It's official! My "blook" Inside System Storage - Volume I
is now available.
|This blog-based book, or “blook”, comprises the first twelve months of posts from this Inside System Storage blog,165 posts in all, from September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007. Foreword by Jennifer Jones. 404 pages.|
- IT storage and storage networking concepts
- IBM strategy, hardware, software and services
- Disk systems, Tape systems, and storage networking
- Storage and infrastructure management software
- Second Life, Facebook, and other Web 2.0 platforms
- IBM’s many alliances, partners and competitors
- How IT storage impacts society and industry
You can choose between hardcover (with dust jacket) or paperback versions:
This is not the first time I've been published. I have authored articles for storage industry magazines, written large sections of IBM publications and manuals, submitted presentations and whitepapers to conference proceedings, and even had a short story published with illustrations by the famous cartoon writer[Ted Rall].
But I can say this is my first blook, and as far as I can tell, the first blook from IBM's many bloggers on DeveloperWorks, and the first blook about the IT storage industry.I got the idea when I saw [Lulu Publishing] run a "blook" contest. The Lulu Blooker Prize is the world's first literary prize devoted to "blooks"--books based on blogs or other websites, including webcomics. The [Lulu Blooker Blog] lists past year winners. Lulu is one of the new innovative "print-on-demand" publishers. Rather than printing hundredsor thousands of books in advance, as other publishers require, Lulu doesn't print them until you order them.
I considered cute titles like A Year of Living Dangerously, orAn Engineer in Marketing La-La land, or Around the World in 165 Posts, but settled on a title that matched closely the name of the blog.
In addition to my blog posts, I provide additional insights and behind-the-scenes commentary. If you go to the Luluwebsite above, you can preview an entire chapter in its entirety before purchase. I have added a hefty 56-page Glossary of Acronyms and Terms (GOAT) with over 900 storage-related terms defined, which also doubles as an index back to the post (or posts) that use or further explain each term.
So who might be interested in this blook?
- Business Partners and Sales Reps looking to give a nice gift to their best clients and colleagues
- Managers looking to reward early-tenure employees and retain the best talent
- IT specialists and technicians wanting a marketing perspective of the storage industry
- Mentors interested in providing motivation and encouragement to their proteges
- Educators looking to provide books for their classroom or library collection
- Authors looking to write a blook themselves, to see how to format and structure a finished product
- Marketing personnel that want to better understand Web 2.0, Second Life and social networking
- Analysts and journalists looking to understand how storage impacts the IT industry, and society overall
- College graduates and others interested in a career as a storage administrator
And yes, according to Lulu, if you order soon, you can have it by December 25.
technorati tags: IBM, blook, Volume I, Jennifer Jones, system, storage, strategy, hardware, software, services, disk, tape, networking, SAN, secondlife, Web2.0, facebook, Lulu, publishing, Blooker Prize, articles, magazines, proceedings, Ted Rall, insights, glossary, early-tenure, mentors, library, classroom, administrator, print, publish, on demand
Well, this week I am in Maryland, just outside of Washington DC. It's a bit cold here.
Robin Harris over at StorageMojo put out this Open Letter to Seagate, Hitachi GST, EMC, HP, NetApp, IBM and Sun about the results of two academic papers, one from Google, and another from Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). The papers imply that the disk drive module (DDM) manufacturers have perhaps misrepresented their reliability estimates, and asks major vendors to respond. So far, NetAppand EMC have responded.
I will not bother to re-iterate or repeat what others have said already, but make just a few points. Robin, you are free to consider this "my" official response if you like to post it on your blog, or point to mine, whatever is easier for you. Given that IBM no longer manufacturers the DDMs we use inside our disk systems, there may not be any reason for a more formal response.
- Coke and Pepsi buy sugar, Nutrasweet and Splenda from the same sources
Somehow, this doesn't surprise anyone. Coke and Pepsi don't own their own sugar cane fields, and even their bottlers are separate companies. Their job is to assemble the components using super-secret recipes to make something that tastes good.
IBM, EMC and NetApp don't make DDMs that are mentioned in either academic study. Different IBM storage systems uses one or more of the following DDM suppliers:
- Seagate (including Maxstor they acquired)
- Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, HGST (former IBM division sold off to Hitachi)
In the past, corporations like IBM was very "vertically-integrated", making every component of every system delivered.IBM was the first to bring disk systems to market, and led the major enhancements that exist in nearly all disk drives manufactured today. Today, however, our value-add is to take standard components, and use our super-secret recipe to make something that provides unique value to the marketplace. Not surprisingly, EMC, HP, Sun and NetApp also don't make their own DDMs. Hitachi is perhaps the last major disk systems vendor that also has a DDM manufacturing division.
So, my point is that disk systems are the next layer up. Everyone knows that individual components fail. Unlike CPUs or Memory, disks actually have moving parts, so you would expect them to fail more often compared to just "chips".
If you don't feel the MTBF or AFR estimates posted by these suppliers are valid, go after them, not the disk systems vendors that use their supplies. While IBM does qualify DDM suppliers for each purpose, we are basically purchasing them from the same major vendors as all of our competitors. I suspect you won't get much more than the responses you posted from Seagate and HGST.
- American car owners replace their cars every 59 months
According to a frequently cited auto market research firm, the average time before the original owner transfers their vehicle -- purchased or leased -- is currently 59 months.Both studies mention that customers have a different "definition" of failure than manufacturers, and often replace the drives before they are completely kaput. The same is true for cars. Americans give various reasons why they trade in their less-than-five-year cars for newer models. Disk technologies advance at a faster pace, so it makes sense to change drives for other business reasons, for speed and capacity improvements, lower power consumption, and so on.
The CMU study indicated that 43 percent of drives were replaced before they were completely dead.So, if General Motors estimated their cars lasted 9 years, and Toyota estimated 11 years, people still replace them sooner, for other reasons.
At IBM, we remind people that "data outlives the media". True for disk, and true for tape. Neither is "permanent storage", but rather a temporary resting point until the data is transferred to the next media. For this reason, IBM is focused on solutions and disk systems that plan for this inevitable migration process. IBM System Storage SAN Volume Controller is able to move active data from one disk system to another; IBM Tivoli Storage Manager is able to move backup copies from one tape to another; and IBM System Storage DR550 is able to move archive copies from disk and tape to newer disk and tape.
If you had only one car, then having that one and only vehicle die could be quite disrupting. However, companies that have fleet cars, like Hertz Car Rentals, don't wait for their cars to completely stop running either, they replace them well before that happens. For a large company with a large fleet of cars, regularly scheduled replacement is just part of doing business.
This brings us to the subject of RAID. No question that RAID 5 provides better reliability than having just a bunch of disks (JBOD). Certainly, three copies of data across separate disks, a variation of RAID 1, will provide even more protection, but for a price.
Robin mentions the "Auto-correlation" effect. Disk failures bunch up, so one recent failure might mean another DDM, somewhere in the environment, will probably fail soon also. For it to make a difference, it would (a) have to be a DDM in the same RAID 5 rank, and (b) have to occur during the time the first drive is being rebuilt to a spare volume.
- The human body replaces skin cells every day
So there are individual DDMs, manufactured by the suppliers above; disk systems, manufactured by IBM and others, and then your entire IT infrastructure. Beyond the disk system, you probably have redundant fabrics, clustered servers and multiple data paths, because eventually hardware fails.
People might realize that the human body replaces skin cells every day. Other cells are replaced frequently, within seven days, and others less frequently, taking a year or so to be replaced. I'm over 40 years old, but most of my cells are less than 9 years old. This is possible because information, data in the form of DNA, is moved from old cells to new cells, keeping the infrastructure (my body) alive.
Our clients should approach this in a more holistic view. You will replace disks in less than 3-5 years. While tape cartridges can retain their data for 20 years, most people change their tape drives every 7-9 years, and so tape data needs to be moved from old to new cartridges. Focus on your information, not individual DDMs.
What does this mean for DDM failures. When it happens, the disk system re-routes requests to a spare disk, rebuilding the data from RAID 5 parity, giving storage admins time to replace the failed unit. During the few hours this process takes place, you are either taking a backup, or crossing your fingers.Note: for RAID5 the time to rebuild is proportional to the number of disks in the rank, so smaller ranks can be rebuilt faster than larger ranks. To make matters worse, the slower RPM speeds and higher capacities of ATA disks means that the rebuild process could take longer than smaller capacity, higher speed FC/SCSI disk.
According to the Google study, a large portion of the DDM replacements had no SMART errors to warn that it was going to happen. To protect your infrastructure, you need to make sure you have current backups of all your data. IBM TotalStorage Productivity Center can help identify all the data that is "at risk", those files that have no backup, no copy, and no current backup since the file was most recently changed. A well-run shop keeps their "at risk" files below 3 percent.
So, where does that leave us?
- ATA drives are probably as reliable as FC/SCSI disk. Customers should chose which to use based on performance and workload characteristics. FC/SCSI drives are more expensive because they are designed to run at faster speeds, required by some enterprises for some workloads. IBM offers both, and has tools to help estimate which products are the best match to your requirements.
- RAID 5 is just one of the many choices of trade-offs between cost and protection of data. For some data, JBOD might be enough. For other data that is more mission critical, you might choose keeping two or three copies. Data protection is more than just using RAID, you need to also consider point-in-time copies, synchronous or asynchronous disk mirroring, continuous data protection (CDP), and backup to tape media. IBM can help show you how.
- Disk systems, and IT environments in general, are higher-level concepts to transcend the failures of individual components. DDM components will fail. Cache memory will fail. CPUs will fail. Choose a disk systems vendor that combines technologies in unique and innovative ways that take these possibilities into account, designed for no single point of failure, and no single point of repair.
So, Robin, from IBM's perspective, our hands are clean. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and for giving me the opportunity to highlight IBM's superiority at the systems level.
technorati tags: IBM, Seagate, Hitachi, HGST, EMC, NetApp, HP, HDS, Sun, Google, CMU, DDM, Fujitsu, MTBF, MTTF, AFR, ARR, JBOD, RAID, Tivoli, SVC, DR550, CDP, FC, SCSI, disk, tape, SAN,
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
Over on his Backup Blog
, fellow blogger Scott Waterhouse from EMC has a post titled
[Backup Sucks: Reason #38
]. Here is an excerpt:
Unfortunately, we have not been able to successfully leverage economies of scale in the world of backup and recovery. If it costs you $5 to backup a given amount of data, it probably costs you $50 to back up 10 times that amount of data, and $500 to back up 100 times that amount of data.
If anybody can figure out how to get costs down to $40 for 10 times the amount of data, and $300 for 100 times the amount of data, they will have an irrefutable advantage over anybody that has not been able to leverage economies of scale.
I suspect that where Scott mentions we in the above excerpt, he is referring to EMC in general, with products like
Legato. Fortunately, IBM has scalable backup solutions, using either a hardware approach, or one purely with software.
- Hardware Approach
The hardware approach involves using deduplication hardware technology as the storage pool for IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM). Using this approach, IBM Tivoli Storage Manager would receive data from dozens, hundreds or even thousands
of client nodes, and the backup copies would be sent to an IBM TS7650 ProtecTIER data deduplication appliance, IBM TS7650G gateway, or IBM N series with A-SIS. In most cases, companies have standardized on the operating systems and applications used on these nodes, and multiple copies of data reside across employee laptops. As a result, as you have more nodes backing up, you are able to achieve benefits of scale.
- Software Approach
Perhaps your budget isn't big enough to handle new hardware purchases at this time, in this economy. Have no fear,
IBM also offers deduplication built right into the IBM Tivoli Storage Manager v6 software itself. You can use sequential access disk storage pool for this. TSM scans and identifies duplicate chunks of data in the backup copies, and also archive and HSM data, and reclaims the space when found.
If your company is using a backup software product that doesn't scale well, perhaps now is a good time to switch over to IBM Tivoli Storage Manager. TSM is perhaps the most scalable backup software product in the marketplace, giving IBM an "irrefutable advantage" over the competition.
technorati tags: IBM, Scott Waterhouse, EMC, Legato, Tivoli, TSM, deduplication, ProtecTIER, N series, A-SIS
Two weeks ago, I mentioned in my post [Pulse 2008 - Day 2 Breakout sessions
] thatHenk de Ruiter from ABN Amro bank presented his success storyimplementing Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) across hisvarious data centers. I am no stranger to ABN Amro, having helped "ABN" and "Amro" banks merge their mainframe data in 1991. Henk has agreed to let me share with my readers more ofthis success story here on my blog:
Back in December 2005, Henkand his colleagues had come to visit the IBM Tucson ExecutiveBriefing Center (EBC) to hear about IBM products and services. At the time, I was part of our "STG Lab Services" team that performed ILM assessments at client locations. I explained to ABN Amro that the ILM methodology does not requirean all-IBM solution, and that ILM could even provide benefits with their current mix of storage, software and service providers.The ABN Amro team liked what I had to say, andmy team was commissioned to perform ILM assessments atthree of their data centers:
- Amsterdam (Netherlands)
- Sao Paulo (Brazil)
- Chicago, IL (USA)
Each data center had its own management, its owndecision making, and its own set of issues, so we structuredeach ILM assessment independently. When we presented our results,we showed what each data center could do better with their existing mixed bagof storage, software and service providers, and also showed howmuch better their life would be with IBM storage, software andservices. They agreed to give IBM a chance to prove it, and soa new "Global Storage Study" was launched to take the recommendationsfrom our three ILM studies, and flesh out the details to make aglobally-integrated enterprise work for them. Once completed,it was renamed the "Global Storage Solution" (GSS).
Henk summarized the above with "I am glad to see Tony Pearsonin the audience, who was instrumental to making this all happen."As with many client testimonials, he presented a few charts onwho ABN Amro is today, the 12th largest bank worldwide, 8th largest in Europe. They operate in 53 countries and manage over a trillioneuros in assets.
They have over 20 data centers, with about 7 PB of disk, and over20 PB of tape, both growing at 50 to 70 percent CAGR. About 2/3 of theiroperations are now outsourced to IBM Global Services, the remaining 1/3is non-IBM equipment managed by a different service provider.
ABN Amro deployed IBM TotalStorage Productivity Center, variousIBM System Storage DS family disk systems, SAN Volume Controller (SVC), Tivoli StorageManager (TSM), Tivoli Provisioning Manager (TPM), and several other products. Armed with these products, they performed the following:
- Clean Up. IBM uses the term "rationalization" to relate to the assignment of business value, to avoid confusion with theterm "classification" which many in IT relate to identifyingownership, read and write authorization levels. Often, in theinitial phases of an ILM deployment, a portion of the data isdetermined to be eligible for clean up, either to move to a lower-cost tier or deleted immediately. ABN Amro and IBM set a goal to identifyat least 20 percent of their data for clean up.
- New tiers. Rather than traditional "storage tiers" which are often justTier 1 for Fibre Channel disk and Tier 2 for SATA disk, ABN Amroand IBM came up with seven "information infrastructure tiers" thatincorporate service levels, availability and protection status.They are:
- High-performance, Highly-available disk with Remote replication.
- High-performance, Highly-available disk (no remote replication)
- Mid-performance, high-capacity disk with Remote replication
- Mid-performance, high-capacity disk (no remote replication)
- Non-erasable, Non-rewriteable (NENR) storage employinga blended disk and tape solution.
- Enterprise Virtual Tape Library with remote replicationand back-end physical tape
- Mid-performance physical tape
These tiers are applied equally across their mainframe anddistributed platforms. All of the tiers are priced per "primary GB", so any additional capacity required for replication orpoint-in-time copies, either local or remote, are all folded into the base price.ABN Amro felt a mission-critical applicationon Windows or UNIX deserves the same Tier 1 service level asa mission-critical mainframe application. Exactly!
- Deployed storage virtualization for disk and tape. Thisinvolved the SAN Volume Controller and IBM TS7000 series library.
- Implemented workflow automation. The key product here is IBM Tivoli Provisioning Manager
- Started an investigation for HSM on distributed. This would be policy-based space management to migrate lessfrequently accessed data to the TSM pool for Windows or UNIX data.
While the deployment is not yet complete, ABN Amro feels they have alreadyrecognized business value:
- Reduced cost by identifying data that should be stored on lower tiers
- Simplified management, consolidated across all operating systems (mainframe, UNIX, Windows)
- Increased utilization of existing storage resources
- Reduced manual effort through policy-based automation, which can lead to fewer human errors and faster adaptability to new business opportunities
- Standardized backup and other operational procedures
Henk and the rest of ABN Amro are quite pleased with the progress so far,although recent developments in terms of the takeover of ABN AMRO by aconsortium of banks means that the model is only implemented so far in Europe. Further rollout depends on the storage strategy of the new owners. Nonetheless,I am glad that I was able to work with Henk, Jason, Barbara, Steve, Tom, Dennis, Craig and othersto be part of this from the beginning and be able to see it rollout successfully over the years.
For more about what was presented at Pulse 2008 conference, see the videos of the keynotespeakers at [IBM Pulse - YouTube channel]!
technorati tags: IBM, ABN Amro, Henk de Ruiter, merge, mainframe, Tucson, Executive Briefing Center, EBC, STG, Lab Services, ILM, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Chicago, Global Storage, study, solution, Productivity Center, DS8000, DS4000, SVC, storage tiers, rationalization, NENR, FC, SATA, Windows, UNIX, TS7000, HSM