From its beginnings as an alternative to the proprietary DLT format, I must say LTO has been quite a success story. Its history of delivering continuous innovation has been impressive, increasing capacity and performance with every generation, plus adding features such as WORM, encryption and especially LTFS, the Linear Tape File System with LTO-5. Now LTO-6 has expanded the “history buffer” in the compression engine, giving it a 2.5:1 compression ratio and a 6.25 TB per cartridge capacity.

While the roadmap on the LTO Ultrium website has been laid out to Generation 8 with plans for 32 TB of capacity per cartridge, we were told that the next generation beyond that would hold 50 TB. The reason the consortium can keep upping these numbers is that tape as a recording medium isn’t pushing the bit density limits, as disk has been doing for years. Each bit on tape occupies a much larger area than on disk, larger than is required for that bit to be reliably recorded and read back. This means tape can keep packing more bits into the same physical area without killing performance or requiring excessive error correction.

An interesting piece of data we learned during this briefing with the LTO Consortium was that research is showing that while unstructured (file) data is growing much faster than structured (database) data, the majority of that growth from a capacity perspective is in image files, specifically “rich media,” from industries such as media and entertainment, oil and gas, health care, life sciences, as well as general business segments. Pictures, high-resolution graphics and video are pervading the workplace. This means that the types of data that are creating capacity issues for the storage customers you have is also the kind that can’t be readily compressed.

It’s kind of a “perfect storm” scenario for tape. The data sets that are filling up everyone’s disk systems can’t be reduced with the deduplication and compression technologies that disk has been relying on for years to maintain its economics. As a VAR/MSP, this means that your calling base may finally be open to a meeting to learn about active archives (and active archiving software) or simply using LTFS to create a 6 TB portable storage container.

Another area of discussion was around backups, data corruption and the fact that a lot of newer IT folks have never actually used tape. I’ve been noticing an increase lately in the number of phishing emails I’m getting using names like Amex, ACH, the IRS and others. All it takes is for one person in an organization to click on one of those attachments and all kinds of problems can occur. With disk-based backups, data corruption can propagate throughout an environment before anyone realizes they have a problem.

Tape provides a physical copy of the company’s data set that won’t be overwritten with a corrupted replica, as can too easily happen with disk. This “backstop” data protection is very inexpensive, especially with the capacities of LTO-6. For the IT admins who’ve not been introduced to tape, this may be a real opportunity — cheap insurance, to say the least.

Follow me on Twitter: EricSSwiss

As a VAR, DR seemed like an ideal solution since it included multiple products and was relatively complex so it would drag a decent amount of PS. But it was always a tough sell. Customers were usually clueless about what a good disaster recovery solution entailed, but getting them to pay anything to resolve this problem was very difficult. You could say they “didn’t know what they didn’t know,” namely, that they had a problem, and therefore were less apt to spend anything on it.

One way to sell DR is to get users to focus on the negatives, the risks they’re running, the cost of downtime, etc. This is the approach everyone takes after a hurricane, like Sandy or Katrina, and was particularly popular after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks. But people have strong denial skills and just aren’t compelled by potential pain to themselves when it’s exemplified by the misfortune of others. Part of the reason may be that the solution has more than a little pain itself.

This is another example of the pain-of-change equation. If it’s more disruptive, expensive, etc., to do nothing than it is to fix a problem, people do nothing. Testing a traditional DR system can be disruptive and expensive as it often requires after-hours work by a number of people at the primary and remote locations and maybe some application downtime as well. It would follow, then, that making DR testing quick and easy is a good way to lower that pain-of-change delta and get people interested in a  disaster recovery solution.

Hybrid cloud DR systems allow customers to back up their application servers to the cloud as VM images and then restart those virtual machines on host servers in the cloud. These systems have the added benefit of making DR testing almost trivial. Users can start these virtual servers in the cloud with a couple of mouse clicks. This can significantly lower the pain of running a DR solution and potentially make it an attractive topic to bring up with customers. 

Follow me on Twitter: EricSSwiss

As discussed in the last post, object-based storage architectures are clearly a hot topic and one that VARs should be familiar with — and be selling. Object storage provides a scalable file storage solution that meets the performance requirements of “big data” use cases. But it also delivers to customers a compliant lower-tier storage solution and long-term archive that can replace the data protection process for much of their current data assets as well.

So many files, so little time

We should also say “so little space” or performance or — you get the idea. In the file/block controversy, which started as the SAN vs. NAS war, it’s clear that files won. In addition to HD media and other digital content that’s being delivered to mobile devices, the preponderance of pictures generated by cell phone files are another example of just how much data we’re creating.

As an interesting aside, I spoke with a gentleman at the airport parking lot who, instead of writing down his row number or dictating a voice memo, simply snapped a picture, and consumed about 2 MB if he’s using an iPhone. But there’s also a big data side to this discussion.

Machine-generated data, the (relatively) small pieces of information captured by all manner of sensors that pervade our lives, are frequently files too. These include time, temperature, runtime status, error codes, GPS positioning data, RFID tag information, etc. What makes these files big data is the need to process them quickly and be able to retrieve them at any time. But they also need to be archived, often forever, another capability that file servers or NAS systems don’t have.

Compliant archiving

In addition to addressing the performance and size limitations of file systems that we discussed in the last post, object storage systems provide a superior archiving solution. Object storage architectures use erasure coding, a data integrity mechanism that’s much more space- and processor-efficient than the traditional RAID methods it’s replacing. It saves storage space (typically 25% overhead instead of 100% for RAID 10) and doesn’t force the system to endure a rebuild lasting hours or days when a drive fails, as RAID does.

Object storage systems can also maintain long-term data integrity at the subdrive level. By running special algorithms regularly, they can detect and repair corrupted data segments in the background, without impacting performance. This capability is critical for meeting regulatory compliance and just good sense given the perceived value of these data sets.

Follow me on Twitter: EricSSwiss

Traditionally, storage has been either block-based or file-based. With the former, storage controllers assigned raw address space to applications such as databases, which used that capacity either as direct-attached storage (DAS) or over a network, typically with iSCSI or Fibre Channel protocols. With the latter, a file system would be laid on top of a given volume of storage capacity, and users or applications would access those files via a LAN or over the Internet. But the vast majority of growth in data storage has recently been in the file space, a trend that will no doubt continue.

As the need for more shared storage capacity has grown, the limitations of file systems have become a problem. The hierarchical nature of file systems creates a large amount of data about the files themselves and the way they’re accessed. This data about data, or “metadata,” is required to search for and manipulate files in the file system. As file systems grow, the amount of metadata and the number of metadata operations required also grows, eventually becoming a limitation on file system size and a performance bottleneck. And, traditional file systems require a centralized metadata controller, which doesn’t support the distribution of data storage, fast becoming a requirement for cloud implementations.

An object-based storage device seeks to address the limitations of large file storage systems by manipulating data in “containers” called “objects,” each with metadata defining the container’s data and an identifier called an “object ID.” Replacing the traditional hierarchical, tree file structure with a flat index of object ID numbers greatly reduces the metadata generated as the storage system grows and allows this metadata store to be distributed. The result is an extensible, highly scalable storage architecture that fits big data and cloud applications very well.

There are a number of companies that have object storage offerings, both hardware- and software-based. Data Direct Networks is one we wrote about recently, as are HDS, Dell (OEM is Caringo) and Amplidata, to name a few. For VARs this is the time to get familiar with object storage technologies, if you’ve not already done so. Most primary enterprise vendors will have object-based solutions, and many newer offerings are available that can give you a great introduction into accounts where you’re not currently getting the disk business.

Follow me on Twitter: EricSSwiss

Humans are reactive, not proactive, except in terms of the next event. After each of these disasters, there was certainly a heightened awareness and some action taken by companies, but it’s safe to say that fewer companies took the lessons of disaster preparedness to heart and actually implemented credible DR plans.

Part of the reason is that credible disaster recovery planning has historically been expensive and complex. Starting with offsite vaulting of backup tapes and evolving through disk backup, deduplication and WAN-optimized replication, up until recently DR solutions have remained beyond the means of most SMBs. Now, however, technology may have come to the rescue. The cloud and widespread server virtualization have created a real DR solution that most companies can afford.

Hybrid cloud backup combines cloud backup with an onsite appliance that takes backups from local servers and then facilitates their transfer to the cloud. When this appliance is designed to take backed-up virtual machine images and even perform physical-to-virtual conversion when backing up standalone servers, a real recovery capability is born. Downtime is reduced to almost zero since these VM images can then be restarted on the backup device. When the appliance synchronizes itself with the cloud, where a compute platform is available from which to start and run those VMs, it becomes a real DR solution.

This “hybrid cloud DR” is being offered by many of the same companies that provided hybrid cloud backup and is becoming a part of more and more storage appliance offerings, as an optional service. This means good things for SMBs since it promises to bring costs down further, although hybrid cloud DR is already in a separate class from “traditional” DR solutions, from a cost and complexity perspective. It’s also good news for VARs, especially those that can offer the cloud service as well.

Follow me on Twitter: EricSSwiss

In the mid-2000s, Overland Storage (which took a new name in 2002) kind of lost its way a bit with a failed attempt at a storage resource management (SRM) software product. If you remember back then, customers weren’t buying SRM tools even from the big companies. But you had to admit that it took guts to try that. I think Overland had a new management team trying to move the company away from a reliance on tape — but it was an innovative move.

Since then, Overland has continued to sell tape libraries with the Neo series and has more recently focused on the small-to-midrange disk business. It bought the SnapServer line popularized by Quantum and built it into a solid business. Earlier this year, it came out with SnapSAN, a clustered block storage device that reminds one of the original LeftHand Networks or EqualLogic systems with a more flexible design, more features and a lower price tag.

Now Overland has come out with SnapScale, a clustered NAS system that grows into the multiple-petabyte range with a global file system and a host of storage features. This “loosely coupled” cluster architecture stores data at the file level instead of chunking files into smaller blocks and spreading them out across the available storage nodes. The result is a much simpler system from a metadata perspective, and one that’s probably more appropriate for Overland’s target market.

These days the idea of scale-out, commodity storage seems to make sense, but it may be a bit too much of a “roll your own” approach for midmarket companies. Many of these products are software solutions that require a skilled IT group to make them fit — something smaller companies typically don’t have. Overland’s scalable SAN and NAS systems are leveraging that scale-out architecture and the economics of commodity hardware to keep costs down, but they still bring big-company storage functionality to smaller companies.

Overland has been an innovator and always had a strong VAR following. When I was a VAR it was a first choice for its technology as well as its field people and channel program. I think this may be the right product for the times, from a vendor that understands VARs.

Follow me on Twitter: EricSSwiss

Managing a growing virtualization environment is a challenge for more and more companies, but one that’s easy to put off doing anything about — or spending any money on. VARs know only too well how hard selling IT management software is to the midmarket companies that make up a large part of their calling bases. Storage resource management (SRM) tools garnered a lot of attention several years ago but generated precious few POs for the VARs that were showing these solutions around.

Now it’s server virtualization, and we’re seeing tools for managing these infrastructures as well. But most vendors in this space are taking the same approach that didn’t really work for VARs selling SRM solutions: They’re focusing on enterprise data centers. Embotics is a different story.

Embotics’ V-Commander product is a management tool designed to simplify and automate the VM lifecycle process for midmarket companies that have a growing VMware environment. The pain point this product addresses is the low ROI that many (most?) companies seem to be getting from their virtualization projects. In the midmarket, this is typically due to a lack of time and expertise on IT’s part and the inherent complexity of server virtualization. It’s also due to the problems with storage performance that drive overbuying in the storage infrastructure — something V-Commander is designed to address.

V-Commander is typically up and running in less than an hour. Most customers end up cost-justifying the software right off the bat by identifying wasted resources in the existing VMware environment. This kind of pays-for-itself appeal is great for getting appointments and makes for a compelling demo. For VARs that have a VMware practice, V-Commander is a natural add-on for existing customers. For those that don’t have a VMware focus, this is a good way to get started.

Follow me on Twitter: EricSSwiss

DDN’s storage systems leverage a clustered architecture of 4U chassis, each with as many as 84 disk drives (HDD and SSD), processing power and up to 16 InfiniBand ports. In an active/active configuration, the Storage Fusion Architecture (SFA) 12K can produce an amazing 40 gigabytes per second (GBps) of throughput and 1.4 million sustained IOPS (1 terabyte per second with 25 modules). DDN systems also have some of the best density available, with more than 7.6 petabytes (PB) stored in two data center floor tiles.

The products’ performance comes from a silicon-based data architecture with intelligent write caching and a non-blocking internal SAS fabric. Unlike the commodity hardware that’s become so popular in storage lately, DDN’s SFA can actually support SSDs at their rated speed, along with spinning disk drives in the same chassis. This eliminates the need for special hybrid storage appliances with embedded flash or PCIe-based flash devices.

DDN combines these modules into scalable NAS systems, parallel storage appliances and streaming content delivery systems. It has also been early to the game with object storage technologies. The Web Object Scaler (WOS) is a scale-out object-based storage system that debuted about three years ago. It replaces the central metadata store that maintains the hierarchical structure of a traditional file system with a flat index of object identifiers. This allows nearly unlimited capacity growth, while maintaining performance and, combined with erasure coding technologies, enables the geographic dispersion of data as well.

According to DDN, its technology is behind eight of the top 10 HPC systems in the world. And WOS is being used as the back-end infrastructure for multiple high-profile cloud companies. In keeping with its expansion plans, DDN is looking for qualified VARs and MSPs to take its technology up against the big legacy storage companies. For VARs looking for a disruptive solution, this would certainly qualify.

Follow me on Twitter: EricSSwiss

We’ve coined the term big data and talk about it because it represents a problem. Basically, the sizes of data sets being analyzed and the speed with which users need results from that analysis have exceeded the capabilities of traditional IT infrastructures, especially storage.

There’s also a cultural aspect to big data. It seems that people (especially those outside of IT) assume that business value, market insight or even predictions of the future are available to all, if you can just analyze enough data. The movie Moneyball and several television shows, like “Person of Interest” and “Numbers,” are tapping into this sentiment. There’s even one, “Touch,” that puts the analysis engine inside a person’s head. Of course, all this serves to stoke the fires of big data expectations and enlarge the problem.

The term big data was originally applied (for the most part) to analytics applications. At Storage Switzerland, we call this (not surprisingly) big data analytics, referring to data mining, online transaction analysis, historical trending – basically, any problem that can be solved by comparing and cross-referencing structured information. These applications involve big databases and are pushing the popularity of the open source MapReduce solution, Hadoop.

Big data archive is the other main application, one that involves large (often enormous) files and typically large numbers of those files. The signature use case is in the media and entertainment vertical industry, where users process these large files, often in sequential workflows, to produce motion pictures and special effects — and then save everything. Again, storage is often the bottleneck as companies need these large files as quickly as possible to support our 24-hour information cycle. Or users need to perform their processing step when the previous user is finished — a user who may be located in another city or country — taxing networks as well as storage systems.

For VARs, big data is yet another buzzword that vendors are attaching their products to in an attempt to create a perceived need in the mind of IT users. As usual, VARs must be ready to clarify the concept for those users, who by this time have been told that everything is big data and every vendor has a solution for it. When you do run into a real big data application, it can be a big engagement with a big PO. There are several technologies that I’ve covered in this blog over the past several months that have viable big data solutions. One is the subject of this white paper on building a storage infrastructure for big data archives. Stay tuned to future posts for more big data-related solutions and more ideas about how to leverage all the attention it’s getting.

Follow me on Twitter: EricSSwiss

A friend of mine, the CIO for a Colorado state agency, recounted a near crisis the agency had with its Exchange environment a while back. Basically, the infrastructure he inherited was running on an old iSCSI array that failed — and that wasn’t implemented with enough redundancy in the first place or properly backed up. The team had some sleepless nights and weekends but eventually got the system stabilized and then moved onto another storage infrastructure. The thing that got my attention when he was telling this story was how the agency brought in a team of consultants to straighten out the mess and handle the redesign effort. The agency didn’t have the in-house people to do it — or weren’t confident in its current skill sets. I know that engagement wasn’t cheap, especially given the fix it was in — like trying to negotiate with a tow truck driver when your car is broken down in the middle of nowhere. Maybe it’s time for VARs and MSPs to talk more about professional services again?

Ten years ago we routinely got 25 points of margin on integration deals, and often 25% of that total was professional services (PS). Today, I know both those numbers are typically less than half of that and that customers routinely gut PS on the statement of work in an effort to bring the sticker price down. Then they end up trying to get the VAR to come back after the sale or call tech support to “fix” the things they were unwilling to pay for in the original implementation. So where’s the rationale for trying to sell PS in this day and age?

What if one of the VARs my CIO friend deals with had made him aware that the company also does Exchange engagements? It doesn’t mean the VAR would have gotten this deal, but it would certainly have been in a position to offer a competitive rate on PS hours, since it would have been in line to get the ensuing infrastructure upgrade. The VAR may even have been able to structure the contract with incentives to buy gear related to this project.

The point is that VARs and MSPs have talent that customers need in this environment of flat budgets and thin IT staffs. Ten years of IT devaluation have left your calling base with an expertise deficit, one that you can fill. Unfortunately, most VARs these days can barely keep up with their own engineering workload, from pre-sales work to installation and post-sales support. So it will probably take some investment in training or head count, but you may find that your vendors are willing to chip in. They too are getting squeezed by their customers for technical help and are hungry for VARs who are willing to step up and provide more than order fulfillment.

Follow me on Twitter: EricSSwiss