What is unified storage?

Many modern enterprise IT environments have mixed workloads that use different storage types (each accessed through their own protocols) to serve and structure data. For example: file storage for shared documents, block storage for databases and object storage for archives.

Without unified storage, these storage types are often accessed and managed through separate systems. This siloing presents several challenges including cost inefficiencies and the operational complexity and overhead of managing multiple storage systems.

A unified storage provides a single storage platform or software access point for physical storage, with the ability to manage any combination of file, block and object storage an organization needs. There is one admin interface—users do not need to train on a network area storage (NAS) console for file storage, a storage area network (SAN) console for block storage, and an object storage console separately.

Storage capacity can also be used more efficiently. Because the underlying hardware isn’t walled off by protocol, idle storage space can be repurposed as needed. Organizations are not stuck with unused block storage in one silo while running out of object storage space in another. IT teams can reallocate and optimize capacity across file, block and object storage as workloads and storage needs shift over time, instead of having to overprovision any particular silo upfront based on a guess about resource needs.

Unified storage also provides cross-protocol flexibility, enabling different systems, such as virtual machines that need block storage and file servers that need shared folders, to operate on the same platform without wasted capacity.

Unified storage solutions can be used across on-premises storage and cloud storage environments, including hybrid cloud and multicloud architectures, and can be a cost-effective way to improve performance, scalability and operational efficiency.

Unified storage combines three distinct types of storage, each structured differently and accessed through its own protocols. Understanding each type helps clarify why unifying them under a single platform is operationally valuable.

File storage is the most familiar type of storage for everyday computer users. When a user saves something to their computer’s hard disk drive (HDD) or solid state drive (SSD), they are using file storage. Files can also live on a network-attached storage (NAS) device, in cloud-based file storage or on portable media like flash drives.

In file storage, data is saved as complete files, each with an extension, such as .jpg or .txt, that indicates its format. Files are organized in a hierarchical structure of folders and subfolders, and users access a file by navigating to it or entering its path.

Server message block (SMB) and network file system (NFS) are the dominant protocols (the languages used by applications to access and use files located on a network server) used in file-level storage.

• Intuitive and familiar, using the same folder hierarchy most users already recognize
  
  
• Supports collaboration through built-in features like file locking, access rights and permissions manageable at the user level
  
  
• Good for file sharing and shared environments where multiple users need to access the same files

• Hierarchical structure becomes a bottleneck when dealing with large volumes of files
  
  
• Becomes expensive at large scale
  
  
• Higher latency than block storage because every access goes through file system layer and protocol stack, making it unsuitable for performance-sensitive workloads like databases

File storage is best suited for shared environments where multiple users need to access, organize and collaborate on data in a familiar system. Common examples include:

• Personal file storage
  
  
• Shared team storage (documents, spreadsheets, presentations)
  
  
• Media and content production
  
  
• Software development environments
  
  
• Small-to-medium scale archiving and backup, where it’s important that files remain directly accessible in original folder structure

Block storage, sometimes called block-level storage, divides data into fixed-size chunks called blocks, each stored separately and identified by a unique address.
Because blocks carry no inherent file system structure and only minimal metadata, they can be formatted and managed according to the needs of a given application, making them adaptable to a wide range of workloads.

Block storage suits workloads that require fast, efficient data access, such as databases and virtual machines. When a database needs to update a specific record, it can address and rewrite only the precise blocks containing that data, without involving a file system layer. The storage system delivers the requested blocks directly, and the database engine handles the assembly. This gives applications precise, low-latency control over where and how data is written.

To use a physical example, say that you want to store a bicycle. A file system would keep the bicycle whole and place it labeled on a shelf inside an organized warehouse. It is easy to find and deliver as a complete object, but if you wanted to change the wheel, you’d have to take out the whole bike.

Block storage disassembles the bike and stores the parts in labeled bins. It’s not as intuitive to navigate, but if you just need to replace the wheel, you can go straight to the wheel bin and change the wheel without touching anything else.

IT teams often deploy block-level storage using a storage area network (SAN). A SAN is a computer network that provides access to data storage devices, typically located in a larger storage array. SANs present block storage to other networked systems as if those blocks were locally attached devices.

SANs can be run with a couple of different protocols. One is iSCSI (internet small computer systems interface), which uses standard network hardware like Ethernet cables. The other is FC, or fibre channel, which uses dedicated fiber-optic cables and switches. iSCSI is more accessible and cost-effective, while FC offers higher performance at greater expense and complexity.

• High performance, low latency
  
  
• Supports redundancy and replication, making it well suited for business-critical workloads
  
  
• Easy to modify and update

• No native metadata or search capability, making it poorly suited for unstructured data and difficult to manage at scale
  
  
• More expensive than file or object storage and can become cost-prohibitive at scale
  
  
• Requires a file system or application layer to organize and interpret data—not human-readable on its own

Block storage is best suited for structured data that requires frequent, precise read and write operations with minimal latency. Common use cases include:

• Databases
  
  
• Email servers
  
  
• Virtual machine file systems

Object storage, often called object-based storage, organizes data as self-contained units called objects. Objects are stored in a flat structure—typically organized into containers called buckets—rather than the hierarchical folders of file storage or the addressed blocks of block storage.

Each object includes the data itself, metadata and a unique identifier, and this identifier is what enables the storage system to retrieve objects without a hierarchical structure. Users access and manage objects through application programming interfaces (APIs) rather than file paths or direct disk access. 

Object storage is highly scalable, making it ideal for large volumes of unstructured data. However, it generally has higher latency than block or file storage, which suits data that must be kept but is infrequently accessed, such as archives of legal, medical or financial documents, or use cases that can tolerate a bit more latency.

For example, because object storage provides an economical way to store massive amounts of data, with metadata that makes objects easy to search, it is often used to hold the datasets for training AI models.

This combination of scalability, searchability and tolerance for higher latency also makes object storage well suited for “WORM” (write once, read many) applications. Video libraries are a great use case for object storage: it might take a few seconds to load the video, but it’s highly searchable and reliable for many read-only accesses at once. Netflix, YouTube and other video distribution platforms use object storage for this purpose.

• Designed to handle large amounts of unstructured data, which is increasingly important for machine learning and big data analytics
  
  
• Typically priced on actual consumption rather than provisioned capacity, making it cost-effective
  
  
• Unlimited scalability
  
  
• Rich metadata contributes to advanced search capabilities

• Typically slower performance than other storage types
  
  
• Not designed for collaborative editing or frequent modification
  
  
• Cannot modify a single portion of a file. Objects are typically completed replaced, rather than edited in place, which is why it’s better for static or infrequently changed data

Object storage is best suited for large volumes of data that are written once and queried infrequently, rather than actively edited. Common examples include:

• AI training datasets
  
  
• Media repositories
  
  
• IoT sensor data
  
  
• Email archives
  
  
• Backup and recovery
  
  
• Video surveillance footage

Without unified storage, organizations must maintain separate siloed systems for file, block and object storage solutions. This can result in cost and performance inefficiencies, data redundancy and the increased complexity that comes with managing multiple separate systems. Unified storage introduces a single software portal for storage management.

From the user perspective, unified storage works essentially the same way siloed storage works. Billing departments can perform transactions to be saved in an SQL database via block storage. Users can save, share and access PDFs via file storage. Teams can store and query large volumes of unstructured data or media files with object storage.

Instead of these being three separate systems accessed with three separate tools, unified storage is accessed through a single portal and storage resources can be shared regardless of storage type.

From that access point, IT administrators can view a dashboard of all data storage, regardless of type. This storage management dashboard shows capacity and performance metrics and enables features like dynamic capacity allocation, tiering policy implementation and performance threshold and suspicious behavior alerts.

Unified storage can benefit organizations in several ways:

Duplication of files can be a drain on resources. Unified storage enables deduplication across file types and locations from a single platform, promoting storage efficiency. When new data is saved, unified storage software can scan across storage types, whether in cloud-based storage or on-premises repositories, to discern whether that data already exists elsewhere. If it does, it can replace the duplicate file with a pointer to the original copy.

In a siloed storage environment, a team might pay for 10 terabytes (TB) of storage for a file system and 10 terabytes of storage for a block system. If the file system uses only 1TB and the block system needs 12TB, the team would need to add more capacity to the block system while allowing 9TB of space on the file system to go unused. This doesn’t happen with unified storage; the IT administrator can simply allocate more storage from one system to another, increasing cost efficiency.

While cloud services provide flexibility in general capacity, unified storage enables organizations to reprovision storage they are already paying for from a single control panel.

At its base, unified storage can replace multiple accounts and multiple portals with a single interface. This makes it easier for IT professionals to get a comprehensive view of the organization’s data storage picture. This consolidation also simplifies tasks like reporting and firmware updates and drives cost savings for personnel and training.

While unified storage is often beneficial, there are some potential drawbacks. For example, there are cases in which unified storage is simply not necessary, making it difficult to justify the price of a new installation or migration.

Consolidating to a unified enterprise storage system often requires significant up-front costs: new hardware, networking equipment, software licenses and more. This can strain IT budgets. What’s more, migrating from stand-alone systems to a unified system requires meticulous planning to avoid data loss, presenting another expense. Organizations might also need to hire specialized technicians to operate a new unified system. For some organizations, these steep initial costs make unified storage unattainable.  

Cloud-based unified storage systems lower some of these initial costs, namely the hardware and networking costs, and replaces them with ongoing operational expenditures. This lowers the initial bar, but a cloud model can grow costly over time.

A cloud environment does not eliminate migration complexity, and while it does reduce the need for specialized staff, it does not completely solve that concern either—someone still needs to understand the storage architecture, data governance, security features and configurations and so on. A cloud model also introduces another consideration: vendor lock-in.

As with many software solutions, once an organization is committed to one piece of software, it can be expensive, time-consuming and complex to switch vendors. Unified storage is no exception, and the stakes are higher in this case with most software: an organization would have to migrate file, block and storage infrastructure simultaneously rather than a single system.

Using a unified storage system involves significant platform-specific configuration, such as security tools, deduplication settings, data lifecycle rules and automated tiering policies. All of these would have to be redone for any new provider. This dependency can give a vendor significant leverage over pricing and contract renewals.

Performance bottlenecks are a consideration when moving to unified storage, particularly for organizations with demanding block storage workloads. For example, a block storage database running a demanding workload can affect the performance of file or object storage workloads running simultaneously on the same platform in a way that wouldn’t happen if these workloads were all running on separate dedicated systems. 

In addition, purpose-built block storage arrays optimized for a single workload can often outperform a unified platform handling mixed workloads. This isn’t an inherent flaw of unified storage, but it is something IT leaders should consider as they plan their storage architecture.

While the single portal for access controls makes life easier for IT administrators, it also means that a catastrophic security or software failure can bring down an organization’s entire data storage. There are ways to combat this, however. Potential solutions for disaster recovery include frequent snapshots and backups to help minimize data loss in a worst-case scenario.

Simply put, unified storage is best suited for organizations that have significant data storage needs, rely on different storage types and want to streamline their workload. If an organization uses only file storage or only block storage, it’s often more affordable to opt for a dedicated system.