engenio Archives

January 14, 2013December 24, 2020

EMC VMAX 10K, looks like high-end storage systems are still alive

StorageIO industry trends cloud, virtualization and big data

This is the first in a multi-part series of posts looking at if large enterprise and legacy storage systems are dead, along with what todays EMC VMAX 10K updates means.

EMC has announced an upgrade, refresh or new version of their previously announced Virtual matrix (VMAX) 10,000 (10K), part of the VMAX family of enterprise class storage systems formerly known as DMX (Direct Matrix) and Symmetrix. I will get back to more coverage on the VMAX 10K and other EMC enhancements in a few moments in part two and three of this series.

Have you heard the industry myth about the demise or outright death of traditional storage systems? This has been particularly the case for high-end enterprise class systems, which by the way which were first, declared dead back in the mid-1990s then at the hands of emerging mid-range storage systems.

Enterprise class storage systems include EMC VMAX, Fujitsu Eternus DX8700, HDS, HP XP P9000 based on the HDS high-end product (OEM from HDS parent Hitachi Ltd.). Note that some HPers or their fans might argue that the P10000 (formerly known as 3PAR) declared as tier 1.5 should also be on the list; I will leave that up to you to decide.

Let us not forget the IBM DS8000 series (whose predecessors was known as the ESS and VSS before that); although some IBMers will tell you that XIV should also be in this list. High-end enterprise class storage systems such as those mentioned above are not alone in being declared dead at the hands of new all solid-state devices (SSD) and their startup vendors, or mixed and hybrid-based solutions.

Some are even declaring dead due to new SSD appliances or systems, and by storage hypervisor or virtual storage array (VSA) the traditional mid-range storage systems that were supposed to have killed off the enterprise systems a decade ago (hmm, DejaVu?).

The mid-range storage systems include among others block (SAN and DAS) and file (NAS) systems from Data Direct Networks (DDN), Dell Complement, EqualLogic and MD series (Netapp Engenio based), EMC VNX and Isilon, Fujitsu Eternus, and HDS HUS mid-range formerly known as AMS. Let us not forget about HP 3PAR or P2000 (DotHill based) or P6000 (EVA which is probably being put out to rest). Then there are the various IBM products (their own and what they OEM from others), NEC, NetApp (FAS and Engenio), Oracle and Starboard (formerly known as Reldata). Note that there are many startups that could be in the above list as well if they were not considering the above to be considered dead, thus causing themselves to also be extinct as well, how ironic ;).

What are some industry trends that I am seeing?

Some vendors and products might be nearing the ends of their useful lives

Some vendors, their products and portfolios continue to evolve and expand

Some vendors and their products are moving into new or adjacent markets

Some vendors are refining where and what to sell when and to who

Some vendors are moving up market, some down market

Some vendors are moving into new markets, others are moving out of markets

Some vendors are declaring others dead to create a new market for their products

One size or approach or technology does not fit all needs, avoid treating all the same

Leverage multiple tools and technology in creative ways

Maximize return on innovation (the new ROI) by using various tools, technologies in ways to boost productivity, effectiveness while removing complexity and cost

Realization that cutting cost can result in reduced resiliency, thus look for and remove complexity with benefit of removing costs without compromise

Storage arrays are moving into new roles, including as back-end storage for cloud, object and other software stacks running on commodity servers to replace JBOD (DejaVu anyone?).

Keep in mind that there is a difference between industry adoption (what is talked about) and customer deployment (what are actually bought and used). Likewise there is technology based on GQ (looks and image) and G2 (functionality, experience).

There is also an industry myth that SSD cannot or has not been successful in traditional storage systems which in some cases has been true with some products or vendors. Otoh, some vendors such as EMC, NetApp and Oracle (among others) are having good success with SSD in their storage systems. Some SSD startup vendors have been more successful on both the G2 and GQ front, while some focus on the GQ or image may not be as successful (or at least yet) in the industry adoption vs. customer deployment game.

For the above mentioned storage systems vendors and products (among others), or at least for most of them there is still have plenty of life in them, granted their role and usage is changing including in some cases being found as back-end storage systems behind servers running virtualization, cloud, object storage and other storage software stacks. Likewise, some of the new and emerging storage systems (hardware, software, valueware, services) and vendors have bright futures while others may end up on the where are they now list.

Are high-end enterprise class or other storage arrays and systems dead at the hands of new startups, virtual storage appliances (VSA), storage hypervisors, storage virtualization, virtual storage and SSD?

Are large storage arrays dead at the hands of SSD?

Have SSDs been unsuccessful with storage arrays (with poll)?

Here are links to two polls where you can cast your vote.

Cast your vote and see results of if large storage arrays and systems are dead here.

Cast your vote and see results of if SSD has not been successful in storage systems.

So what about it, are enterprise or large storage arrays and systems dead?

Perhaps in some tabloids or industry myths (or that some wish for) or in some customer environments, as well as for some vendors or their products that can be the case.

However, IMHO for many other environments (and vendors) the answer is no, granted some will continue to evolve from legacy high-end enterprise class storage systems to mid-range or to appliance or VSA or something else.

There is still life many of the storage systems architectures, platforms and products that have been declared dead for over a decade.

Continue reading about the specifics of the EMC VMAX 10K announcement in the next post in this series here. Also check out Chucks EMC blog to see what he has to say.

Ok, nuff said (for now).

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author Cloud and Virtual Data Storage Networking (CRC Press, 2011), The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC Press, 2009), and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier, 2004)

twitter @storageio

June 7, 2012November 26, 2023

NetApp on rough ground, or a diamond in the rough?

Storage I/O Industry Trends and Perspectives

In case you missed it, NetApp announced their most recent quarterly earnings a few weeks ago which in themselves were not bad. However what some of their competition jumping up and down for joy while others are scratching their heads is the forward-looking guidance given by NetApp.

NetApp can be seen as being on rough ground given their forward-looking guidance over the next year which could be seen as either very conservative, or an admission that they are not growing as fast as some of their competitors are challenging them.

Reading between the lines, looking at various financial and other resources in addition to factoring in technology items, there is more to NetApp then meets the eye and current stock price or product portfolio.

For example, NetApp is sitting on over $4 Billion USD cash that they could use for an acquisition, buying back stock, launching a major sales and marketing initiative to expand into new or adjacent markets or other activities. Speaking of acquisitions, NetApp has done some in the past including Spinnaker, which is now integrated with Ontap (e.g. clustering), Topio, Decru (security encryption) and Onaro (DCIM and IRM management software tools). More recently, NetApp has acquired Bycast (archiving and policy storage management software), Akorri (capacity management and DCIM and IRM software) and Engenio. NetApp is also maintaining good margins via both direct, channel and OEM activities while launching new products such as the channel and SMB focused FAS 2220.

Its arguable depending upon your point of view (or who you for or are a fan of) if NetApp has all the right product pieces now, in the works, or on their radar for acquisitions. Assuming that NetApp has the pieces, they also need to move beyond selling simply what is on the truck or what is safe and comfortable or perhaps easy to sell. This is not to say that NetApp is not being effective in selling what they have and pushing the envelope, however keeping in mind who their main competitor is, the old sales saying of being able to sell ice to an Eskimo comes to mind.

In the case of NetApp, when the competition makes an issue about scalibility or performance of their flagship storage systems FAS and Ontap storage software, change the playing field leveraging all the tools in their portfolio. NetApp like EMC before them is figuring out how to sell via different channels or venues their complete portfolio with a mix of direct, channel and OEM. After all, it seems like only yesterday that EMC was trying to figure out where and when to sell CLARiiON (e.g. now VNX) as opposed to avoiding competing with the Symmetrix (aka now the VMAX) not to mention expanding from a direct to channel and OEM model. Perhaps NetApp can continue to figure out how to leverage more effectively the Engenio E series for big bandwidth beyond their current OEMs. NetApp can also leverage their existing partners who have embraced Bycast (aka StorageGrid) while finding new ones.

The reality is that NetApp is being challenged by EMC who is moving down market into some of NetApp’s traditional accounts along with in the scale-out NAS and big data sectors. This is where NetApp can leverage their technical capabilities including people combined with some effective sales and marketing execution to change the playing field vs. responding to EMC and others.

NetApp has many of the pieces, parts, products, people, programs and partners so now how can they leverage those to expand both their revenues, as well as support margin to grow the business, unless they are looking to be acquired.

I still subscribe that NetApp and EMC are two similar companies on parallel tracks offset by time, by about a decade or decade and a half.

Storage I/O Industry Trends and Perspectives

Thus, IMHO NetApp is a diamond in the rough, granted I am guessing EMC and some others do not see it that way. However, there was a time when EMC was seen as a diamond in the rough while others discounted that notion, particularly an Itty Bitty Manufacturing company from New York who is now focusing on services among other things.

Keep in mind however, diamonds can also be lost or taken as well as there can be fake gems.

Here are some related links:
Unified storage systems showdown: NetApp FAS vs. EMC VNX
Two companies on parallel tracks moving like trains offset by time: EMC and NetApp
NetApp buying LSI’s Engenio Storage Business Unit

Ok, nuff said for now

Cheers Gs

Greg Schulz – Author Cloud and Virtual Data Storage Networking (CRC Press, 2011), The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC Press, 2009), and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier, 2004)

twitter @storageio

October 25, 2011November 25, 2019

Congratulations to IBM for releasing XIV SPC results

Over the past several years I have done an annual post about IBM and their XIV storage system and this is the fourth in what has become a series. You can read the first one here, the second one here, and last years here and here after the announcement of the IBM V7000.

IBM XIV Gen3
IBM recently announced the generation 3 or Gen3 version of XIV along with releasing for the first time public performance comparison benchmarks using storage performance council (SPC) throughout SPC2 workload.

The XIV Gen3 is positioned by IBM as having up to four (4) times the performance of earlier generations of the storage system. In terms of speeds and feeds, the Gen3 XIV supports up to 180 2TB SAS hard disk drives (HDD) that provides up to 161TB of usable storage space capacity. For connectivity, the Gen3 XIV supports up to 24 8Gb Fibre Channel (8GFC) or for iSCSI 22 1Gb Ethernet (1 GbE) ports with a total of up to 360GBytes of system cache. In addition to the large cache to boost performance, other enhancements include leveraging multi core processors along with an internal InfiniBand network to connect nodes replacing the former 1 GbE interconnect. Note, InfiniBand is only used to interconnect the various nodes in the XIV cluster and is not used for attachment to applications servers which is handled via iSCSI and Fibre Channel.

IBM and SPC storage performance history
IBM has a strong history if not leading the industry with benchmarking and workload simulation of their storage systems including Storage Performance Council (SPC) among others. The exception for IBM over the past couple of years has been the lack of SPC benchmarks for XIV. Last year when IBM released their new V7000 storage system benchmarks include SPC were available close to if not at the product launch. I have in the past commented about IBMs lack of SPC benchmarks for XIV to confirm their marketing claims given their history of publishing results for all of their other storage systems. Now that IBM has recently released SPC2 results for the XIV it is only fitting then that I compliment them for doing so.

Benchmark brouhaha
Performance workload simulation results can often lead to applies and oranges comparisons or benchmark brouhaha battles or storage performance games. For example a few years back NetApp submitted a SPC performance result on behalf of their competitor EMC. Now to be clear on something, Im not saying that SPC is the best or definitive benchmark or comparison tool for storage or other purpose as it is not. However it is representative and most storage vendors have released some SPC results for their storage systems in addition to TPC and Microsoft ESRP among others. SPC2 is focused on streaming such as video, backup or other throughput centric applications where SPC1 is centered around IOPS or transactional activity. The metrics for SPC2 are Megabytes per second (MBps) for large file processing (LFP), large database query (LDQ) and video on demand delivery (VOD) for a given price and protection level.

What is the best benchmark?
Simple, your own application in as close to as actual workload activity as possible. If that is not possible, then some simulation or workload simulation that closets resembles your needs.

Does this mean that XIV is still relevant?
Yes

Does this mean that XIV G3 should be used for every environment?
Generally speaking no. However its performance enhancements should allow it to be considered for more applications than in the past. Plus with the public comparisons now available, that should help to silence questions (including those from me) about what the systems can really do vs. marketing claims.

How does XIV compare to some other IBM storage systems using SPC2 comparisons?

System	SPC2 MBps	Cost per SPC2	Storage GBytes	Price tested	Discount	Protection
DS5300	5,634.17	$74.13	16,383	417,648	0%	R5
V7000	3,132.87	$71.32	29,914	$223,422	38-39%	R5
XIV G3	7,467.99	$152.34	154,619	1,137,641	63-64%	Mirror
DS8800	9,705.74	$270.38	71,537	2,624,257	40-50%	R5

In the above comparisons, the DS5300 (NetApp/Engenio based) is a dual controller (4GB of cache per controller) with 128 x 146.8GB 15K HDDs configured as RAID 5 with no discount applied to the price submitted. The V7000 system which is based on the IBM SVC along with other enhancements consists of dual controllers each with 8GB of cache and 120 x 10K 300GB HDDs configured as RAID 5 with just under a 40% discount off list price for system tested. For the XIV Gen3 system tested, discount off list price for the submission is about 63% with 15 nodes and a total of 360GB of cache and 180 2TB 7.2K SAS HDDs configured as mirrors. The DS8800 system with dual controllers has a 256GB of cache, 768 x 146GB 15K HDDs configured in RAID5 with a discount between 40 to 50% off of list.

What the various metrics do not show is the benefit of various features and functionality which should be considered to your particular needs. Likewise, if your applications are not centered around bandwidth or throughput, then the above performance comparisons would not be relevant. Also note that the systems above have various discount prices as submitted which can be a hint to a smart shopper where to begin negotiations at. You can also do some analysis of the various systems based on their performance, configuration, physical footprint, functionality and cost plus the links below take you to the complete reports with more information.

DS8800 SPC2 executive summary and full disclosure report

XIV SPC2 executive summary and full disclosure report

DS5300 SPC2 executive summary and full disclosure report

V7000 SPC2 executive summary and full disclosure report

Bottom line, benchmarks and performance comparisons are just that, a comparison that may or may not be relevant to your particular needs. Consequently they should be used as a tool combined with other information to see how a particular solution might be a fit for your specific needs. The best benchmark however is your own application running as close to possible realistic workload to get a representative perspective of a systems capabilities.

Ok, nuff said
Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author Cloud and Virtual Data Storage Networking (CRC Press, 2011), The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC Press, 2009), and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier, 2004)

twitter @storageio

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: