Tag: SSD

Posted on

Optimize Data Storage for Performance and Capacity Efficiency

This post builds on a recent article I did that can be read here.

Even with tough economic times, there is no such thing as a data recession! Thus the importance of optimizing data storage efficiency addressing both performance and capacity without impacting availability in a cost effective way to do more with what you have.

What this means is that even though budgets are tight or have been cut resulting in reduced spending, overall net storage capacity is up year over year by double digits if not higher in some environments.

Consequently, there is continued focus on stretching available IT and storage related resources or footprints further while eliminating barriers or constraints. IT footprint constraints can be physical in a cabinet or rack as well as floorspace, power or cooling thresholds and budget among others.

Constraints can be due to lack of performance (bandwidth, IOPS or transactions), poor response time or lack of availability for some environments. Yet for other environments, constraints can be lack of capacity, limited primary or standby power or cooling constraints. Other constraints include budget, staffing or lack of infrastructure resource management (IRM) tools and time for routine tasks.

Look before you leap
Before jumping into an optimization effort, gain insight if you do not already have it as to where the bottlenecks exist, along with the cause and effect of moving or reconfiguring storage resources. For example, boosting capacity use to more fully use storage resources can result in a performance issue or data center bottlenecks for other environments.

An alternative scenario is that in the quest to boost performance, storage is seen as being under-utilized, yet when capacity use is increased, low and behold, response time deteriorates. The result can be a vicious cycle hence the need to address the issue as opposed to moving problems by using tools to gain insight on resource usage, both space and activity or performance.

Gaining insight means looking at capacity use along with performance and availability activity and how they use power, cooling and floor-space. Consequently an important tool is to gain insight and knowledge of how your resources are being used to deliver various levels of service.

Tools include storage or system resource management (SRM) tools that report on storage space capacity usage, performance and availability with some tools now adding energy usage metrics along with storage or system resource analysis (SRA) tools.

Cooling Off
Power and cooling are commonly talked about as constraints, either from a cost standpoint, or availability of primary or secondary (e.g. standby) energy and cooling capacity to support growth. Electricity is essential for powering IT equipment including storage enabling devices to do their specific tasks of storing data, moving data, processing data or a combination of these attributes.

Thus, power gets consumed, some work or effort to move and store data takes place and the by product is heat that needs to be removed. In a typical IT data center, cooling on average can account for about 50% of energy used with some sites using less.

With cooling being a large consumer of electricity, a small percentage change to how cooling consumes energy can yield large results. Addressing cooling energy consumption can be to discuss budget or cost issues, or to enable cooling capacity to be freed up to support installation of extra storage or other IT equipment.

Keep in mind that effective cooling relies on removing heat from as close to the source as possible to avoid over cooling which requires more energy. If you have not done so, have a facilities review or assessment performed that can range from a quick walk around, to a more in-depth review and thermal airflow analysis. A means of removing heat close to the sort are techniques such as intelligent, precision or smart cooling also known by other marketing names.

Powering Up, or, Powering Down
Speaking of energy or power, in addition to addressing cooling, there are a couple of ways of addressing power consumption by storage equipment (Figure 1). The most popular discussed approach towards efficiency is energy avoidance involving powering down storage when not used such as first generation MAID at the cost of performance.

For off-line storage, tape and other removable media give low-cost capacity per watt with low to no energy needed when not in use. Second generation (e.g. MAID 2.0) solutions with intelligent power management (IPM) capabilities have become more prevalent enabling performance or energy savings on a more granular or selective basis often as a standard feature in common storage systems.

GreenOptionsBalance
Figure 1:  How various RAID levels and configuration impact or benefit footprint constraints

Another approach to energy efficiency is seen in figure 1 which is doing more work for active applications per watt of energy to boost productivity. This can be done by using same amount of energy however doing more work, or, same amount of work with less energy.

For example instead of using larger capacity disks to improve capacity per watt metrics, active or performance sensitive storage should be looked at on an activity basis such as IOP, transactions, videos, emails or throughput per watt. Hence, a fast disk drive doing work can be more energy-efficient in terms of productivity than a higher capacity slower disk drive for active workloads, where for idle or inactive, the inverse should hold true.

On a go forward basis the trend already being seen with some servers and storage systems is to do both more work, while using less energy. Thus a larger gap between useful work (for active or non idle storage) and amount of energy consumed yields a better efficiency rating, or, take the inverse if that is your preference for smaller numbers.

Reducing Data Footprint Impact
Data footprint impact reduction tools or techniques for both on-line as well as off-line storage include archiving, data management, compression, deduplication, space-saving snapshots, thin provisioning along with different RAID levels among other approaches. From a storage access standpoint, you can also include bandwidth optimization, data replication optimization, protocol optimizers along with other network technologies including WAFS/WAAS/WADM to help improve efficiency of data movement or access.

Thin provisioning for capacity centric environments can be used to achieving a higher effective storage use level by essentially over booking storage similar to how airlines oversell seats on a flight. If you have good historical information and insight into how storage capacity is used and over allocated, thin provisioning enables improved effective storage use to occur for some applications.

However, with thin provisioning, avoid introducing performance bottlenecks by leveraging solutions that work closely with tools that providing historical trending information (capacity and performance).

For a technology that some have tried to declare as being dead to prop other new or emerging solutions, RAID remains relevant given its widespread deployment and transparent reliance in organizations of all size. RAID also plays a role in storage performance, availability, capacity and energy constraints as well as a relief tool.

The trick is to align the applicable RAID configuration to the task at hand meeting specific performance, availability, capacity or energy along with economic requirements. For some environments a one size fits all approach may be used while others may configure storage using different RAID levels along with number of drives in RAID sets to meet specific requirements.


Figure 2:  How various RAID levels and configuration impact or benefit footprint constraints

Figure 2 shows a summary and tradeoffs of various RAID levels. In addition to the RAID levels, how many disks can also have an impact on performance or capacity, such as, by creating a larger RAID 5 or RAID 6 group, the parity overhead can be spread out, however there is a tradeoff. Tradeoffs can be performance bottlenecks on writes or during drive rebuilds along with potential exposure to drive failures.

All of this comes back to a balancing act to align to your specific needs as some will go with a RAID 10 stripe and mirror to avoid risks, even going so far as to do triple mirroring along with replication. On the other hand, some will go with RAID 5 or RAID 6 to meet cost or availability requirements, or, some I have talked with even run RAID 0 for data and applications that need the raw speed, yet can be restored rapidly from some other medium.

Lets bring it all together with an example
Figure 3 shows a generic example of a before and after optimization for a mixed workload environment, granted you can increase or decrease the applicable capacity and performance to meet your specific needs. In figure 3, the storage configuration consists of one storage system setup for high performance (left) and another for high-capacity secondary (right), disk to disk backup and other near-line needs, again, you can scale the approach up or down to your specific need.

For the performance side (left), 192 x 146GB 15K RPM (28TB raw) disks provide good performance, however with low capacity use. This translates into a low capacity per watt value however with reasonable IOPs per watt and some performance hot spots.

On the capacity centric side (right), there are 192 x 1TB disks (192TB raw) with good space utilization, however some performance hot spots or bottlenecks, constrained growth not to mention low IOPS per watt with reasonable capacity per watt. In the before scenario, the joint energy use (both arrays) is about 15 kWh or 15,000 watts which translates to about $16,000 annual energy costs (cooling excluded) assuming energy cost of 12 cents per kWh.

Note, your specific performance, availability, capacity and energy mileage will vary based on particular vendor solution, configuration along with your application characteristics.


Figure 3: Baseline before and after storage optimization (raw hardware) example

Building on the example in figure 3, a combination of techniques along with technologies yields a net performance, capacity and perhaps feature functionality (depends on specific solution) increase. In addition, floor-space, power, cooling and associated footprints are also reduced. For example, the resulting solution shown (middle) comprises 4 x 250GB flash SSD devices, along with 32 x 450GB 15.5K RPM and 124 x 2TB 7200RPM enabling an 53TB (raw) capacity increase along with performance boost.

The previous example are based on raw or baseline capacity metrics meaning that further optimization techniques should yield improved benefits. These examples should also help to discuss the question or myth that it costs more to power storage than to buy it which the answer should be it depends.

If you can buy the above solution for say under $50,000 (cost to power), or, let alone, $100,000 (power and cool) for three years which would also be a good acquisition, then the myth of buying is more expensive than powering holds true. However, if a solution as described above costs more, than the story changes along with other variables include energy costs for your particular location re-enforcing the notion that your mileage will vary.

Another tip is that more is not always better.

That is, more disks, ports, processors, controllers or cache do not always equate into better performance. Performance is the sum of how those and other pieces working together in a demonstrable way, ideally your specific application workload compared to what is on a product data sheet.

Additional general tips include:

  • Align the applicable tool, technique or technology to task at hand
  • Look to optimize for both performance and capacity, active and idle storage
  • Consolidated applications and servers need fast servers
  • Fast servers need fast I/O and storage devices to avoid bottlenecks
  • For active storage use an activity per watt metric such as IOP or transaction per watt
  • For in-active or idle storage, a capacity per watt per footprint metric would apply
  • Gain insight and control of how storage resources are used to meet service requirements

It should go without saying, however sometimes what is understood needs to be restated.

In the quest to become more efficient and optimized, avoid introducing performance, quality of service or availability issues by moving problems.

Likewise, look beyond storage space capacity also considering performance as applicable to become efficient.

Finally, it is all relative in that what might be applicable to one environment or application need may not apply to another.

Ok, nuff said.

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author Cloud and Virtual Data Storage Networking (CRC Press), The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC Press) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)
twitter @storageio

All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2024 Server StorageIO and UnlimitedIO LLC All Rights Reserved

Posted on

StorageIO aka Greg Schulz appears on Infosmack

If you are in the IT industry, and specifically have any interest or tie to data infrastructures from servers, to storage and networking including hardware, software, services not to mention virtualization and clouds, InfoSmack and Storage Monkeys should be on your read or listen list.

Recently I was invited to be a guest on the InfoSmack podcast which is about a 50 some minute talk show format around storage, networking, virtualization and related topics.

The topics discussed include Sun and Oracle from a storage standpoint, Solid State Disk (SSD) among others.

Now, a word of caution, InfoSmack is not your typical prim and proper venue, nor is it a low class trash talking production.

Its fun and informative where the hosts and attendees are not afraid of poking fun at them selves while exploring topics and the story behind the story in a candid non scripted manner.

Check it out.

Cheers – gs

Greg Schulz – StorageIOblog, twitter @storageio Author “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC)

Posted on

Data Center I/O Bottlenecks Performance Issues and Impacts

This is an excerpt blog version of the popular Server and StorageIO Group white paper "IT Data Center and Data Storage Bottlenecks" originally published August of 2006 that is as much if not more relevant today than it was in the past.

Most Information Technology (IT) data centers have bottleneck areas that impact application performance and service delivery to IT customers and users. Possible bottleneck locations shown in Figure-1 include servers (application, web, file, email and database), networks, application software, and storage systems. For example users of IT services can encounter delays and lost productivity due to seasonal workload surges or Internet and other network bottlenecks. Network congestion or dropped packets resulting in wasteful and delayed retransmission of data can be the results of network component failure, poor configuration or lack of available low latency bandwidth.

Server bottlenecks due to lack of CPU processing power, memory or under sized I/O interfaces can result in poor performance or in worse case scenarios application instability. Application including database systems bottlenecks due to excessive locking, poor query design, data contention and deadlock conditions result in poor user response time. Storage and I/O performance bottlenecks can occur at the host server due to lack of I/O interconnect bandwidth such as an overloaded PCI interconnect, storage device contention, and lack of available storage system I/O capacity.

These performance bottlenecks, impact most applications and are not unique to the large enterprise or scientific high compute (HPC) environments. The direct impact of data center I/O performance issues include general slowing of the systems and applications, causing lost productivity time for users of IT services. Indirect impacts of data center I/O performance bottlenecks include additional management by IT staff to trouble shoot, analyze, re-configure and react to application delays and service disruptions.


Figure-1: Data center performance bottleneck locations

Data center performance bottleneck impacts (see Figure-1) include:

  • Under utilization of disk storage capacity to compensate for lack of I/O performance capability
  • Poor Quality of Service (QoS) causing Service Level Agreements (SLA) objectives to be missed
  • Premature infrastructure upgrades combined with increased management and operating costs
  • Inability to meet peak and seasonal workload demands resulting in lost business opportunity

I/O bottleneck impacts
It should come as no surprise that businesses continue to consume and rely upon larger amounts of disk storage. Disk storage and I/O performance fuel the hungry needs of applications in order to meet SLAs and QoS objectives. The Server and StorageIO Group sees that, even with efforts to reduce storage capacity or improve capacity utilization with information lifecycle management (ILM) and Infrastructure Resource Management (IRM) enabled infrastructures, applications leveraging rich content will continue to consume more storage capacity and require additional I/O performance. Similarly, at least for the next few of years, the current trend of making and keeping additional copies of data for regulatory compliance and business continue is expected to continue. These demands all add up to a need for more I/O performance capabilities to keep up with server processor performance improvements.


Figure-2: Processing and I/O performance gap

Server and I/O performance gap
The continued need for accessing more storage capacity results in an alarming trend: the expanding gap between server processing power and available I/O performance of disk storage (Figure-2). This server to I/O performance gap has existed for several decades and continues to widen instead of improving. The net impact is that bottlenecks associated with the server to I/O performance lapse result in lost productivity for IT personal and customers who must wait for transactions, queries, and data access requests to be resolved.

Application symptoms of I/O bottlenecks
There are many applications across different industries that are sensitive to timely data access and impacted by common I/O performance bottlenecks. For example, as more users access a popular file, database table, or other stored data item, resource contention will increase. One way resource contention manifests itself is in the form of database “deadlock” which translates into slower response time and lost productivity. 

Given the rise and popularity of internet search engines, search engine optimization (SEO) and on-line price shopping, some businesses have been forced to create expensive read-only copies of databases. These read-only copies are used to support more queries to address bottlenecks from impacting time sensitive transaction databases.

In addition to increased application workload, IT operational procedures to manage and protect data help to contribute to performance bottlenecks. Data center operational procedures result in additional file I/O scans for virus checking, database purge and maintenance, data backup, classification, replication, data migration for maintenance and upgrades as well as data archiving. The net result is that essential data center management procedures contribute to performance challenges and impacting business productivity.

Poor response time and increased latency
Generally speaking, as additional activity or application workload including transactions or file accesses are performed, I/O bottlenecks result in increased response time or latency (shown in Figure-3). With most performance metrics more is better; however, in the case of response time or latency, less is better.  Figure-3 shows the impact as more work is performed (dotted curve) and resulting I/O bottlenecks have a negative impact by increasing response time (solid curve) above acceptable levels. The specific acceptable response time threshold will vary by applications and SLA requirements. The acceptable threshold level based on performance plans, testing, SLAs and other factors including experience serves as a guide line between acceptable and poor application performance.

As more workload is added to a system with existing I/O issues, response time will correspondingly decrease as was seen in Figure-3. The more severe the bottleneck, the faster response time will deteriorate (e.g. increase) from acceptable levels. The elimination of bottlenecks enables more work to be performed while maintaining response time below acceptable service level threshold limits.


Figure-3: I/O response time performance impact

Seasonal and peak workload I/O bottlenecks
Another common challenge and cause of I/O bottlenecks is seasonal and/or unplanned workload increases that result in application delays and frustrated customers. In Figure-4 a workload representing an eCommerce transaction based system is shown with seasonal spikes in activity (dotted curve). The resulting impact to response time (solid curve) is shown in relation to a threshold line of acceptable response time performance. For example, peaks due holiday shopping exchanges appear in January then dropping off increasing near mother’s day in May, then back to school shopping in August results in increased activity as does holiday shopping starting in late November.


Figure-4: I/O bottleneck impact from surge workload activity

Compensating for lack of performance
Besides impacting user productivity due to poor performance, I/O bottlenecks can result in system instability or unplanned application downtime. One only needs to recall recent electric power grid outages that were due to instability, insufficient capacity bottlenecks as a result of increased peak user demand.

I/O performance improvement approaches to address I/O bottlenecks have been to do nothing (incur and deal with the service disruptions) or over configure by throwing more hardware and software at the problem. To compensate for lack of I/O performance and counter the resulting negative impact to IT users, a common approach is to add more hardware to mask or move the problem.

However, this often leads to extra storage capacity being added to make up for a short fall in I/O performance. By over configuring to support peak workloads and prevent loss of business revenue, excess storage capacity must be managed throughout the non-peak periods, adding to data center and management costs. The resulting ripple affect is that now more storage needs to be managed, including allocating storage network ports, configuring, tuning, and backing up of data. This can and does result in environments that have storage utilization well below 50% of their useful storage capacity. The solution is to address the problem rather than moving and hiding the bottleneck elsewhere (rather like sweeping dust under the rug).

Business value of improved performance
Putting a value on the performance of applications and their importance to your business is a necessary step in the process of deciding where and what to focus on for improvement. For example, what is the value of reducing application response time and the associated business benefit of allowing more transactions, reservations or sales to be made? Likewise, what is the value of improving the productivity of a designer or animator to meet tight deadlines and market schedules? What is business benefit of enabling a customer to search faster for and item, place an order, access media rich content, or in general improve their productivity?

Server and I/O performance gap as a data center bottleneck
I/O performance bottlenecks are a wide spread issue across most data centers, affecting many applications and industries. Applications impacted by data center I/O bottlenecks to be looked at in more depth are electronic design automation (EDA), entertainment and media, database online transaction processing (OLTP) and business intelligence. These application categories represent transactional processing, shared file access for collaborative work, and processing of shared, time sensitive data.

Electronic design
Computer aided design (CAD), computer assisted engineering (CAE), electronic design automaton (EDA) and other design tools are used for a wide variety of engineering and design functions. These design tools require fast access to shared, secured and protected data. The objective of using EDA and other tools is to enable faster product development with better quality and improved worker productivity. Electronic components manufactured for the commercial, consumer and specialized markets rely on design tools to speed the time-to-market of new products as well as to improve engineer productivity.

EDA tools, including those from Cadence, Synopsis, Mentor Graphics and others, are used to develop expensive and time sensitive electronic chips, along with circuit boards and other components to meet market windows and suppler deadlines. An example of this is a chip vendor being able to simulate, develop, test, produce and deliver a new chip in time for manufacturers to release their new products based on those chips. Another example is aerospace and automotive engineering firms leveraging design tools, including CATIA and UGS, on a global basis relying on their suppler networks to do the same in a real-time, collaborative manner to improve productivity and time-to-market. These results in contention of shared file and data access and, as a work-around, more copies of data kept as local buffers.

I/O performance impacts and challenges for EDA, CAE and CAD systems include:

  • Delays in drawing and file access resulting in lost productivity and project delays
  • Complex configurations to support computer farms (server grids) for I/O and storage performance
  • Proliferation of dedicated storage on individual servers and workstations to improve performance

Entertainment and media
While some applications are characterized by high bandwidth or throughput, such as streaming video and digital intermediate (DI) processing of 2K (2048 pixels per line) and 4K (4096 pixels per line) video and film, there are many other applications that are also impacted by I/O performance time delays. Even bandwidth intensive applications for video production and other applications are time sensitive and vulnerable to I/O bottleneck delays. For example, cell phone ring tone, instant messaging, small MP3 audio, and voice- and e-mail are impacted by congestion and resource contention.

Prepress production and publishing requiring assimilation of many small documents, files and images while undergoing revisions can also suffer. News and information websites need to look up breaking stories, entertainment sites need to view and download popular music, along with still images and other rich content; all of this can be negatively impacted by even small bottlenecks.  Even with streaming video and audio, access to those objects requires accessing some form of a high speed index to locate where the data files are stored for retrieval. These indexes or databases can become bottlenecks preventing high performance storage and I/O systems from being fully leveraged.

Index files and databases must be searched to determine the location where images and objects, including streaming media, are stored. Consequently, these indices can become points of contention resulting in bottlenecks that delay processing of streaming media objects. When cell phone picture is taken phone and sent to someone, chances are that the resulting image will be stored on network attached storage (NAS) as a file with a corresponding index entry in a database at some service provider location. Think about what happens to those servers and storage systems when several people all send photos at the same time.

I/O performance impacts and challenges for entertainment and media systems include:

  • Delays in image and file access resulting in lost productivity
  • Redundant files and storage local servers to improve performance
  • Contention for resources causing further bottlenecks during peak workload surges

OLTP and business intelligence
Surges in peak workloads result in performance bottlenecks on database and file servers, impacting time sensitive OLTP systems unless they are over configured for peak demand. For example, workload spikes due to holiday and back-to-school shopping, spring break and summer vacation travel reservations, Valentines or Mothers Day gift shopping, and clearance and settlement on peak stock market trading days strain fragile systems. For database systems maintaining performance for key objects, including transaction logs and journals, it is important to eliminate performance issues as well as maintain transaction and data integrity.

An example tied to eCommerce is business intelligence systems (not to be confused with back office marketing and analytics systems for research). Online business intelligence systems are popular with online shopping and services vendors who track customer interests and previous purchases to tailor search results, views and make suggestions to influence shopping habits.

Business intelligence systems need to be fast and support rapid lookup of history and other information to provide purchase histories and offer timely suggestions. The relative performance improvements of processors shift the application bottlenecks from the server to the storage access network. These applications have, in some cases, resulted in an exponential increase in query or read operations beyond the capabilities of single database and storage instances, resulting in database deadlock and performance problems or the proliferation of multiple data copies and dedicated storage on application servers.

A more recent contribution to performance challenges, caused by the increased availability of on-line shopping and price shopping search tools, is low cost craze (LCC) or price shopping. LCC has created a dramatic increase in the number of read or search queries taking place, further impacting database and file systems performance. For example, an airline reservation system that supports price shopping while preventing impact to time sensitive transactional reservation systems would create multiple read-only copies of reservations databases for searches. The result is that more copies of data must be maintained across more servers and storage systems thus increasing costs and complexity. While expensive, the alternative of doing nothing results in lost business and market share.

I/O performance impacts and challenges for OLTP and business intelligence systems include:

  • Application and database contention, including deadlock conditions, due to slow transactions
  • Disruption to application servers to install special monitoring, load balance or I/O driver software
  • Increased management time required to support additional storage needed as a I/O workaround

Summary/Conclusion
It is vital to understand the value of performance, including response time or latency, and numbers of I/O operations for each environment and particular application. While the cost per raw TByte may seem relatively in-expensive, the cost for I/O response time performance also needs to be effectively addressed and put into the proper context as part of the data center QoS cost structure.

There are many approaches to address data center I/O performance bottlenecks with most centered on adding more hardware or addressing bandwidth or throughput issues. Time sensitive applications depend on low response time as workload including throughput increase and thus latency can not be ignored. The key to removing data center I/O bottlenecks is to find and address the problem instead of simply moving or hiding it with more hardware and/or software. Simply adding fast devices such as SSD may provide relief, however if the SSDs are attached to high latency storage controllers, the full benefit may not be realized. Thus, identify and gain insight into data center and I/O bottleneck paths eliminating issues and problems to boost productivity and efficiency.

Where to Learn More
Additional information about IT data center, server, storage as well as I/O networking bottlenecks along with solutions can be found at the Server and StorageIO website in the tips, tools and white papers, as well as news, books, and activity on the events pages. If you are in the New York area on September 23, 2009, check out my presentation on The Other Green – Storage Optimization and Efficiency that will touch on the above and other related topics. Download your copy of "IT Data Center and Storage Bottlenecks" by clicking here.

Ok, nuff said.

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author Cloud and Virtual Data Storage Networking (CRC Press), The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC Press) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)
twitter @storageio

All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2024 Server StorageIO and UnlimitedIO LLC All Rights Reserved

Posted on

Upcoming Out and About Events

Following up on previous Out and About updates ( here and here ) of where I have been, heres where I’m going to be over the next couple of weeks.

On September 15th and 16th 2009, I will be the keynote speaker along with doing a deep dive discussion around data deduplication in Minneapolis, MN and Toronto ON. Free Seminar, register and learn more here.

The Infrastructure Optimization and Planning Best Practices (V2.009) – Doing more with less without sacrificing storage, system or network capabilities Seminar series continues September 22, 2009 with a stop in Chicago. Free Seminar, register and learn more here.

On September 23, 2009 I will be in New York City at Storage Decisions conference participating in the Ask the Experts during the expo session as well as presenting The Other Green — Storage Efficiency and Optimization.

Throw out the "green“: buzzword, and you’re still left with the task of saving or maximizing use of space, power, and cooling while stretching available IT dollars to support growth and business sustainability. For some environments the solution may be consolation while others need to maintain quality of service response time, performance and availability necessitating faster, energy efficient technologies to achieve optimization objectives. To accomplish these and other related issues, you can turn to the cloud, virtualization, intelligent power management, data footprint reduction and data management not to mention various types of tiered storage and performance optimization techniques. The session will look at various techniques and strategies to optimize either on-line active or primary as well as near-line or secondary storage environment during tough economic times, as well as to position for future growth, after all, there is no such thing as a data recession!

Topics, technologies and techniques that will be discussed include among others:

  • Energy efficiency (strategic) vs. energy avoidance (tactical)
  • Optimization and the need for speed vs. the need for capacity
  • Metrics and measurements for management insight
  • Tiered storage and tiered access including SSD, FC, SAS and clouds
  • Data footprint reduction (archive, compress, dedupe) and thin provision
  • Best practices, financial incentives and what you can do today

Free event, learn more and register here.

Check out the events page for other upcoming events and hope to see you this fall while Im out and about.

Cheers – gs

Greg Schulz – StorageIOblog, twitter @storageio Author “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC)

Posted on

StorageIO in the news

StorageIO is regularly quoted and interviewed in various industry and vertical market venues and publications both on-line and in print on a global basis. The following is coverage, perspectives and commentary by StorageIO on IT industry trends including servers, storage, I/O networking, hardware, software, services, virtualization, cloud, cluster, grid, SSD, data protection, Green IT and more.

Realizing that some prefer blogs to webs to twitters to other venues, here are some recent links among others to media coverage and comments by me on a different topics that are among others found at www.storageio.com/news.html:

  • Virtualization Review: Comments on Clouds, Virtualizaiton and Cisco move into servers – July 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on Storage Resource Managemet (SRM) and related tools – July 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on flash SSD – July 2009
  • SearchDataBackup: Comments on Data backup reporting tools’ trends – July 2009
  • SearchServerVirtualization: Comments on Hyper-V R2 matches VMware with 64-processor support – July 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on HP buying IBRIX for clustered and Cloud NAS – July 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on HP buying IBRIX for clustered and Cloud NAS – July 2009
  • eWeek: Comments on NetApps next moves after DDUP and EMC – July 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on NetApps next moves after DDUP and EMC – July 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on EMC buying DataDomain, NetApps next moves – July 2009
  • SearchVirtualization: Comments on Microsft HyperV features and VMware – July 2009
  • SearchITchannel: Comments on social media for business – June 2009
  • SearchSMBstorage: Comments on Storage Resource Management (SRM) for SMBs – June 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on IT Merger & Acquisition activity – June 2009
  • Evolving Solutions: Comments on Storage Consolidation, Networking & Green IT – June 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on EMC letter to DDUP – June 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on best practices for effective thin provisioning – June 2009
  • Processor: Comments on Cloud computing, SaaS and SOAs – June 2009
  • Serverwatch: Comments in How EMC’s World Pulls the Data Center Together – June 2009
  • Processor: Comments on Virtual Security Is No Walk In The Park – May 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on EPA launching Green Storage specification – May 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on Storage Provisioning Tools – May 2009
  • Enterprise Systems Journal: Comments on Tape: The Zombie Technology – May 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on Oracle Keeping Sun Storage Business – May 2009
  • IT Health Blogging: Discussion about iSCSI vs. Fibre Channel for Virtual Environments – May 2009
  • IT Business Edge: Discussion about IT Data Center Futures – May 2009
  • IT Business Edge: Comments on Tape being a Green Technology – April 2009
  • Big Fat Finance Blog: Quoted in story about Green IT for Finance Operaitons – April 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on FLASH and SSD Storage – April 2009
  • SearchStorage AU: Comments on Data Classificaiton – April 2009
  • IT Knowledge Exchange: Comments on FCoE and Converged Networking Coming Together – April 2009
  • SearchSMBStorage: Comments on Data Deduplicaiton for SMBs – April 2009
  • SearchSMBStorage: Comments on Blade Storage for SMBs – April 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on MAID technology remaining underutilized – April 2009
  • SearchDataCenter: Closing the green gap: Expanding data centers with environmental benefits – April 2009
  • ServerWatch: Comments on What’s Selling In the Data Storage Market? – April 2009
  • ServerWatch: Comments on Oracle Buys Sun: The Consequences – April 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on Tiered Storage – April 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on Data Classification for Storage Managers – April 2009
  • wsradio.com Interview closing the Green Gap


  • IT Knowledge Exchange: Comments on FCoE eco-system maturing – April 2009
  • Internet Revolution: Comments on the Pre-mature death of the disk drive – April 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on EMC V-MAX announcement – April 2009
  • MSP Business Journal: Greg Schulz named an Eco-Tech Warrior – April 2009
  • Storage Magazine: Comments on Power-smart disk systems – April 2009
  • Storage Magazine: Comments on Replication Alternatives – April 2009
  • StorageIO Blog: Comments and Tape as a Green Storage Medium – April 2009
  • Inside HPC: Recent Comments on Tape and Green IT – April 2009
  • Processor.com: Recent Comments on Green and Virtual – April 2009
  • SearchDataCenter: Interview: Closing the green gap: Expanding data centers with environmental benefits – April 2009
  • Enterprise Systems Journal: Recent Comments and Tips – March 2009
  • Computer Technology Review: Recent Comments on The Green and Virtual Data Center – March 2009
  • VMblog: Comments on The Green and Virtual Data Center – March 2009
  • Sys-con: Comments on The Green and Virtual Data Center – March 2009
  • Server Watch: Comments on IBM possibly buying Sun – March 2009
  • Bnet: Comments on IBM possibly buying Sun – March 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on Tiered Storage 101 – March 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments – Cisco pushes into Servers March 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments – Cisco Entering Server Market March 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments – State of Storage Job Market – March 2009
  • SearchSMBStorage: Comments on SMB Storage Options – March 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on Sun Proposes New Solid State Storage Spec – March 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on Despite Economy, Storage Bargains Hard to Find – March 2009
  • TechWorld: Comments on Where to Stash Your Data – February 2009
  • ServerWatch: Green IT: Myths vs. Realities – February 2009
  • Byte & Switch: Going Green and the Economic Downturn – February 2009
  • CTR: Comments on Tape Hardly Being On Way Out – February 2009
  • Processor: Comments on SSD (FLASH and RAM) – February 2009
  • Internet News: Comments on Steve Wozniak joining SSD startup – February 2009
  • SearchServerVirtualization: Comments on I/O and Virtualization – February 2009
  • Technology Inc.: Comments on Data De-dupe for DR – February 2009
  • SearchStorage: Comments on NetApp SMB NAS – February 2009

    • Check out the Tips, Tools and White Papers, and News pages for additional commentary, coverage and related content or events.

    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

    All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2012 StorageIO and UnlimitedIO All Rights Reserved

    Posted on

    Recent tips, videos, articles and more

    Its been a busy year so far and there is still plenty more to do. Taking advantage of a short summer break, I’m getting caught up on some items including putting up a link to some of the recent articles, tips, reports, webcasts, videos and more that I have eluded to in recent posts. Realizing that some prefer blogs to webs to tweets to other venues, here are some links to recent articles, tips, videos, podcasts, webcasts, white papers and more that can be found on the StorageIO Tips, tools and White Papers pages.

    Recent articles, columns, tips, white papers and reports:

  • ITworld: The new green data center: From energy avoidance to energy efficiency August 2009
  • SearchSystemsChannel: Comparing I/O virtualization and virtual I/O benefits July 2009
  • SearchDisasterRecovery: Top server virtualization myths in DR and BC July 2009
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Saving Money with Green Data Storage Technology July 2009
  • SearchSMB ATE Tips: SMB Tips and ATE by Greg Schulz
  • SearchSMB ATE Tip: Tape library storage July 2009
  • SearchSMB ATE Tip: Server-based operating systems vs. PC-based operating systems June 2009
  • SearchSMB ATE Tip: Pros/cons of block/variable block dedupe June 2009
  • FedTechAt the Ready: High-availability storage hinges on being ready for a system failure May 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part XI – Key Elements For A Green and Virtual Data Center May 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part X – Basic Steps For Building a Green and Virtual Data Center May 2009
  • InfoStor Technology Options for Green Storage: April 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part IX – I/O, I/O, Its off to Virtual Work We Go: Networks role in Virtual Data Centers April 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part VIII – Data Storage Can Become Green: There are many steps you can take April 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part VII – Server Virtualization Can Save Costs April 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part VI – Building a Habitat for Technology April 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part V – Data Center Measurement, Metrics & Capacity Planning April 2009
  • zJournal Storage & Data Management: Tips for Enabling Green and Virtual Efficient Data Management March 2009
  • Serial Storage Wire (STA): Green and SASy = Energy and Economic, Effective Storage March 2009
  • SearchSystemsChannel: FAQs: Green IT strategies for solutions providers March 2009
  • Computer Technology Review: Recent Comments on The Green and Virtual Data Center March 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part IV – Virtual Data Centers Can Promote Business Growth March 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part III – The Challenge of IT Infrastructure Resource Management March 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part II – Building an Efficient & Ecologically Friendly Data Center March 2009
  • Byte & Switch Part I – The Green Gap – Addressing Environmental & Economic Sustainability March 2009
  • Byte & Switch Green IT and the Green Gap February 2009
  • GreenerComputing: Enabling a Green and Virtual Data Center February 2009

    • Some recent videos and podcasts include:

  • bmighty.com The dark side of SMB virtualization July 2009
  • bmighty.com SMBs Are Now Virtualization’s “Sweet Spot” July 2009
  • eWeek.com Green IT is not dead, its new focus is about efficiency July 2009
  • SearchSystemsChannel FAQ: Using cloud computing services opportunities to get more business July 2009
  • SearchStorage FAQ guide – How Fibre Channel over Ethernet can combine networks July 2009
  • SearchDataCenter Business Benefits of Boosting Web hosting Efficiency June 2009
  • SearchStorageChannel Disaster recovery services for solution providers June 2009
  • The Serverside The Changing Dynamic of the Data Center April 2009
  • TechTarget Virtualization and Consolidation for Agility: Intels Xeon Processor 5500 series May 2009
  • TechTarget Virtualization and Consolidation for Agility: Intels Xeon Processor 5500 series May 2009
  • Intel Reduce Energy Usage while Increasing Business Productivity in the Data Center May 2009
  • WSRadio Closing the green gap and shifting towards an IT efficiency and productivity April 2009
  • bmighty.com July 2009

    • Check out the Tips, Tools and White Papers, and News pages for more commentary, coverage and related content or events.

    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

    All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2012 StorageIO and UnlimitedIO All Rights Reserved

    Posted on

    SPC and Storage Benchmarking Games

    Storage I/O trends

    There is a post over in one of the LinkedIn Discussion forums about storage performance council (SPC) benchmarks being miss-leading that I just did a short response post to. Here’s the full post as LinkedIn has a short post response limit.

    While the SPC is far from perfect, it is at least for block, arguably better than doing nothing.

    For the most part, SPC has become a de facto standard for at least block storage benchmarks independent of using IOmeter or other tools or vendor specific simulations, similar how MSFT ESRP is for exchange, TPC for database, SPEC for NFS and so forth. In fact, SPC even recently rather quietly rolled out a new set of what could be considered the basis for Green storage benchmarks. I would argue that SPC results in themselves are not misleading, particularly if you take the time to look at both the executive and full disclosures and look beyond the summary.

    Some vendors have taken advantage of the SPC results playing games with discounting on prices (something that’s allowed under SPC rules) to show and make apples to oranges comparisons on cost per IOP or other ploys. This proactive is nothing new to the IT industry or other industries for that matter, hence benchmark games.

    Where the misleading SPC issue can come into play is for those who simply look at what a vendor is claiming and not looking at the rest of the story, or taking the time to look at the results and making apples to apples, instead of believing the apples to oranges comparison. After all, the results are there for a reason. That reason is for those really interested to dig in and sift through the material, granted not everyone wants to do that.

    For example, some vendors can show a highly discounted list price to get a better IOP per cost on an apple to oranges basis, however, when processes are normalized, the results can be quite different. However here’s the real gem for those who dig into the SPC results, including looking at the configurations and that is that latency under workload is also reported.

    The reason that latency is a gem is that generally speaking, latency does not lie.

    What this means is that if vendor A doubles the amount of cache, doubles the number of controllers, doubles the number of disk drives, plays games with actual storage utilization (ASU), utilizes fast interfaces from 10 GbE  iSCSI to 8Gb FC or FCoE or SAS to get a better cost per IOP number with discounting, look at the latency numbers. There have been some recent examples of this where vendor A has a better cost per IOP while achieving a higher number of IOPS at a lower cost compared to vendor B, which is what is typically reported in a press release or news story. (See a blog entry that also points to a CMG presentation discussion around this topic here.

    Then go and look at the two results, vendor B may be at list price while vendor A is severely discounted which is not a bad thing, as that is then the starting list price as to which customers should start negotiations. However to be fair, normalize the pricing for fun, look at how much more equipment vendor A may need while having to discount to get the price to offset the increased amount of hardware, then look at latency.

    In some of the recent record reported results, the latency results are actually better for a vendor B than for a vendor A and why does latency matter? Beyond showing what a controller can actually do in terms of levering  the number of disks, cache, interface ports and so forth, the big kicker is for those talking about SSD (RAM or FLASH) in that SSD generally is about latency. To fully effectively utilize SSD which is a low latency device, you would want a controller that can do a decent job at handling IOPS; however you also need a controller that can do a decent job of handling IOPS with low latency under heavy workload conditions.

    Thus the SPC again while far from perfect, at least for a thumb nail sketch and comparison is not necessarily misleading, more often than not it’s how the results are utilized that is misleading. Now in the quest for the SPC administrators to try and gain more members and broader industry participation and thus secure their own future, is the SPC organization or administration opening itself up to being used more and more as a marketing tool in ways that potentially compromise all the credibility (I know, some will dispute the validity of SPC, however that’s reserved for a different discussion ;) )?

    There is a bit of Déjà here for those involved with RAID and storage who recall how the RAID Advisory Board (RAB) in its quest to gain broader industry adoption and support succumbed to marketing pressures and use or what some would describe as miss-use and is now a member of the “Where are they now” club!

    Don’t get me wrong here; I like the SPC tests/results/format, there is a lot of good information in the SPC. The various vendor folks who work very hard behind the scenes to make the SPC actually work and continue to evolve it also all deserve a great big kudos, an “atta boy” or “atta girl” for the fine work that have been doing, work that I hope does not become lost in the quest to gain market adoption for the SPC.

    Ok, so then this should all then beg the question of what is the best benchmark. Simple, the one that most closely resembles your actual applications, workload, conditions, configuration and environment.

    Ok, nuff said.

    Cheers gs

    Greg Schulz – Author Cloud and Virtual Data Storage Networking (CRC Press), The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC Press) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)
    twitter @storageio

    All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2024 Server StorageIO and UnlimitedIO LLC All Rights Reserved

    Posted on

    Shifting from energy avoidance to energy efficiency

    Storage I/O trends

    I’m continually amazed at the number of people in the IT industry from customers to vendors, vars to media and even analysts who associate Green IT with and only with reducing carbon footprints. I guess I should not be surprised given the amount of rhetoric around Green and carbon both in the IT industry as well as in general resulting in a Green Gap.

    The reality as I have discussed in the past is that Green IT while addressing carbon footprint topics, is really more about efficiency and optimization for business economic benefits that also help the environment. From a near-term tactical perspective, Green IT is about boosting productivity and enabling business sustainability during tough economic times, doing more with less, or, doing more with what you have. On a strategic basis, Green IT is about continued sustainability while also improving top and bottom line economics and repositioning IT as a competitive advantage resource.

    There is a lot of focus on energy avoidance, as it is relatively easy to understand and it is also easy to implement. Turning off the lights, turning off devices when they are not in use, enabling low-power, energy-savings or Energy Star® (now implemented for servers with storage being a new focus) modes are all means to saving or reducing energy consumption, emissions, and energy bills.

    Ideal candidates for powering down when not in use or inactive include desktop workstations, PCs, laptops, and associated video monitors and printers. Turning lights off or implementing motion detectors to turn lights off automatically, along with powering off or enabling energy-saving modes on general-purpose and consumer products has a significant benefit. New generations of processors such as the Intel Xeon 5xxx or 7xxx series (formerly known as Nehalem) provide the ability to boost performance when needed, or, go into various energy conservation modes when possible to balance performance, availability and energy needs to applicable service requirements, a form of intelligent power management.

    In Figure 1 are shown four basic approaches (in addition to doing nothing) to energy efficiency. One approach is to avoid energy usage, similar to following a rationing model, but this approach will affect the amount of work that can be accomplished. Another approach is to do more work using the same amount of energy, boosting energy efficiency, or the complement—do the same work using less energy.

    Tiered Storage
    Figure 1 the Many Faces of Energy Efficiency (Source: “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC)

    The energy efficiency gap is the difference between the amount of work accomplished or information stored in a given footprint and the energy consumed. In other words, the bigger the energy efficiency gap, the better, as seen in the fourth scenario, doing more work or storing more information in a smaller footprint using less energy.

    Given the shared nature of their use along with various intersystem dependencies, not all data center resources can be powered off completely. Some forms of storage devices can be powered off when they are not in use, such as offline storage devices or mediums for backups and archiving. Technologies such as magnetic tape or removable hard disk drives that do not need power when they are not in use can be used for storing inactive and dormant data.

    Avoiding energy use can be part of an approach to address power, cooling, floor space and environmental (PCFE) challenges, particularly for servers, storage, and networks that do not need to be used or accessible at all times. However, not all applications, data or workloads can be consolidated, or, powered down due to performance, availability, capacity, security, compatibility, politics, financial and many other reasons. For those applications that cannot be consolidated, the trick is to support them in a more efficient and effective means.

    Simply put, when work needs to be done or information needs to be stored or retrieved or data moved, it should be done so in the most energy-efficient manner aligned to a given level of service which can mean leveraging faster, higher performing resources (servers, storage and networks) to get the job done fast resulting in improved productivity and efficiency.

    Tiering is an approach that applies to servers, storage, and networks as well as data protection. For example, tiered servers include large frame or mainframes, rack mount as well as blades with various amounts of memory, I/O or expansion slots and number of processor cores at different speeds. Tiered storage includes different types of mediums and storage system architectures such as those shown in figure 2. Tiered networking or tiered access includes 10Gb and 1Gb Ethernet, 2/4/8 Gb Fibre Channel, Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE), iSCSI, NAS and shared SAS among others. Tiered data protection includes various technologies to meet various recovery time objectives (RTO) and recovery point objectives (RPO) such as real-time synchronous mirroring with snapshots, to periodic backup to disk or tape among other approaches, techniques and technologies.

    Technology alignment (Figure 2), that is aligning the applicable type of storage or server resource and devices to the task at hand to meet application service requirements is essential to archiving an optimized and efficient IT environment. For example, for very I/O intensive active data as shown in figure 2, leveraging ultra fast tier-0 high-performance SSD (FLASH or RAM) storage, or for high I/O active data, tier-1 fast 15.5K SAS and Fibre Channel storage based systems would be applicable.

    For active and on-line data, that’s where energy efficiency in the form of fast disk drives including RAM SSD or FLASH SSD (for reads, writes are another story) and in particular fast 15.5K or 10K FC and SAS energy efficient disks and their associated storage systems come into play. The focus for active data and storage systems should be around more useful work per unit of energy consumed in a given footprint. For example, more IOPS per watt, more transactions per watt, more bandwidth or video streams per watt, more files or emails processed per watt.

    Tiered Storage

    Figure 2 Tiered Storage: Balancing Performance, Availability, Capacity and Energy to QoS (Source: “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC)

    For low-performance, low activity applications where the focus is around storing as much data as possible with the lowest cost including for disk to disk based backup, slower high capacity SATA based storage systems are the fit (lower right in figure 2). For long-term bulk storage to meet archiving, data retention or other retention needs as well as storing large monthly full backups or long term data preservation, tape remains the ticket for large environments with the best combination of performance, availability capacity and energy efficiency and cost per footprint.

    General approaches to boost energy efficiency include:

    • Do more work using the same or less amount of power and subsequently cooling
    • Leverage faster processors/controllers that use the same or less power
    • Apply applicable RAID level to application and data QoS requirements
    • Consolidate slower storage or servers to a faster, more energy-efficient solution
    • Use faster disk drives with capacity boost and that draw less power
    • Upgrade to newer, faster, denser, more energy-efficient technologies
    • Look beyond capacity utilization; keep response time and availability in mind
    • Leverage IPM, AVS, and other techniques to vary performance and energy usage
    • Manage data both locally and remote; gain control and insight before moving problems
    • Leverage a data footprint reduction strategy across all data and storage tiers
    • Utilize multiple data footprint techniques including archive, compression and de-dupe
    • Reduce data footprint impact, enabling higher densities of stored on-line data

    Find a balance between energy avoidance and energy efficiency, consolidation and business enablement for sustainably, hardware and software, best practices including policy and producers, as well as leveraging available financial rebates and incentives. Addressing green and PCFE issues is a process; there is no one single solution or magic formula.

    Efficient and Optimized IT Wheel of Oppourtunity

    Figure 3 Wheel of Opportunity – Various Techniques and Technologies for Infrastructure Optimization (Source: “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC)

    Instead, leverage a combination of technologies, techniques, and best practices to address various issues and requirements is needed (Figure 3). Some technologies and techniques include among others infrastructure resource management (IRM), data management, archiving (including for non-compliance), and compression (on-line and off-line, primary and secondary) as well as de-dupe for backups, space saving snapshots, and effective use of applicable raid levels.

    Green washing and green hype may fade away, however power, cooling, footprint, energy (PCFE) and related issues and initiatives that enable IT infrastructure optimization and business sustainability will not fade away. Addressing IT infrastructure optimization and efficiency is thus essential to IT and business sustainability and growth in an environmentally friendly manner which enables shifting from talking about green to being green and efficient.

    Learn more on the tips, tools, articles, videos and reports page as well as in “Cloud and Virtual Data Storage Networking” (CRC) pages, “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC) pages at StorageIO.com.

    Ok, nuff said.

    Cheers gs

    Greg Schulz – Author Cloud and Virtual Data Storage Networking (CRC Press), The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC Press) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)
    twitter @storageio

    All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2024 Server StorageIO and UnlimitedIO LLC All Rights Reserved

    Posted on

    Has SSD put Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) On Endangered Species List?

    Storage I/O trends

    Disclosure: I have been a user, vendor, author and analyst covering and a fan (and continue to be) of SSD for over 20 years

    I have thought and wanting to post about this for a while, however recently several things popped up including moderating a panel where a vendor representative told the audience that the magnetic hard disk drive (HDD) would be dead in two, at most three years. While there were a few nods from those in the audience, the majority smiled politely, chuckled, looked at their watches or returned to doing email, twitters, texting or simply rolled their eyes in a way like, yeah right, we have heard this before ( ;) ).

    Likewise, I have done many events including seminars, keynotes including at a recent CMG event (the performance and capacity planning group that I have been a part of for many years), webcasts and other interactions with IT pros, vendors, vars and media. These interactions have included among other topics, IT optimization, boosting server and storage efficiency, as well as the roll of tiering IT resources to boost efficiency, achieve better productivity while boosting performance in a cost-effective way during touch economic times, in other words, the other green IT!

    Then the other day, I received an email from Mary Jander over at Internet Evolution. You may remember Mary from her days over at Byte & Switch. Mary was looking for a point, counter point, perspective and sound bit to a recent blog posting on her site and basically asked if I thought that the high performance HDD would be dead in a couple of years at the cost of FLASH SSD. Having given Mary some sound bits and perspectives which appear in her Article/Blog posting, there has since been a fun and lively discourse in Marys’ Internet Evolution blog comment section which could be seen by some as the pending funeral for high performance HDDs.

    There has been a lot of work taking place including by industry trade groups such as the SNIA Solid State Storage Initiative (SSSI) among others, not to mention many claims, discussions, banter and even some trash talk about how the magnetic hard disk drives (HDD) that as a technology is over 50 years old now, is nearing the end of the road and is about to be replaced by FLASH SSD in the next two to three years depending on who you talk with or listen to.

    That may very well be the case, however, I have a strong suspicion that while the high performance 3.5" Fibre Channel 15,500 Revolution per minute (15.5K RPM) HDD is nearing the end of the line, I don’t believe that the 2.5" small form factor (SFF) Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) 15.5K (maybe faster in the future?) high performance and larger capacity HDD will have met its demise in the two to three-year timeframe.

    The reason I subscribe to this notion is that of a need for balancing performance, availability, capacity, energy to a given power, cooling, floor space and environmental need along with price to meet different tiers of application and data quality of service and service level needs. Simply put, there continues to be a need even with some the new or emerging enhanced intelligence capabilities of storage systems for tiered media. That is tier-0 ultra fast SSD (FLASH or RAM) in a 2.5" form factor with SATA shifting to SAS connectivity, tier-1 fast 2.5" SAS 15.5K large capacity HDDs, tier-2 2.5" SATA and SAS high-capacity, 5.4 to 10K HDDs, or, ultra large capacity SAS and SATA 3.5" HDDs to meet different performance, availability, capacity, energy and economic points.

    Why not just use SSD FLASH for all high performance activity, after all it excels in reads correct? Yup, however, take a closer look at write performance which is getting better and better, even with less reliance on intelligent controllers, firmware and RAM as a buffer. However, there is still a need for a balance of Tier-0, Tier-1, Tier-2, Tier-3 etc mediums to balance different requirements and stretch strained IT budgets to do more efficiency.

    Maybe I’m stuck in my ways and spend to much time talking with IT professionals including server or storage architects, as well as IT planners, purchasers and others in the trenches and not enough time drinking the cool-aid and believing the evangelists and truth squads ;). However there is certainly no denying that Solid State Devices (SSD) using either RAM or FLASH are back in the spotlight again as SSD has been in the past, this time for many reasons with adoption continuing to grow. I think that its safe to say that some HDDs will fade away like other earlier generations have, such as the 3.5" FC HDD, however other HDDs like the high performance 2.5" SAS HDDs have some time to enjoy before their funeral or wake.

    What say you?

    BTW, check out this popular (and its Free) StorageIO Industry Trends and Perspectives White Paper Report that looks at various data center performance bottlenecks and how to discuss them to transition towards becoming more efficient. However a warning, you might actually be inclined to jump on the SSD bandwagon.

    Oh, and there’s nothing wrong with SSD, after all as I mentioned earlier, I’m a huge fan, however, I’m also a huge fan of spinning HDDs having skipped SSD in my latest computer purchases for fast 7.2K (or faster) HDDs with FLASH for portability (encrypted of course). After all, it’s also about balancing the different tiers of storage mediums to the task at hand, that is, unless you subscribe to the notion that one tool or technique should be used to solve all problems which is fine if that is your cup of tea.

    Ok, nuff said.

    Cheers gs

    Greg Schulz – Author Cloud and Virtual Data Storage Networking (CRC Press), The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC Press) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)
    twitter @storageio

    All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2024 Server StorageIO and UnlimitedIO LLC All Rights Reserved

    Posted on

    Storage Decisions Spring 2009 Sessions Update

    StorageDecisions Logo

    The conference lineup and details for the Spring 2009 Storage Decisions event (June 1st and 2nd) in Chicago is coming together including two talks/presentations that I will be doing. One will be in Track 2 (Disaster Recovery) titled "Server Virtualization, Business Continuance and Disaster Recovery" and the other in Track 6 (Management/Executive) titled "The Other Green — Storage Efficiency and Optimization" with both sessions leveraging themes and topics from my new book "The Green and Virtual Data Center" (CRC).

    Track 2: Disaster Recovery
    Server Virtualization, Business Continuance and Disaster Recovery
    Presented by Greg Schulz, Founder and Senior Analyst, StorageIO
    Server virtualization has the potential to bring sophisticated business continuance (BC) and disaster recovery (DR) techniques to organizations that previously didn’t have the means to adopt them. Likewise, virtualized as well as cloud environments need to be included in a BC/DR plan to enable application and data availability. Learn tips and tricks on building an accessible BC/DR strategy and plan using server virtualization and the storage products that enable efficient, flexible green and virtual data centers.

    Topics include:
    * Cross technology domain data protection management
    * Tiered data protection to stretch your IT budget dollar
    * What’s needed to enable BC/DR for virtualized environments
    * How virtualization can enable BC/DR for non-virtualized environments
    * General HA, BC/DR and data protection tips for virtual environments

    Track 6: Management/Executive
    The Other Green — Storage Efficiency and Optimization
    Throw out the "green“: buzzword, and you’re still left with the task of saving or maximizing use of space, power, and cooling while stretching available IT dollars to support growth and business sustainability. For some environments the solution may be consolation while others need to maintain quality of service response time, performance and availability necessitating faster, energy efficient technologies to achieve optimization objectives. To accomplish these and other related issues, you can turn to the cloud, virtualization, intelligent power management, data footprint reduction and data management not to mention various types of tiered storage and performance optimization techniques. The session will look at various techniques and strategies to optimize either on-line active or primary as well as near-line or secondary storage environment during tough economic times, as well as to position for future growth, after all, there is no such thing as a data recession!

    Topics include:
    * Energy efficiency (strategic) vs. energy avoidance (tactical)
    * Optimization and the need for speed vs. the need for capacity
    * Metrics and measurements for management insight
    * Tiered storage and tiered access including SSD, FC, SAS and clouds
    * Data footprint reduction (archive, compress, dedupe) and thin provision
    * Best practices, financial incentives and what you can do today

    See you in Chicago in June if not before then. Learn more about other upcoming events and activities on the StorageIO events page.

    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

    All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2012 StorageIO and UnlimitedIO All Rights Reserved

    Posted on

    March and Mileage Mania Wrap-up

    Today’s flight to Santa Ana (SNA) Orange County California for an 18 hour visit marks my 3rd trip to the left coast in the past four weeks that started out with a trip to Los Angeles. The purpose of today’s trip is to deliver a talk around Business Continuance (BC) and Disaster recovery (DR) topics for virtual server and storage environments along with related data transformation topics themes, part of a series of on-going events.

    Planned flight path from MSP to SNA, note upper midwest snow storms. Thanks to Northwest Airlines, now part of Delta!
    Planned flight path from MSP to SNA courtesy of Northwest Airlines, now part of Delta

    This is a short trip to southern California in that I have to be back in Minneapolis for a Wednesday afternoon meeting followed by keynoting at an IT Infrastructure Optimization Seminar downtown Minneapolis Thursday morning. Right after Thursday morning session, its off to the other coast for some Friday morning and early afternoon sessions in the Boston area, the results of which I hope to be able to share with you in a not so distant future posting.

    Where has March gone? Its been a busy and fun month out on the road with in-person seminars, vendor and user group events in Minneapolis, Los Angles, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Atlanta, St. Louis, Birmingham, Minneapolis for CMG user group, Cincinnati and Orange County not to mention some other meetings and consulting engagements elsewhere including participating in a couple of webcast and virtual conference/seminars while on the road. Coverage and discussion around my new book "The Green and Virtual Data Center" (CRC) continues expand, read here to see what’s being said.

    What has made the month fun in addition to traveling around the country is the interaction with the hundreds of IT professionals from organizations of all size hearing what they are encountering, what their challenges are, what they are thinking, and in general what’s on their mind.

    Some of the common themes include:

  • There’s no such thing as a data recession, however the result is doing more with less, or, with what you have
  • Confusion abounds around green hype including carbon footprints vs. core IT and business issues
  • There is life beyond consolidation for server and storage virtualization to enable business agility
  • Security and encryption remain popular topic as does heterogeneous and affordable key management
  • End to end IT resource management for virtual environments is needed that is scalable and affordable
  • Performance and quality of service can not be sacrificed in the quest to drive up storage utilization
  • Clouds, SSD (FLASH), Dedupe, FCoE and Thin Provisioning among others are on the watch list
  • Tape continues to be used complimenting disks in tiered storage environments along with VTLs
  • Dedupe continues to be deployed and we are just seeing the very tip of the ice-berg of opportunity
  • Software licensing cost savings or reallocation should be a next step focus for virtual environments

    • Now, for a bit of irony and humor, overheard was a server sales person talking to a storage sales person comparing notes on how they are missing their forecasts as their customers are buying fewer servers and storage now that they are consolidating with virtualization, or using disk dedupe to eliminate disk drives. Doh!!!

    Now if those sales people can get their marketing folks to get them the play book for virtualization for business agility, improving performance and enabling business growth in an optimized, transformed environment, they might be able to talk a different story with their customers for new opportunities…

    What’s on deck for April? More of the same, however also watch and listen for some additional web based content including interviews quotes and perspectives on industry happenings, articles, tips and columns, reports, blogs, videos, podcasts, webcasts and twitter activity as well as appearances at events in Boston, Chicago, New Jersey and Providence among other venues.

    To all of those who came out to the various events in March, thank you very much and look forward to future follow-up conversations as well as seeing you at some of the upcoming future events.

    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

    All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2012 StorageIO and UnlimitedIO All Rights Reserved

    Posted on

    On The Road Again: An Update

    A while back, I posted about a busy upcoming spring schedule of activity and events, and then a few weeks ago, posted an update, so this can be considered the latest "On The Road Again" update. While the economy continues to be in rough condition and job reductions or layoffs continuing, or, reduction in hours or employees being asked to take time off without pay or to take sabbaticals, not to mention the race to get the economic stimulus bill passed, for many people, business and life goes on.

    Airport parking lots have plenty of cars in them, airplanes while not always full, are not empty (granted there has been some fleet optimization aka aligning capacity to best suited tier of aircraft and other consolidation or capacity improvements). Many organizations cutting back on travel and entertainment (T&E) spending, either to watch the top and bottom line, avoid being perceived or seen on the news as having employees going on junkets when they may in fact being going to conferences, seminars, conventions or other educational and related events to boost skills and seek out ways to improve business productivity.

    One of the reason that I have a busy travel schedule in addition to my normal analyst and consulting activities is that many events and seminars are being scheduled close to, or in the cities where IT professionals are located who might otherwise have T&E restrictions or other constraints from traveling to industry events, some of which are or will be impacted by recent economic and business conditions.

    Last week I was invited to attend and speak at the FujiFilm Executive Seminar, no private jets were used or seen, travel was via scheduled air carriers (coach air-fare). FujiFilm has a nice program for those interested in or involved with tape whether for disk to tape backup, disk to disk to tape, long term archive, bulk storage and other scenarios involving the continued use and changing roles of tape as a green data storage medium for in-active or off-line data. Check out FujiFilm TapePower Center portal.

    This past week I was in the big "D", that’s Dallas Texas to do another TechTarget Dinner event around the theme of BC/DR, Virtualization and IT optimization. The session was well attended by a diverse audience of IT professionals from around the DFW metroplex. Common themes included discussions about business and economic activity as well as the need to keep business and IT running even when budgets are being stretched further and further. Technology conversations included server and storage virtualization, tiered storage including SSD, fast FC and SAS disk drives, lower performance high capacity "fat" disk drives as well as tape not to mention tiered data protection, tiered servers and other related items.

    The Green Gap continues to manifest itself in that when asked, most people do not have Green IT initiatives, however, when asked they do have power, cooling, floor-space, environmental (PCFE) or business economic sustainability concerns, aka, the rest of the Green story.

    While some attendees have started to use some new technologies including dedupe technology, most I find are still using a combination of disk and tape with some considering dedupe for the future for certain applications. Other technologies and trends being watched, however also ones with concerns as to their stability and viability for enterprise use include FLASH based SSD, Cloud computing and thin provisioning among others. Common themes I hear from IT professionals are that these are technologies and tools to keep an eye on, or, use on a selective basis and are essentially tiered resources to have in a tool box of technologies to apply to different tasks to meet various service requirements. Hopefully the Cowboys can put a fraction of the amount of energy and interest into and improving their environment that the Dallas area IT folks are applying to their environments, especially given the strained IT budgets vs. the budget that the Cowboys have to work with for their player personal.

    I always find it interesting when talking to groups of IT professionals which tend to be enterprise, SME and SMB hearing what they are doing and looking at or considering which often is in stark contrast to some of the survey results on technology adoption trends one commonly reads or hears about. Hummm, nuff said, what say you?

    Hope to see you at one of the many upcoming events perhaps coming to a venue near you.

    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

    All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2012 StorageIO and UnlimitedIO All Rights Reserved

    Posted on

    Recent StorageIO Media Coverage and Comments

    BizwireeChannel LineEnterprise Storage ForumMSNBC
    ProcessorSearchStorageFedTechComputer Weekly

    Realizing that some prefer blogs to webs to twitters to other venues, here are some recent links among others to media coverage and comments by me on a different topics that are among others found at www.storageio.com/news.html.

  • Business Wire: Comments on The Green and Virtual Data Center Book – Jan 09
  • Search Storage: Comments on Open Source Storage – Jan 09
  • Search Storage: Comments on Clustered Storage – Jan 09
  • Storage Magazine: Comments on DR/BC Sites – Jan 09
  • SearchStorage: Comments on Fujitsu Eternus Storage – Jan 09
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on Quest buying Monosphere – Jan 09
  • Processor: Comments on Reducing Storage Costs – Jan 09
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on Apple Mac storage enhancements – Jan 09
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on EMC buying Sourcelabs & Opensource – Jan 09
  • SearchStorage Oz/NZ: Comments on Hot Technologies and Hype – Jan 09
  • CNBC: Comments on Storing Digital Documents – Dec 08
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on pNFS and Data Storage Trends – Dec 08
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on Symantec shifting hardware spending – Dec 08
  • Search Storage: Comments on DAS being more common than perceived – Dec 08
  • IT World Canada: Comments on Sun seeing lack of Storage Industry Innovation – Dec 08
  • Search Storage: Comments on Data Movement and Migration – Dec 08
  • eChannel Line: Comments on EMC and Dell renewing their vows – Dec 08
  • eChannel Line: Comments on Adaptec and SAS/SATA adapters – Dec 08
  • eChannel Line: Comments on Dell data de-duplication strategy – Nov 08
  • Server Watch: Comments on Server Virtualization Brings Fresh Life to DAS – Nov 08
  • Tech News World: Comments on Samsung Jumbo SSD drives – Nov 08
  • Enterprise Planet: Comments on EMC Cloud Storage (ATMOS) – Nov 08
  • eChannel Line: Comments on HPs new USVP virtualization platform – Nov 08
  • Search Storage: Comments on EMCs cloud and policy based storage – Nov 08
  • Tech News World: Comments on SANdisk SSD – Nov 08
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on HP adding storage virtualizaiton – Nov 08
  • Mainframe Executive: Comments on Green and Efficient Storage – Nov 08
  • Internet News: Comments – Symantec Trims Enterprise Vault Nov 08
  • Enterprise Storage Forum: Comments on DAS remaining relevant – Nov 08
  • SearchSMBStorage: Comments – NAS attraction for SMBs Nov 08

    • See more at www.storageio.com/news.html

    Cheers gs

    Posted on

    Industry Trend: Five year HDD (hard disk drive) warranties

    Storage I/O trends

    I received a note from Seagate the other day (they requested that this be embargoed until today) about changes to their warranty program for their various disk drive products.

    Now I get a ton of updates, press releases, briefing notes and other news from vendors, resellers, industry trade groups and public relations folks among others every day (and thats in addition to the spam), all of which help to fill up my hard disk drives and backups stored on removable hard disk drives faster than the hard disk drive on my HD-DVR fills up from HD programming.

    However this note from Seagate stood out and I want to share with you my industry trends and perspective. That is, this IMHO signals the realities of how long different storage technologies are used before being discarded (e.g. lifecycle or useful life) as much as what the reliability and endurance of the products is which I explain a bit further down in this post.

    So here’s what Seagate is doing and draw your own conclusion and see my additional perspectives and opinions below.

    Seagate Warranty Change

    Overview
    Seagate’s leadership in product quality and reliability has given it an edge in offering customers better value when they need it. Seagate’s current 5-year limited warranty will remain in place for consumer retail products as well as for enterprise-class hard drives, and we will now provide our distributor customers with a 3-year limited warranty for all other hard drives. Based on our data, we know that 95% of all returns take place during the first three years, so by offering a 3-year warranty (which Seagate believes is more in line with the rest of the industry), we can make other aspects of our customer support and warranty programs more attractive with negligible impact to customer product return needs. The 3-year limited warranty on notebook, desktop and consumer electronics bare drives offers new advantages and enhancements to the business proposition for our channel customers while improving cost efficiencies for Seagate. We expect little, if any change for consumers since hard drives used in computer systems other devices are covered by the individual manufacturer’s warranty.

    Warranty at a high level:
    3-year warranty – Seagate Desktop, Notebook & Consumer Electronics drives sold to customers
    5-year warranty – Seagate enterprise drives and certain Seagate and Maxtor branded retail products (both consumer solutions and HDD retail kits)

    Q&A

    Q. Does this change effect products sold to OEMs?
    A. No, there are no changes to our OEM standard warranties in these classes of products

    Q. When does this change go into effect?
    A. It will begin January 3, 2009

    Q. What about products purchased before Jan. 3, 2009? Will Seagate still honor the warranty in place at time of time of original purchase?
    A. Yes, any customers who purchase products prior to Jan. 3 will be covered by the warranty in place at the time of purchase.

    Q. Why is this change being made now?
    A. We have identified the opportunity to offer our customers warranty terms that we believe are in line with industry standard warranty offerings, and that better align to the requirements of our partners and customers.

    Q. You say that by moving to a 3-year warranty you can make other aspects of customer and warranty support more attractive. Can you be more specific?
    A. Seagate believes that enhancing the declining credit scale in the second year from 75% to 100% will provide customers better value on returns. This means that if a customer returns a drive in the second year, they are eligible to receive a credit, equal to the drive’s price at the time the drive is returned, applied to their replacement drive.

    Q. Why are Enterprise-class hard drives still receiving a 5-year warranty?
    A. Seagate believes the standard industry warranty for enterprise-class products is 5 years.

    Q. Will customers in other countries receive different warranty periods?
    A. Customers located in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand will continue to receive a 5 year limited warranty for selected products.

    Q. Why will customers located in these countries still receive a 5-year warranty?
    A. In these markets we have determined that business conditions support offering a 5-year warranty period.

    Q. Isn’t this a step backward in terms of demonstrating your confidence in the quality of your products?
    A. Absolutely not. Our product quality remains excellent, and, as the worldwide leader in drive storage, Seagate is committed to providing our customers with the most reliable storage solutions available anywhere. We know that 95% of all returns take place during the first three years, so by going to a 3-year warranty (which is more in line with the rest of the industry) we can make other aspects of our customer support and warranty programs more attractive with negligible impact to customer product return needs.

    Q. Are there exceptions to the 3-year warranty?
    A. If a customer believes there is a competitive business case for an exception, they can present their business case to Seagate for review.

    Q. What will happen to the inventory authorized distributors currently have?
    A. On-hand inventory located at the sites of Seagate distributors will keep the warranty in place at the time of original purchase. The 3-year warranty will apply to products shipped starting Jan 3rd, 2009.

    Q. Does this change affect Seagate and Maxtor retail products?
    A. Retail drive products will continue with their current 3 or 5 year limited warranty

    So what does this all mean?

    IMHO, this signals that Seagate is aligning their warranties for different products to the market realities including the life cycle of the product or solution before replacement for what ever reasons. For example, an enterprise class disk drive deployed in an enterprise class storage system may be deployed for a period of from 3 to 5 years, perhaps initially being deployed as primary storage for a couple of years, then being redeployed in a secondary or hand me down role.

    Or, in the case of an archive or secondary near-line role, being used for a longer life cycle than would be the case with more traditional storage. It can also signal that many organizations are acquiring and holding on to in general technologies for longer periods of time to maximize ROI and minimize the occurrence of timely and expensive data movement/migration to support technology replacements.

    Certainly in general the technologies are much more reliable than previous generations, capacities are increasing as are availability and capacities while power consumption and footprint also improve, not to mention the continued need for more storage and I/O processing capabilities.

    On the flip side, non enterprise storage type solutions for example desktops, laptops or other products tend to have shorter lifecycles and thus make sense to align the warranties with the market economic and buying habits taking place not to mention competitive alignment.

    Needless to say, despite reports that the magnetic disk drive is now dead at the hands of FLASH SSD (here and here among others) after over 50 years of service, its safe to say the magnetic disk drive will be around for several more years to come as FLASH based SSD will actually help to keep disk drives around, similar to how disk drives are helping to keep magnetic tape around by taking over tasks and enabling true tiered storage and technology alignment to occur.

    Heres a link to Seagates Warranty page for more information.

    Ok, nuff said.

    Cheers gs

    Greg Schulz – Author Cloud and Virtual Data Storage Networking (CRC Press), The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC Press) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)
    twitter @storageio

    All Comments, (C) and (TM) belong to their owners/posters, Other content (C) Copyright 2006-2024 Server StorageIO and UnlimitedIO LLC All Rights Reserved