disk drives
Both are great recommendations, but why limit yourself to what EMC offers? Your x86-based machines are only a subset of your servers,and disk is only a subset of your storage. IBM takes a more holistic approach, looking at the entire data center.
VMware is a great product, and IBM is its top reseller. But in addition to VMware, there are other solutions for the x86-based servers, like Xen and Microsoft Virtual Server. IBM's System p, System i, and System z product lines all support logical partitioning.
To compare the energy effectiveness of server virtualization, consider a metric that can apply across platforms. For example, for an e-mail server, consider watts per mailbox. If you have, say, 15,000 users, you can calculate how many watts you are consuming to manage their mailboxes on your current environment, and compare that with running them on VMware, or logical partitions on other servers. Some people find it surprising that it is often more cost-effective, and power-efficient, to run workloads on mainframe logical partitions (LPARs) than a stack of x86 servers running VMware.
More efficient Media
SATA and FATA disks support higher capacities, and run at slower RPM speeds, thus using fewer watts per terabyte.A terabyte stored on 73GB high-speed 15K RPM drives consumes more watts than the same terabyte stored using 500GB SATA.Chuck correctly identifies that tape is more power-efficient than disk, but then argues that paper is more power-efficient than tape. But paper is not necessarily more efficient than tape.
ESG analyst Steve Duplessie divides up data betweenDynamic vs. Persistent. The best place to put dynamic data is on disk, and here is where evaluation of FC/SAS versus SATA/FATA comes into play.Persistent data, on the other hand, can be stored on paper, microfiche, optical or tape media. All of these shelf-resident media consume no electricity, nor generate any heat that would require additional cooling.
A study by scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory titled High-Tech Means High-Efficiency: The Business Case for Energy Management in High-Tech Industries indicates thatData centers consume 15 to 100 times more energy per square foot than traditional office space. Storing persistent data in traditional office space can save a huge amount of energy. Steve Duplessie feels the ratio of dynamic to persistent data is 1:10 today, but is likely to grow to 1:100 in the near future, raising the demand for energy-efficient storage of persistent data ever more important to our environment.
Data centers consume nearly 5000 Megawatts in the USA alone, 14000 Megawatts worldwide. To put that in perspective, the country of Hungary I was in last week can generate up to 8000 Megawatts for the entire country (and they were using 7400 Megawatts last week as a result of their current heat wave, causing them grave concern).
Back in the 1990's, one of the insurance companies IBM worked with kept data on paper in manila folders, and armiesof young adults in roller skates were dispatched throughout the large warehouses of shelves to get the appropriate folder in response to customer service inquiries. Digitizing this paper into electronic format greatly reduced the need for this amount of warehouse space, as well as improved the time to retrieve the data.
A typical file storage box (12 inch x 12 inch x 18 inch) containing typed pages single-spaced, double-sided, 12 point font could hold perhaps 100MB. The same box could hold a hundred or more LTO or 3592 tape cartridges, each storing hundreds of GB of information. That's a million-to-one improvement of space-efficiency, and from a watts-per-TB basis, translates to substantial improvement in standard office air conditioning and lighting conditions.
To learn more about IBM's Project Big Green, watch thisintroductory video which used Second Life for the animation.