EPA Energy Star for data center storage draft 3 specification

US EPA Energy Star for Data Center StorageUncle SAM wants you to be energy efficient and effective with optimized data center storage

The U.S. EPA is ready to release DRAFT 3 of the Energy Star for data center storage specification and has an upcoming web session that you can sign up for if are not on their contact list of interested stake holders. If you are not familiar with the EPA Energy star for data center storage program, here is some background information.

Thus if you are interested, see the email and information below, signup and take part if so inclined as opposed to saying that you did not have a chance to comment.

Dear ENERGY STAR® Data Center Storage Manufacturer or Other Interested Party:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would like to announce the release of the Draft 3 Version 1.0 ENERGY STAR Specification for Data Center Storage. The draft is attached and is accompanied by a cover letter and Draft Test Method. Stakeholders are invited to review these documents and submit comments to EPA via email to storage@energystar.gov by Friday, July 27, 2012.

EPA will host a webinar on Wednesday, July 11, 2012, tentatively starting at 1:00PM EST. The agenda will be focused on elements from Draft 3, Product Families, and other key topics. Please RSVP to storage@energystar.gov no later than Tuesday, July 3, 2012 with the subject "RSVP – Storage Draft 3 specification meeting."

If you have any questions, please contact Robert Meyers, EPA, at Meyers.Robert@epa.gov or (202) 343-9923; or John Clinger, ICF International, at John.Clinger@icfi.com or (202) 572-9432.

Thank you for your continued support of the ENERGY STAR program.

For more information, visit: www.energystar.gov

This message was sent to you on behalf of ENERGY STAR. Each ENERGY STAR partner organization must have at least one primary contact receiving e-mail to maintain partnership. If you are no longer working on ENERGY STAR, and wish to be removed as a contact, please update your contact status in your MESA account. If you are not a partner organization and wish to opt out of receiving e-mails, you may call the ENERGY STAR Hotline at 1-888-782-7937 and request to have your mass mail settings changed. Unsubscribing means that you will no longer receive program-wide or product-specific e-mails from ENERGY STAR.

 

 

 

Ok, you have been advised, nuff said for now

Cheers Gs

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

twitter @storageio

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

August 2010 StorageIO News Letter

StorageIO News Letter Image
August 2010 Newsletter

Welcome to the August Summer Wrap Up 2010 edition of the Server and StorageIO Group (StorageIO) newsletter. This follows the June 2010 edition building on the great feedback received from recipients.
Items that are new in this expanded edition include:

  • Out and About Update
  • Industry Trends and Perspectives (ITP)
  • Featured Article

You can access this news letter via various social media venues (some are shown below) in addition to StorageIO web sites and subscriptions. Click on the following links to view the August 2010 edition as an HTML or PDF or, to go to the newsletter page to view previous editions.

Follow via Goggle Feedburner here or via email subscription here.

You can also subscribe to the news letter by simply sending an email to newsletter@storageio.com

Enjoy this edition of the StorageIO newsletter, let me know your comments and feedback.

Cheers gs

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

Acadia VCE: VMware + Cisco + EMC = Virtual Computing Environment

Was today the day the music died? (click here or here if you are not familar with the expression)

Add another three letter acronym (TLA) to your IT vocabulary if you are involved with server, storage, networking, virtualization, security and related infrastructure resource management (IRM) topics.

That new TLA is Virtual Computing Environment (VCE), a coalition formed by EMC and Cisco along with partner Intel called Acadia that was announced today. Of course, EMC who also happens to own VMware for virtualization and RSA for security software tools bring those to the coalition (read press release here).

For some quick fun, twittervile and the blogosphere have come up with other meanings such as:

VCE = Virtualization Communications Endpoint
VCE = VMware Cisco EMC
VCE = Very Cash Efficient
VCE = VMware Controls Everything
VCE = Virtualization Causes Enthusiasm
VCE = VMware Cisco Exclusive

Ok, so much for some fun, at least for now.

With Cisco, EMC and VMware announcing their new VCE coalition, has this signaled the end of servers, storage, networking, hardware and software for physical, virtual and clouding computing as we know it?

Does this mean all other vendors not in this announcement should pack it up, game over and go home?

The answer in my perspective is NO!

No, the music did not end today!

NO, servers, storage and networking for virtual or cloud environments has not ended.

Also, NO, other vendors do not have to go home today, the game is not over!

However a new game is on, one that some have seen before, for others it is something new, exciting perhaps revolutionary or an industry first.

What was announced?
Figure 1 shows a general vision or positioning from the three major players involved along with four tenants or topic areas of focus. Here is a link to a press release where you can read more.

CiscoVirtualizationCoalition.png
Figure 1: Source: Cisco, EMC, VMware

General points include:

  • A new coalition (e.g. VCE) focused on virtual compute for cloud and non cloud environments
  • A new company Acadia owned by EMC and Cisco (1/3 each) along with Intel and VMware
  • A new go to market pre-sales, service and support cross technology domain skill set team
  • Solution bundles or vblocks with technology from Cisco, EMC, Intel and VMware

What are the vblocks and components?
Pre-configured (see this link for a 3D model), tested, and supported with a single throat to choke model for streamlined end to end management and acquisition. There are three vblocks or virtual building blocks that include server, storage, I/O networking, and virtualization hypervisor software along with associated IRM software tools.

Cisco is bringing to the game their Unified Compute Solution (UCS) server along with Nexus 1000v and Multilayer Director (MDS) switches, EMC is bringing storage (Symmetrix VMax, CLARiiON and unified storage) along with their RSA security and Ionix IRM tools. VMware is providing their vSphere hypervisors running on Intel based services (via Cisco).

The components include:

  • EMC Ionix management tools and framework – The IRM tools
  • EMC RSA security framework software – The security tools
  • EMC VMware vSphere hypervisor virtualization software – The virtualization layer
  • EMC VMax, CLARiiON and unified storage systems – The storage
  • Cisco Nexus 1000v and MDS switches – The Network and connectivity
  • Cisco Unified Compute Solution (UCS) – The physical servers
  • Services and support – Cross technology domain presales, delivery and professional services

CiscoEMCVMwarevblock.jpg
Figure 2: Source: Cisco vblock (Server, Storage, Networking and Virtualization Software) via Cisco

The three vblock models are:
Vblock0: entry level system due out in 2010 supporting 300 to 800 VMs for initial customer consolidation, private clouds or other diverse applications in small or medium sized business. You can think of this as a SAN in a CAN or Data Center in a box with Cisco UCS and Nexus 1000v, EMC unified storage secured by RSA and VMware vSphere.

Vblock1: mid sized building block supporting 800 to 3000 VMs for consolidation and other optimization initiatives using Cisco UCS, Nexus and MDS switches along with EMC CLARiiON storage secured with RSA software hosting VMware hypervisors.

Vblock2 high end supporting up 3000 to 6000 VMs for large scale data center transformation or new virtualization efforts combing Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS), Nexus 1000v and MDS switches and EMC VMax Symmetix storage with RSA security software hosting VMware vSpshere hypervisor.

What does this all mean?
With this move, for some it will add fuel to the campfire that Cisco is moving closer to EMC and or VMware with a pre-nuptial via Acadia. For others, this will be seen as fragmentation for virtualization particularly if other vendors such as Dell, Fujitsu, HP, IBM and Microsoft among others are kept out of the game, not to mention their channels of vars or IT customers barriers.

Acadia is a new company or more precisely, a joint venture being created by major backers EMC and Cisco with minority backers being VMware and Intel.

Like any other joint ventures, for examples those commonly seen in the airline industry (e.g. transportation utility) where carriers pool resources such as SkyTeam whose members include Delta who had a JV with Airframe owner of KLM who had a antitrust immunity JV with northwest (now being digested by Delta).

These joint ventures can range from simple marketing alliances like you see with EMC programs such as their Select program to more formal OEM to ownership as is the case with VMware and RSA to this new model for Acadia.

An airline analogy may not be the most appropriate, yet there are some interesting similarities, least of which that air carriers rely on information systems and technologies provided by members of this collation among others. There is also a correlation in that joint ventures are about streamlining and creating a seamless end to end customer experience. That is, give them enough choice and options, keep them happy, take out the complexities and hopefully some cost, and with customer control come revenue and margin or profits.

Certainly there are opportunities to streamline and not just simply cut corners, perhaps that’s another area or analogy with the airlines where there is a current focus on cutting, nickel and dimming for services. Hopefully the Acadia and VCE are not just another example of vendors getting together around the campfire to sing Kumbaya in the name of increasing customer adoption, cost cutting or putting a marketing spin on how to sell more to customers for account control.

Now with all due respect to the individual companies and personal, at least in this iteration, it is not as much about the technology or packaging. Likewise, while important, it is also not just about bundling, integration and testing (they are important) as we have seen similar solutions before.

Rather, I think this has the potential for changing the way server, storage and networking hardware along with IRM and virtualization software are sold into organizations, for the better or worse.

What Im watching is how Acadia and their principal backers can navigate the channel maze and ultimately the customer maze to sell a cross technology domain solution. For example, will a sales call require six to fourteen legs (e.g. one person is a two legged call for those not up on sales or vendor lingo) with a storage, server, networking, VMware, RSA, Ionix and services representative?

Or, can a model to drive down the number of people or product specialist involved in a given sales call be achieved leveraging people with cross technology domain skills (e.g. someone who can speak server and storage hardware and software along with networking)?

Assuming Acadia and VCE vblocks address product integration issues, I see the bigger issue as being streamlining the sales process (including compensation plans) along with how partners are dealt with not to mention customers.

How will the sales pitch be to the Cisco network people at VARs or customer sites, or too the storage or server or VMware teams, or, all of the above?

What about the others?
Cisco has relationships with Dell, HP, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle/Sun among others that they will be stepping even more on the partner toes than when they launched the UCS earlier this year. EMC for its part if fairly diversified and is not as subservient to IBM however has a history of partnering with Dell, Oracle and Microsoft among others.

VMware has a smaller investment and thus more in the wings as is Intel given that both have large partnership with Dell, HP, IBM and Microsoft. Microsoft is of interest here because on one front the bulk of all servers virtualized into VMware VMs are Windows based.

On the other hand, Microsoft has their own virtualization hypervisor HyperV that depending upon how you look at it, could be a competitor of VMware or simply a nuisance. Im of the mindset that its still to early and don’t judge this game on the first round which VMware has won. Keep in mind the history such as desktop and browser wars that Microsoft lost in the first round only to come back strong later. This move could very well invigorate Microsoft, or perhaps Oracle, Citrix among others.

Now this is far from the first time that we have seen alliances, coalitions, marketing or sales promotion cross technology vendor clubs in the industry let alone from the specific vendors involved in this announcement.

One that comes to mind was 3COMs failed attempt in the late 90s to become the first traditional networking vendor to get into SANs, that was many years before Cisco could spell SAN let alone their Andiamo startup incubated. The 3COM initiative which was cancelled due to financial issues literally on the eve of rollout was to include the likes of STK (pre-sun), Qlogic, Anchor (People were still learning how to spell Brocade), Crossroads (FC to SCSI routers for tape), Legato (pre-EMC), DG CLARiiON (Pre-EMC), MTI (sold their patents to EMC, became a reseller, now defunct) along with some others slated to jump on the bandwagon.

Lets also not forget that while among the traditional networking market vendors Cisco is the $32B giant and all of the others including 3Com, Brocade, Broadcom, Ciena, Emulex, Juniper and Qlogic are the seven plus dwarfs. However, keep the $23B USD Huawei networking vendor that is growing at a 45% annual rate in mind.

I would keep an eye on AMD, Brocade, Citrix, Dell, Fujitsu, HP, Huawei, Juniper, Microsoft, NetApp, Oracle/Sun, Rackable and Symantec among many others for similar joint venture or marketing alliances.

Some of these have already surfaced with Brocade and Oracle sharing hugs and chugs (another sales term referring to alliance meetings over beers or shots).

Also keep in mind that VMware has a large software (customer business) footprint deployed on HP with Intel (and AMD) servers.

Oh, and those VMware based VMs running on HP servers also just happen to be hosting in their neighbor of 80% or more Windows based guests operating systems, I would say its game on time.

When I say its game on time, I dont think VMware is brash enough to cut HP (or others) off forcing them to move to Microsoft for virtualization. However the game is about control, control of technology stacks and partnerships, control of vars, integrators and the channel, as well as control of customers.

If you cannot tell, I find this topic fun and interesting.

For those who only know me from servers they often ask when did I learn about networking to which I say check out one of my books (Resilient Storage Networks-Elsevier). Meanwhile for others who know me from storage I get asked when did I learn about or get into servers to which I respond about 28 years ago when I worked in IT as the customer.

Bottom line on Acadia, vblocks and VCE for now, I like the idea of a unified and bundled solution as long as they are open and flexible.

On the other hand, I have many questions and even skeptical in some areas including of how this plays out for Cisco and EMC in terms of if it can be a unifier or polarized causing market fragmentation.

For some this is or will be dejavu, back to the future, while for others it is a new, exciting and revolutionary approach while for others it will be new fodder for smack talk!

More to follow soon.

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

EPA Energy Star for Data Center Storage Update

EPA Energy Star

Following up on a recent post about Green IT, energy efficiency and optimization for servers, storage and more, here are some additional  thoughts, perspectives along with industry activity around the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star for Server, Data Center Storage and Data Centers.

First a quick update, Energy Star for Servers is in place with work now underway on expanding and extending beyond the first specification. Second is that Energy Star for Data Center storage definition is well underway including a recent workshop to refine the initial specification along with discussion for follow-on drafts.

Energy Star for Data Centers is also currently undergoing definition which is focused more on macro or facility energy (notice I did not say electricity) efficiency as opposed to productivity or effectiveness, items that the Server and Storage specifications are working towards.

Among all of the different industry trade or special interests groups, at least on the storage front the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) Green Storage Initiative (GSI) and their Technical Work Groups (TWG) have been busily working for the past couple of years on taxonomies, metrics and other items in support of EPA Energy Star for Data Center Storage.

A challenge for SNIA along with others working on related material pertaining to storage and efficiency is the multi-role functionality of storage. That is, some storage simply stores data with little to no performance requirements while other storage is actively used for reading and writing. In addition, there are various categories, architectures not to mention hardware and software feature functionality or vendors with different product focus and interests.

Unlike servers that are either on and doing work, or, off or in low power mode, storage is either doing active work (e.g. moving data), storing in-active or idle data, or a combination of both. Hence for some, energy efficiency is about how much data can be stored in a given footprint with the least amount of power known as in-active or idle measurement.

On the other hand, storage efficiency is also about using the least amount of energy to produce the most amount of work or activity, for example IOPS or bandwidth per watt per footprint.

Thus the challenge and need for at least a two dimensional  model looking at, and reflecting different types or categories of storage aligned for active or in-active (e.g. storing) data enabling apples to apples, vs. apples to oranges comparison.

This is not all that different from how EPA looks at motor vehicle categories of economy cars, sport utility, work or heavy utility among others when doing different types of work, or, in idle.

What does this have to do with servers and storage?

Simple, when a server powers down where does its data go? That’s right, to a storage system using disk, ssd (RAM or flash), tape or optical for persistency. Likewise, when there is work to be done, where does the data get read into computer memory from, or written to? That’s right, a storage system. Hence the need to look at storage in a multi-tenant manner.

The storage industry is diverse with some vendors or products focused on performance or activity, while others on long term, low cost persistent storage for archive, backup, not to mention some doing a bit of both. Hence the nomenclature of herding cats towards a common goal when different parties have various interests that may conflict yet support needs of various customer storage usage requirements.

Figure 1 shows a simplified, streamlined storage taxonomy that has been put together by SNIA representing various types, categories and functions of data center storage. The green shaded areas are a good step in the right direction to simplify yet move towards realistic and achievable befits for storage consumers.


Figure 1 Source: EPA Energy Star for Data Center Storage web site document

The importance of the streamlined SNIA taxonomy is to help differentiate or characterize various types and tiers of storage (Figure 2) products facilitating apples to apples comparison instead of apples or oranges. For example, on-line primary storage needs to be looked at in terms of how much work or activity per energy footprint determines efficiency.


Figure 2: Tiered Storage Example

On other hand, storage for retaining large amounts of data that is in-active or idle for long periods of time should be looked at on a capacity per energy footprint basis. While final metrics are still being flushed out, some examples could be active storage gauged by IOPS or work or bandwidth per watt of energy per footprint while other storage for idle or inactive data could be looked at on a capacity per energy footprint basis.

What benchmarks or workloads to be used for simulating or measuring work or activity are still being discussed with proposals coming from various sources. For example SNIA GSI TWG are developing measurements and discussing metrics, as have the storage performance council (SPC) and SPEC among others including use of simulation tools such as IOmeter, VMware VMmark, TPC, Bonnie, or perhaps even Microsoft ESRP.

Tenants of Energy Star for Data Center Storage overtime hopefully will include:

  • Reflective of different types, categories, price-bands and storage usage scenarios
  • Measure storage efficiency for active work along with in-active or idle usage
  • Provide insight for both storage performance efficiency and effective capacity
  • Baseline or raw storage capacity along with effective enhanced optimized capacity
  • Easy to use metrics with more in-depth back ground or disclosure information

Ultimately the specification should help IT storage buyers and decision makers to compare and contrast different storage systems that are best suited and applicable to their usage scenarios.

This means measuring work or activity per energy footprint at a given capacity and data protection level to meet service requirements along with during in-active or idle periods. This also means showing storage that is capacity focused in terms of how much data can be stored in a given energy footprint.

One thing that will be tricky however will be differentiating GBytes per watt in terms of capacity, or, in terms of performance and bandwidth.

Here are some links to learn more:

Stay tuned for more on Energy Star for Data Centers, Servers and Data Center Storage.

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

I/O Virtualization (IOV) Revisited

Is I/O Virtualization (IOV) a server topic, a network topic, or a storage topic (See previous post)?

Like server virtualization, IOV involves servers, storage, network, operating system, and other infrastructure resource management areas and disciplines. The business and technology value proposition or benefits of converged I/O networks and I/O virtualization are similar to those for server and storage virtualization.

Additional benefits of IOV include:

    • Doing more with what resources (people and technology) already exist or reduce costs
    • Single (or pair for high availability) interconnect for networking and storage I/O
    • Reduction of power, cooling, floor space, and other green efficiency benefits
    • Simplified cabling and reduced complexity for server network and storage interconnects
    • Boosting servers performance to maximize I/O or mezzanine slots
    • reduce I/O and data center bottlenecks
    • Rapid re-deployment to meet changing workload and I/O profiles of virtual servers
    • Scaling I/O capacity to meet high-performance and clustered application needs
    • Leveraging common cabling infrastructure and physical networking facilities

Before going further, lets take a step backwards for a few moments.

To say that I/O and networking demands and requirements are increasing is an understatement. The amount of data being generated, copied, and retained for longer periods of time is elevating the importance of the role of data storage and infrastructure resource management (IRM). Networking and input/output (I/O) connectivity technologies (figure 1) tie facilities, servers, storage tools for measurement and management, and best practices on a local and wide area basis to enable an environmentally and economically friendly data center.

TIERED ACCESS FOR SERVERS AND STORAGE
There is an old saying that the best I/O, whether local or remote, is an I/O that does not have to occur. I/O is an essential activity for computers of all shapes, sizes, and focus to read and write data in and out of memory (including external storage) and to communicate with other computers and networking devices. This includes communicating on a local and wide area basis for access to or over Internet, cloud, XaaS, or managed services providers such as shown in figure 1.

PCI SIG IOV (C) 2009 The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC)
Figure 1 The Big Picture: Data Center I/O and Networking

The challenge of I/O is that some form of connectivity (logical and physical), along with associated software is required along with time delays while waiting for reads and writes to occur. I/O operations that are closest to the CPU or main processor should be the fastest and occur most frequently for access to main memory using internal local CPU to memory interconnects. In other words, fast servers or processors need fast I/O, either in terms of low latency, I/O operations along with bandwidth capabilities.

PCI SIG IOV (C) 2009 The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC)
Figure 2 Tiered I/O and Networking Access

Moving out and away from the main processor, I/O remains fairly fast with distance but is more flexible and cost effective. An example is the PCIe bus and I/O interconnect shown in Figure 2, which is slower than processor-to-memory interconnects but is still able to support attachment of various device adapters with very good performance in a cost effective manner.

Farther from the main CPU or processor, various networking and I/O adapters can attach to PCIe, PCIx, or PCI interconnects for backward compatibility to support various distances, speeds, types of devices, and cost factors.

In general, the faster a processor or server is, the more prone to a performance impact it will be when it has to wait for slower I/O operations.

Consequently, faster servers need better-performing I/O connectivity and networks. Better performing means lower latency, more IOPS, and improved bandwidth to meet application profiles and types of operations.

Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)
Having established that computers need to perform some form of I/O to various devices, at the heart of many I/O and networking connectivity solutions is the Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) interface. PCI is an industry standard that specifies the chipsets used to communicate between CPUs and memory and the outside world of I/O and networking device peripherals.

Figure 3 shows an example of multiple servers or blades each with dedicated Fibre Channel (FC) and Ethernet adapters (there could be two or more for redundancy). Simply put the more servers and devices to attach to, the more adapters, cabling and complexity particularly for blade servers and dense rack mount systems.
PCI SIG IOV (C) 2009 The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC)
Figure 3 Dedicated PCI adapters for I/O and networking devices

Figure 4 shows an example of a PCI implementation including various components such as bridges, adapter slots, and adapter types. PCIe leverages multiple serial unidirectional point to point links, known as lanes, in contrast to traditional PCI, which used a parallel bus design.

PCI SIG IOV (C) 2009 The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC)

Figure 4 PCI IOV Single Root Configuration Example

In traditional PCI, bus width varied from 32 to 64 bits; in PCIe, the number of lanes combined with PCIe version and signaling rate determine performance. PCIe interfaces can have 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 lanes for data movement, depending on card or adapter format and form factor. For example, PCI and PCIx performance can be up to 528 MB per second with a 64 bit, 66 MHz signaling rate, and PCIe is capable of over 4 GB (e.g., 32 Gbit) in each direction using 16 lanes for high-end servers.

The importance of PCIe and its predecessors is a shift from multiple vendors’ different proprietary interconnects for attaching peripherals to servers. For the most part, vendors have shifted to supporting PCIe or early generations of PCI in some form, ranging from native internal on laptops and workstations to I/O, networking, and peripheral slots on larger servers.

The most current version of PCI, as defined by the PCI Special Interest Group (PCISIG), is PCI Express (PCIe). Backwards compatibility exists by bridging previous generations, including PCIx and PCI, off a native PCIe bus or, in the past, bridging a PCIe bus to a PCIx native implementation. Beyond speed and bus width differences for the various generations and implementations, PCI adapters also are available in several form factors and applications.

Traditional PCI was generally limited to a main processor or was internal to a single computer, but current generations of PCI Express (PCIe) include support for PCI Special Interest Group (PCI) I/O virtualization (IOV), enabling the PCI bus to be extended to distances of a few feet. Compared to local area networking, storage interconnects, and other I/O connectivity technologies, a few feet is very short distance, but compared to the previous limit of a few inches, extended PCIe provides the ability for improved sharing of I/O and networking interconnects.

I/O VIRTUALIZATION(IOV)
On a traditional physical server, the operating system sees one or more instances of Fibre Channel and Ethernet adapters even if only a single physical adapter, such as an InfiniBand HCA, is installed in a PCI or PCIe slot. In the case of a virtualized server for example, Microsoft HyperV or VMware ESX/vSphere the hypervisor will be able to see and share a single physical adapter, or multiple adapters, for redundancy and performance to guest operating systems. The guest systems see what appears to be a standard SAS, FC or Ethernet adapter or NIC using standard plug-and-play drivers.

Virtual HBA or virtual network interface cards (NICs) and switches are, as their names imply, virtual representations of a physical HBA or NIC, similar to how a virtual machine emulates a physical machine with a virtual server. With a virtual HBA or NIC, physical NIC resources are carved up and allocated as virtual machines, but instead of hosting a guest operating system like Windows, UNIX, or Linux, a SAS or FC HBA, FCoE converged network adapter (CNA) or Ethernet NIC is presented.

In addition to virtual or software-based NICs, adapters, and switches found in server virtualization implementations, virtual LAN (VLAN), virtual SAN (VSAN), and virtual private network (VPN) are tools for providing abstraction and isolation or segmentation of physical resources. Using emulation and abstraction capabilities, various segments or sub networks can be physically connected yet logically isolated for management, performance, and security purposes. Some form of routing or gateway functionality enables various network segments or virtual networks to communicate with each other when appropriate security is met.

PCI-SIG IOV
PCI SIG IOV consists of a PCIe bridge attached to a PCI root complex along with an attachment to a separate PCI enclosure (Figure 5). Other components and facilities include address translation service (ATS), single-root IOV (SR IOV), and multiroot IOV (MR IOV). ATS enables performance to be optimized between an I/O device and a servers I/O memory management. Single root, SR IOV enables multiple guest operating systems to access a single I/O device simultaneously, without having to rely on a hypervisor for a virtual HBA or NIC.

PCI SIG IOV (C) 2009 The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC)

Figure 5 PCI SIG IOV

The benefit is that physical adapter cards, located in a physically separate enclosure, can be shared within a single physical server without having to incur any potential I/O overhead via virtualization software infrastructure. MR IOV is the next step, enabling a PCIe or SR IOV device to be accessed through a shared PCIe fabric across different physically separated servers and PCIe adapter enclosures. The benefit is increased sharing of physical adapters across multiple servers and operating systems not to mention simplified cabling, reduced complexity and resource utilization.

PCI SIG IOV (C) 2009 The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC)
Figure 6 PCI SIG MR IOV

Figure 6 shows an example of a PCIe switched environment, where two physically separate servers or blade servers attach to an external PCIe enclosure or card cage for attachment to PCIe, PCIx, or PCI devices. Instead of the adapter cards physically plugging into each server, a high performance short-distance cable connects the servers PCI root complex via a PCIe bridge port to a PCIe bridge port in the enclosure device.

In figure 6, either SR IOV or MR IOV can take place, depending on specific PCIe firmware, server hardware, operating system, devices, and associated drivers and management software. For a SR IOV example, each server has access to some number of dedicated adapters in the external card cage, for example, InfiniBand, Fibre Channel, Ethernet, or Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) and converged networking adapters (CNA) also known as HBAs. SR IOV implementations do not allow different physical servers to share adapter cards. MR IOV builds on SR IOV by enabling multiple physical servers to access and share PCI devices such as HBAs and NICs safely with transparency.

The primary benefit of PCI IOV is to improve utilization of PCI devices, including adapters or mezzanine cards, as well as to enable performance and availability for slot-constrained and physical footprint or form factor-challenged servers. Caveats of PCI IOV are distance limitations and the need for hardware, firmware, operating system, and management software support to enable safe and transparent sharing of PCI devices. Examples of PCIe IOV vendors include Aprius, NextIO and Virtensys among others.

InfiniBand IOV
InfiniBand based IOV solutions are an alternative to Ethernet-based solutions. Essentially, InfiniBand approaches are similar, if not identical, to converged Ethernet approaches including FCoE, with the difference being InfiniBand as the network transport. InfiniBand HCAs with special firmware are installed into servers that then see a Fibre Channel HBA and Ethernet NIC from a single physical adapter. The InfiniBand HCA also attaches to a switch or director that in turn attaches to Fibre Channel SAN or Ethernet LAN networks.

The value of InfiniBand converged networks are that they exist today, and they can be used for consolidation as well as to boost performance and availability. InfiniBand IOV also provides an alternative for those who do not choose to deploy Ethernet.

From a power, cooling, floor-space or footprint standpoint, converged networks can be used for consolidation to reduce the total number of adapters and the associated power and cooling. In addition to removing unneeded adapters without loss of functionality, converged networks also free up or allow a reduction in the amount of cabling, which can improve airflow for cooling, resulting in additional energy efficiency. An example of a vendor using InfiniBand as a platform for I/O virtualization is Xsigo.

General takeaway points include the following:

  • Minimize the impact of I/O delays to applications, servers, storage, and networks
  • Do more with what you have, including improving utilization and performance
  • Consider latency, effective bandwidth, and availability in addition to cost
  • Apply the appropriate type and tiered I/O and networking to the task at hand
  • I/O operations and connectivity are being virtualized to simplify management
  • Convergence of networking transports and protocols continues to evolve
  • PCIe IOV is complimentary to converged networking including FCoE

Moving forward, a revolutionary new technology may emerge that finally eliminates the need for I/O operations. However until that time, or at least for the foreseeable future, several things can be done to minimize the impacts of I/O for local and remote networking as well as to simplify connectivity.

PCIe Fundamentals Server Storage I/O Network Essentials

Learn more about IOV, converged networks, LAN, SAN, MAN and WAN related topics in Chapter 9 (Networking with your servers and storage) of The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) as well as in Resilient Storage Networks: Designing Flexible Scalable Data Infrastructures (Elsevier).

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

Should Everything Be Virtualized?

Storage I/O trends

Should everything, that is all servers, storage and I/O along with facilities, be virtualized?

The answer not surprisingly should be it depends!

Denny Cherry (aka Mrdenny) over at ITKE did a great recent post about applications not being virtualized, particularly databases. In general some of the points or themes we are on the same or similar page, while on others we slightly differ, not by very much.

Unfortunately consolidation is commonly misunderstood to be the sole function or value proposition of server virtualization given its first wave focus. I agree that not all applications or servers should be consolidated (note that I did not say virtualized).

From a consolidation standpoint, the emphasis is often on boosting resource use to cut physical hardware and management costs by boosting the number of virtual machines (VMs) per physical machine (PMs). Ironically, while VMs using VMware, Microsoft HyperV, Citrix/Xen among others can leverage a common gold image for cloning or rapid provisioning, there are still separate operating system instances and applications that need to be managed for each VM.

Sure, VM tools from the hypervisor along with 3rd party vendors help with these tasks as well as storage vendor tools including dedupe and thin provisioning help to cut the data footprint impact of these multiple images. However, there are still multiple images to manage providing a future opportunity for further cost and management reduction (more on that in a different post).

Getting back on track:

Some reasons that all servers or applications cannot be consolidated include among others:

  • Performance, response time, latency and Quality of Service (QoS)
  • Security requirements including keeping customers or applications separate
  • Vendor support of software on virtual or consolidated servers
  • Financial where different departments own hardware or software
  • Internal political or organizational barriers and turf wars

On the other hand, for those that see virtualization as enabling agility and flexibility, that is life beyond consolidation, there are many deployment opportunities for virtualization (note that I did not say consolidation). For some environments and applications, the emphasis can be on performance, quality of service (QoS) and other service characteristics where the ratio of VMs to PMs will be much lower, if not one to one. This is where Mrdenny and me are essentially on the same page, perhaps saying it different with plenty of caveats and clarification needed of course.

My view is that in life beyond consolidation, many more servers or applications can be virtualized than might be otherwise hosted by VMs (note that I did not say consolidated). For example, instead of a high number or ratio of VMs to PMs, a lower number and for some workloads or applications, even one VM to PM can be leveraged with a focus beyond basic CPU use.

Yes you read that correctly, I said why not configure some VMs on a one to one PM basis!

Here’s the premise, todays current wave or focus is around maximizing the number of VMs and/or the reduction of physical machines to cut capital and operating costs for under-utilized applications and servers, thus the move to stuff as many VMs into/onto a PM as possible.

However, for those applications that cannot be consolidated as outlined above, there is still a benefit of having a VM dedicated to a PM. For example, by dedicating a PM (blade, server or perhaps core) allows performance and QoS aims to be meet while still providing the ability for operational and infrastructure resource management (IRM), DCIM or ITSM flexibility and agility.

Meanwhile during busy periods, the application such as a database server could have its own PM, yet during off-hours, some over VM could be moved onto that PM for backup or other IRM/DCIM/ITSM activities. Likewise, by having the VM under the database with a dedicated PM, the application could be moved proactively for maintenance or in a clustered HA scenario support BC/DR.

What can and should be done?
First and foremost, decide how VMs is the right number to divide per PM for your environment and different applications to meet your particular requirements and business needs.

Identify various VM to PM ratios to align with different application service requirements. For example, some applications may run on virtual environments with a higher number of VMs to PMs, others with a lower number of VMs to PMs and some with a one VM to PM allocation.

Certainly there will be for different reasons the need to keep some applications on a direct PM without introducing a hypervisors and VM, however many applications and servers can benefit from virtualization (again note, I did not say consolation) for agility, flexibility, BC/DR, HA and ease of IRM assuming the costs work in your favor.

Additional general to do or action items include among others:

  • Look beyond CPU use also factoring in memory and I/O performance
  • Keep response time or latency in perspective as part of performance
  • More and fast memory are important for VMs as well as for applications including databases
  • High utilization may not show high hit rates or effectiveness of resource usage
  • Fast servers need fast memory, fast I/O and fast storage systems
  • Establish tiers of virtual and physical servers to meet different service requirements
  • See efficiency and optimization as more than simply driving up utilization to cut costs
  • Productivity and improved QoS are also tenants of an efficient and optimized environment

These are themes among others that are covered in chapters 3 (What Defines a Next-Generation and Virtual Data Center?), 4 (IT Infrastructure Resource Management), 5 (Measurement, Metrics, and Management of IT Resources), as well as 7 (Servers—Physical, Virtual, and Software) in my book “The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) that you can learn more about here.

Welcome to life beyond consolidation, the next wave of desktop, server, storage and IO virtualization along with the many new and expanded opportunities!

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

Could Huawei buy Brocade?

Disclosure: I have no connection to Huawei. I own no stock in, nor have I worked for Brocade as an employee; however I did work for three years at SAN vendor INRANGE which was acquired by CNT. However I left to become an industry analyst prior to the acquisition by McData and well before Brocade bought McData. Brocade is not a current client; however I have done speaking events pertaining to general industry trends and perspectives at various Brocade customer events for them in the past.

Is Brocade for sale?

Last week a Wall Street Journal article mentioned Brocade (BRCD) might be for sale.

BRCD has a diverse product portfolio for Fibre Channel, Ethernet along with the emerging Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) market and a whos who of OEM and channel partners. Why not be for sale, good timing for investors, CEO Mike Klayko and his team have arguably done a good job of shifting and evolving the company.

Generally speaking, lets keep in perspective, everything is always for sale, and in an economy like now, bargains are everywhere. Many business are shopping, its just a matter of how visible the shopping for a seller or buyer is along with motivations and objectives including shareholder value.

Consequently, the coconut wires are abuzz with talk and speculation of who will buy Brocade or perhaps who Brocade might buy among other Merger and Acquisition (M and A) activity of who will buy who. For example, who might buy BRCD, why not EMC (they sold McData off years ago via IPO), or IBM (they sold some of their networking business to Cisco years ago) or HP (currently an OEM partner of BRCD) as possible buyers?

Last week I posted on twitter a response to a comment about who would want to buy Brocade with a response to the effect of why not a Huawei to which there was some silence except for industry luminary Steve Duplessie (have a look to see what Steve had to say).

Part of being an analyst IMHO should be to actually analyze things vs. simply reporting on what others want you to report or what you have read or hear elsewhere. This also means talking about scenarios that are of out of the box or in adjacent boxes from some perspectives or that might not be in-line with traditional thinking. Sometimes this means breaking away and thinking and saying what may not be obvious or practical. Having said that, lets take a step back for a moment as to why Brocade may or might not be for sale and who might or may not be interested in them.

IMHO, it has a lot to do with Cisco and not just because Brocade sees no opportunity to continue competing with the 800lb guerilla of LAN/MAN networking that has moved into Brocades stronghold of storage network SANs. Cisco is upsetting the table or apple cart with its server partners IBM, Dell, HP, Oracle/Sun and others by testing the waters of the server world with their UCS. So far I see this as something akin to a threat testing the defenses of a target before actually full out attacking.

In other words, checking to see how the opposition responds, what defense are put up, collect G2 or intelligence as well as how the rest of the world or industry might respond to an all out assault or shift of power or control. Of course, HP, IBM, Dell and Sun/Oracle will not take this move into their revenue and account control goes un-noticed with initial counter announcements having been made some re-emphasize relationship with Brocade along with their recent acquisition of Ethernet/IP vendor Foundry.

Now what does this have to do with Brocade potentially being sold and why the title involving Huawei?

Many of the recent industry acquisitions have been focused on shoring up technology or intellectual property (IP), eliminating a competitor or simply taking advantage of market conditions. For example, Datadomain was sold to EMC in a bidding war with NetApp, HP bought IBRIX, Oracle bought or is trying to buy Sun, Oracle also bought Virtual Iron, Dell bought Perot after HP bought EDS a year or so ago while Xerox bought ACS and so the M and A game continues among other deals.

Some of the deals are strategic, many being tactical, Brocade being bought I would put in the category of a strategic scenario, a bargaining chip or even pawn if you prefer in a much bigger game that is more than about switches, directors, HBAs, LANs, SANs, MANSs, WANs, POTS and PANs (Checkout my  book “Resilient Storage Networks”-Elsevier)!

So with conversations focused around Cisco expanding into servers to control the data center discussion, mindset, thinking, budgets and decision making, why wouldnt an HP, IBM, Dell let alone a NetApp, Oracle/Sun or even EMC want to buy Brocade as a bargaining chip in a bigger game? Why not a Ciena (they just bought some of Nortels assets), Juniper or 3Com (more of a merger of equals to fight Cisco), Microsoft (might upset their partner Cisco) or Fujitsu (Their Telco group that is) among others?

Then why not Huawei, a company some may have heard of, one that others may not have.

Who is Huawei you might ask?

Simple, they are a very large IT solutions provider who is also a large player in China with global operations including R&D in North America and many partnerships with U.S. vendors. By rough comparison, Cisco most recently reported annual revenue are about 36.1B (All are USD), BRCD about 1.5B, Juniper about $3.5B and 3COM about $1.3B and Huawei at about 23B USD with a year over year sales increase of 45%. Huawei has previous partnerships with storage vendors including Symantec and Falconstor among others. Huawei also has had partnership with 3com (H3C), a company that was first of the LAN vendors to get into SANs (pre-maturely) beating Cisco easily by several years.

Sure there would be many hurdles and issues, similar to the ones CNT and INRANGE had to overcome, or McData and CNT, or Brocade and McData among others. However in the much bigger game of IT account and thus budget control is played by HP, IBM, and Sun/Oracle among others, wouldn’t maintaining a dual-source for customers networking needs make sense, or, at least serve as a check to Cisco expansion efforts? If nothing else, maintaining the status quo in the industry for now, or, if the rules and game are changing, wouldn’t some of the bigger vendors want to get closer to the markets where Huawei is seeing rapid growth?

Does this mean that Brocade could be bought? Sure.
Does this mean Brocade cannot compete or is a sign of defeat? I don’t think so.
Does this mean that Brocade could end up buying or merging with someone else? Sure, why not.
Or, is it possible that someone like Huawei could end up buying Brocade? Why not!

Now, if Huawei were to buy Brocade, which begs the question for fun, could they be renamed or spun off as a division called HuaweiCade or HuaCadeWei? Anything is possible when you look outside the box.

Nuff said for now, food for thought.

Cheers – gs

Greg Schulz – StorageIO, Author “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC)

Performance = Availability StorageIOblog featured ITKE guest blog

ITKE - IT Knowledge Exchange

Recently IT Knowledge Exchange named me and StorageIOblog as their weekly featured IT blog too which Im flattered and honored. Consequently, I did a guest blog for them titled Performance = Availability, Availability = Performance that you can read about here.

For those not familiar with ITKE, take a few minutes and go over and check it out, there is a wealth of information there on a diversity of topics that you can read about, or, you can also get involved and participate in the questions and answers discussions.

Speaking of ITKE, interested in “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC), check out this link where you can download a free chapter of my book, along with information on how to order your own copy along with a special discount code from CRC press.

Thank you very much to Sean Brooks of ITKE and his social media team of Michael Morisy and Jenny Mackintosh for being named featured IT blogger, as well as for being able to do a guest post for them. It has been fantastic working them and particularly Jenny who helped with all of the logistics in putting together the various pieces including getting the post up on the web as well as in their news letter.

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

I/O, I/O, Its off to Virtual Work and VMworld I Go (or went)

Ok, so I should have used that intro last week before heading off to VMworld in San Francisco instead of after the fact.

Think of it as a high latency title or intro, kind of like attaching a fast SSD to a slow, high latency storage controller, or a fast server attached to a slow network, or fast network with slow storage and servers, it is what it is.

I/O virtualization (IOV), Virtual I/O (VIO) along with I/O and networking convergence have been getting more and more attention lately, particularly on the convergence front. In fact one might conclude that it is trendy to all of a sudden to be on the IOV, VIO and convergence bandwagon given how clouds, soa and SaaS hype are being challenged, perhaps even turning to storm clouds?

Lets get back on track, or in the case of the past week, get back in the car, get back in the plane, get back into the virtual office and what it all has to do with Virtual I/O and VMworld.

The convergence game has at its center Brocade emanating from the data center and storage centric I/O corner challenging Cisco hailing from the MAN, WAN, LAN general networking corner.

Granted both vendors have dabbled with success in each others corners or areas of focus in the past. For example, Brocade as via acquisitions (McData+Nishan+CNT+INRANGE among others) a diverse and capable stable of local and long distance SAN connectivity and channel extension for mainframe and open systems supporting data replication, remote tape and wide area clustering. Not to mention deep bench experience with the technologies, protocols and partners solutions for LAN, MAN (xWDM), WAN (iFCP, FCIP, etc) and even FAN (file area networking aka NAS) along with iSCSI in addition to Fibre Channel and FICON solutions.

Disclosure: Here’s another plug ;) Learn more about SANs, LANs, MANs, WANs, POTs, PANs and related technologies and techniques in my book “Resilient Storage NetworksDesigning Flexible Scalable Data Infrastructures" (Elsevier).

Cisco not to be outdone has a background in the LAN, MAN, WAN space directly, or similar to Brocade via partnerships with product and experience and depth. In fact while many of my former INRANGE and CNT associates ended up at Brocade via McData or in-directly, some ended up at Cisco. While Cisco is known for general networking, the past several years they have gone from zero to being successful in the Fibre Channel and yes, even the FICON mainframe space while like Brocade (HBAs) dabbling in other areas like servers and storage not to mention consumer products.

What does this have to do with IOV and VIO, let alone VMworld and my virtual office, hang on, hold that thought for a moment, lets get the convergence aspect out of the way first.

On the I/O and networking convergence (e.g. Fibre Channel over Ethernet – FCoE) scene both Brocade (Converged Enhanced Ethernet-CEE) and Cisco (Data Center Ethernet – DCE) along with their partners are rallying around each others camps. This is similar to how a pair of prize fighters maneuvers in advance of a match including plenty of trash talk, hype and all that goes with it. Brocade and Cisco throwing mud balls (or spam) at each other, or having someone else do it is nothing new, however in the past each has had their core areas of focus coming from different tenets in some cases selling to different people in an IT environment or those in VAR and partner organizations. Brocade and Cisco are not alone nor is the I/O networking convergence game the only one in play as it is being complimented by the IOV and VIO technologies addressing different value propositions in IT data centers.

Now on to the IOV and VIO aspect along with VMworld.

For those of you that attended VMworld and managed to get outside of session rooms, or media/analyst briefing or reeducation rooms, or out of partner and advisory board meetings walking the expo hall show floor, there was the usual sea of vendors and technology. There were the servers (physical and virtual), storage (physical and virtual), terminals, displays and other hardware, I/O and networking, data protection, security, cloud and managed services, development and visualization tools, infrastructure resource management (IRM) software tools, manufactures and VARs, consulting firms and even some analysts with booths selling their wares among others.

Likewise, in the onsite physical data center to support the virtual environment, there were servers, storage, networking, cabling and associated hardware along with applicable software and tucked away in all of that, there were also some converged I/O and networking, and, IOV technologies.

Yes, IOV, VIO and I/O networking convergence were at VMworld in force, just ask Jon Torr of Xsigo who was beaming like a proud papa wanting to tell anyone who would listen that his wares were part of the VMworld data center (Disclosure: Thanks for the T-Shirt).

Virtensys had their wares on display with Bob Nappa more than happy to show the technology beyond an UhiGui demo including how their solution includes disk drives and an LSI MegaRAID adapter to support VM boot while leveraging off-the shelf or existing PCIe adapters (SAS, FC, FCoE, Ethernet, SATA, etc.) while allowing adapter sharing across servers, not to mention, they won best new technology at VMworld award.

NextIO who is involved in the IOV / VIO game was there along with convergence vendors Brocade, Cisco, Qlogic and Emulex among others. Rest assured, there are many other vendors and VARs in the VIO and IOV game either still in stealth, semi-stealth or having recently launched.

IOV and VIO are complimentary to I/O and networking convergence in that solutions like those from Aprius, Virtensys, Xsigo, NextIO and others. While they sound similar, and in fact there is confusion as to if Fibre Channel N_Port Virtual ID (FC_NPVID) and VMware virtual adapters are IOV and VIO vs. solutions that are focused on PCIe device/resource extension and sharing.

Another point of confusion around I/O virtualization and virtual I/O are blade system or blade center connectivity solutions such as HP Virtual Connect or IBM Fabric Manger not to mention those form Engenera add confusion to the equation. Some of the buzzwords that you will be hearing and reading more about include PCIe Single Root IOV (SR-IOV) and Multi-Root IOV (MR-IOV). Think of it this way, within VMware you have virtual adapters, and Fibre Channel Virtualization N_Port IDs for LUN mapping/masking, zone management and other tasks.

IOV enables localized sharing of physical adapters across different physical servers (blades or chassis) with distances measured in a few meters; after all, it’s the PCIe bus that is being extended. Thus, it is not a replacement for longer distance in the data center solutions such as FCoE or even SAS for that matter, thus they are complimentary, or at least should be considered complimentary.

The following are some links to previous articles and related material including an excerpt (yes, another plug ;)) from chapter 9 “Networking with you servers and storage” of new book “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC). Speaking of virtual and physical, “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC) was on sale at the physical VMworld book store this week, as well as at the virtual book stores including Amazon.com

The Green and Virtual Data Center

The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) on book shelves at VMworld Book Store

Links to some IOV, VIO and I/O networking convergence pieces among others, as well as news coverage, comments and interviews can be found here and here with StorageIOblog posts that may be of interest found here and here.

SearchSystemChannel: Comparing I/O virtualization and virtual I/O benefits – August 2009

Enterprise Storage Forum: I/O, I/O, It’s Off to Virtual Work We Go – December 2007

Byte and Switch: I/O, I/O, It’s Off to Virtual Work We Go (Book Chapter Excerpt) – April 2009

Thus I went to VMworld in San Francisco this past week as much of the work I do is involved with convergence similar to my background, that is, servers, storage, I/O networking, hardware, software, virtualization, data protection, performance and capacity planning.

As to the virtual work, well, I spent some time on airplanes this week which as is often the case, my virtual office, granted it was real work that had to be done, however I also had a chance to meet up with some fellow tweeters at a tweet up Tuesday evening before getting back in a plane in my virtual office.

Now, I/O, I/O, its back to real work I go at Server and StorageIO , kind of rhymes doesnt it!

I/O, I/O, Its off to Virtual Work and VMworld I Go (or went)

Summer Book Update and Back to School Reading

August and thus Summer 2009 in the northern hemisphere are swiftly passing by and start of a new school year is just around the corner which means it is also time for final vacations, time at the beach, pool, golf course, amusement park or favorite fishing hole among other past times. In order to help get you ready for fall (or late summer) book shopping for those with IT interests, here are some Amazon lists (here, here and here) for ideas, after all, the 2009 holiday season is not that far away!

Here’s a link to my Amazon.com Authors page that includes coverage of both my books, "The Green and Virtual Data Center" (CRC) and "Resilient Storage Networks – Designing Scalable Flexible Data Infrastructures" (Elsevier).

The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC)Resilient Storage Networks - Designing Flexible Scalable Data Infrastructures (Elsevier)

Click here to look inside "The Green and Virtual Data Center" (CRC) and or inside "Resilient Storage Networks" (Elsevier).

Its been six months since the launch announcement of my new book "The Green and Virtual Data Center" (CRC) and general availability at Amazon.com and other global venues here and here. In celebration of the six month anniversary of the book launch (thank you very much to all who have bought a copy!), here is some coverage including what is being said, related articles, interviews, book reviews and more.

Article: New Green Data Center: shifting from avoidance to becoming more efficient IT-World August 2009

wsradio.com interview discussing themes and topics covered in the book including closing the green gap and shifting towards an IT efficiency and productivity for business sustainability.

Closing the green gap: Discussion about expanding data centers with environmental benefits at SearchDataCenter.com

From Greg Brunton – EDS/An HP Company: “Greg Schulz has presented a concise and visionary perspective on the Green issues, He has cut through the hype and highlighted where to start and what the options are. A great place to start your green journey and a useful handbook to have as the journey continues.”

From Rick Bauer – Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) – Education and Technology Director”
“Greg is one of the smartest “good guys” in the storage industry.
He has been a voice of calm amid all the “green IT hype” over the past few years. So when he speaks of the possible improvements that Green Tech can bring, it’s a much more realistic approach…”

From CMG (Computer Measurement Group) MeasureIT
I must admit that I have been slightly skeptical at times, when it comes to what the true value is behind all of the discussions on “green” technologies in the data center. As someone who has seen both the end user and vendor side of things, I think my skepticism gets heightened more than it normally would be. This book really helped dispel my skepticism.

The book is extremely well organized and easy to follow. Each chapter has a very good introduction and comprehensive summary. This book could easily serve as a blueprint for organizations to follow when they look for ideas on how to design new data centers. It’s a great addition to an IT Bookshelf. – Reviewed by Stephen R. Guendert, PhD (Brocade and CMG MeasureIT). Click here to read the full review in CMG MeasureIT.

From Tom Becchetti – IT Architect: “This book is packed full of information. From ecological and energy efficiencies, to virtualization strategies and what the future may hold for many of the key enabling technologies. Greg’s writing style benefits both technologists and management levels.”

From MSP Business Journal: Greg Schulz named an Eco-Tech Warrior – April 2009

From David Marshall at VMblog.com: If you follow me on Linked in, you might have seen that I had been reading a new book that came out at the beginning of the year titled, “The Green and Virtual Data Center” by Greg Schulz. Rather than writing about a specific virtualization platform and how to get it up and running, Schulz takes an interesting approach at stepping back and looking at the big picture. After reading the book, I reached out to the author to ask him a few more questions and to share his thoughts with readers of VMBlog.com. I know I’m not Oprah’s Book Club, but I think everyone here will enjoy this book. Click here to read more what David Marshal has to say.

From Zen Kishimoto of Altaterra Research: Book Review May 2009

From Kurt Marko of Processor.com Green and Virtual Book Review – April 2009

From Serial Storage Wire (STA): Green and SASy = Energy and Economic, Effective Storage – March 2009

From Computer Technology Review: Recent Comments on The Green and Virtual Data Center – March 2009

From Alan Radding in Big Fat Finance Blog: Green IT for Finance Operations – April 2009

From VMblog: Comments on The Green and Virtual Data CenterMarch 2009

From StorageIO Blog: Recent Comments and Tips – March 2009

From VMblog: Comments on The Green and Virtual Data CenterMarch 2009

From Data Center Links John Rath comments on “The Green and Virtual Data Center

From InfoStor Dave Simpson comments on “The Green and Virtual Data Center

From Sys-Con Georgiana Comsa comments on “The Green and Virtual Data Center

From Ziff Davis Heather Clancy comments on “The Green and Virtual Data Center”

From Byte & Switch Green IT and the Green Gap February 2009

From GreenerComputing: Enabling a Green and Virtual Data Center February 2009

From Sys-con: Comments on The Green and Virtual Data Center – March 2009

From ServerWatch: Green IT: Myths vs. Realities – February 2009

From Byte & Switch: Going Green and the Economic Downturn – February 2009

From Business Wire: Comments on The Green and Virtual Data Center Book – January 2009

Additional content and news can be found here and here with upcoming events listed here.

Interested in Kindle? Here’s a link to get a Kindle copy of "Resilient Storage Networks" (Elsevier) or to send a message via Amazon to publisher CRC that you would like to see a Kindle version of "The Green and Virtual Data Center". While you are at it, I also invite you to become a fan of my books at Facebook.

Thanks again to everyone who has obtained their copy of either of my books, also thanks to all of those who have done reviews, interviews and helped in many other ways!

Enjoy the rest of your summer!

Cheers – gs

Greg Schulz – twitter @storageio

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

Catch of the day or post of the day!

Ok, I know, its been a couple of weeks since my last post. Sure I have been tweeting now and then, attending several briefings with new emerging as well as existing vendors for up-coming announcements, not to mention getting some other content out from webcasts, to podcasts, or videos, interviews, articles, tips and presentations at various events, pertaining to Green IT, virtualization, cloud storage and computing, backup, data protection, performance, capacity planning among other topics.

Anyway, for now a quick post as I have many others that I have been wanting to do and will be doing soon, however wanted to get a few things out sooner vs. later, and after all, all work and no play makes for a dull day right?

Well, last week after spending a couple of days in Chicago at Storage Decisions where I presented a couple of sessions and recorded several videos, I had a chance to get out and do some fishing and catching. Fishing is always great, however catching (and release) is even more fun, especially when you can catch some, toss some, and keep some for dinner which is what occurred last week when my friend Rob and me ventured out for a couple of hours and found where the fish were (see picture) on the St. Croix river.

Catch of the Day

Rob on left (Bruins warm up jacket for Bass fishing), Greg on the right (Mustang PFD Jacket)

Catch of the day line-up
From right to left, bottle bass (caught at the dock ;) ), stripped bass, northern pike (swamp shark), more stripped bass, and another bottle bass (also caught at the dock).

Ok, nuff fish talk for now, back to work, get a few things done, and then maybe this weekend, get another blog post done, maybe some fishing, and enjoying the summer weather before heading off to Toronto on Monday for Storage Decisions on Tuesday, then a couple of webcasts and web radio events on Wednesday among other activities.

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

Visit my new Amazon authors page

Amazon.com

In addition to my books The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier) being on Amazon, I now also have an Amazon Authors page.

If you are an Amazon shopper, you may already know about authors pages, if, not, they are a feature available for book authors to tie together information about their books, blogs and other material in one venue, similar to what other social networking and medium sites provide.

Visit my new authors page at Amazon.com by clicking here and if you have read either of my books, feel free to leave a review or comment, thanks in advance.

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

Determining Computer or Server Energy Use

Recently I posted a response to a question over at IT Knowledge Exchange (e.g. ITKE) about how to determine power or energy use.

In a nutshell:

Depending on what you are looking for, or trying to accomplish, you may, or may not need a formula per say.

For example, if all you need to know is how many volts, amps, watts, kva, or btu’s are used by a particular computer or other IT device for that matter, first things first check the “tag” or “label” on the device as well as included documentation, or, on-line spec sheets and documentation.

There are also some measuring devices including among others Kill A Watt that you can plug a device into and see volts, amps, watts, and so forth.

Ok, that might have been the obvious and easy part, now on to the next step.

Often a name plate may give kva however not watts, or perhaps amps and volts however not kva or some other metric. This is where the various conversion formulas come into play.

For example, if you know volts and amps, you can get watts, if you know kva along with watts, amps or volts, you can derive the others, or, if you have btus, you can watts, or if you know watts you can get btus and so forth.

Btu/Hour = watts * 3.413
Watts = Btu/Hour * 0.293
Watts = Amps * Volts
Volts = Watts / Amps
Amps = Watts / Volts
VoltAmps (Va) = Volts * amps
KVA = (Volts * Amps) / 1000

Here’s a link to some additional conversions and formulas that along with many others are found in my new book “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC).

www.thegreenandvirtualdatacenter.com/greenmetrics.html

In “The Green and Virtual Data Center” (CRC). book, there is an entire chapter on metrics, where and how to find them, formulas, conversions as well as other related items including determining energy costs, carbon footprints, cooling and more across servers, storage, networks, facilities along with associated management tools.

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