How could a company as mighty and diverse as HP have had so many issues with executive management?

HP stumbled mightily in 2011, and it had nothing to do with product or people. Even sales remained strong, though the PC business is changing. HP’s mighty stumble was a crisis of confidence due to a chain of shenanigans at the very top. This culminated with the short reign of Léo Apotheker, leaving HP to reassure the market of its strategy.

HP And the Enterprise IT Industry

Sometimes, it’s hard to get a sense of scale when talking about very large things. How big is the solar system? How far away is the nearest star? The same is true of earthly things, exemplified by popular misconceptions about the global financial crisis. It’s difficult for people to understand just how much money a trillion dollars is.

In my little world of enterprise storage, it’s difficult to reconcile “big storage” players like EMC and NetApp with “big storage and everything else” players like HP, Dell, Oracle and IBM. Sure, EMC and NetApp lead the pack in terms of market share, but they’re nowhere near as large as the integrated players. HP has more than 7 times the revenue of EMC, which makes 3 times more than NetApp.

This old slide might need updating, but you get the picture...

HP is an incredibly diverse company, dominant in the PC, printing, and blade server market and top 5 just about everywhere else, including networking, services, and enterprise storage. And HP has nearly 325,000 employees, all working to move the company forward in one direction or another.

NetApp is a motorcycle, with one drive wheel pushing it forward at high speed; HP is more like NASA’s shuttle crawler-transporter, a 16 motor mammoth. Single-purpose companies can be agile, but they can also be derailed by market downturn or technological shift. Storage specialists like NetApp continually try to innovate and acquire to keep themselves vital, while larger companies like Cisco and EMC try to diversify while maintaining market leadership. HP doesn’t need to try; it is diverse.

HP Is a Very Large Thing

I watched HP's rise in the server market of the 1990's

HP has long been synonymous with innovation, high-technology, and silicon Valley. I have been an HP customer as long as I have been in IT, and watched as they integrated technology from Apollo and Convex in the 1990’ s. The server products that resulted became the dominant UNIX platform, but HP’ s innovative storage concepts didn’ t take the market by storm.

After HP merged with Compaq (which brought Tandem and Digital Equipment Corporation), the company vaulted ahead in the Wintel market and also gained valuable storage expertise. Throughout the last decade, HP was firing on all cylinders and dominant in nearly every arena. The company owns half the blade server market, is tied for first in servers, leads in PCs and printers, and is a contender in networking and storage. It’s simply impossible to say what HP is in a single sentence.

HP storage has an extremely broad product range, which management is working to reconcile. Acquisitions of LeftHand, Ibrix, and 3PAR gave HP storage shot in the arm to be sure. An injection of startup mojo has energized the marketing and product groups within HP just when the company needed it. HP’ s market share has grown somewhat as a result, though not as much as the hyper-focused NetApp. HP networking similarly took on 3Com, bedeviling Cisco in the Ethernet switch market.

The Executive Soap Opera

It takes a lot to bring a mammoth to its knees, but a shot between the eyes usually does the trick. While the many engines of HP push it forward, the company’s upper management has seemed, at times, suicidal. Business schools could design an entire curriculum around the folly of Patricia “I spy” Dunn and Mark “penny-pinching” Hurd. Who would think that HP management could top this?

From August 2010 through September 2011, HP dominated IT headlines in completely the wrong way. The board wanted a change, and selected Léo Apotheker to transform HP. But it was a soap opera from the very start, with Oracle hiring Mark Hurd and sending Apotheker into hiding among accusations of corporate espionage while at SAP.

The new CEO didn’t seem to understand HP at all, though he was intent on steering it in a new direction. Apotheker set about dismantling HP’s consumer and end-user businesses, killing Palm/WebOS and threatening to sell off the PC business. The company was to focus instead on enterprise computing, but these drastic moves spooked the entire industry.

It wasn’t long before HP’s board struck again, with a shake up at the hands of Ray Lane and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman brought in to replace Apotheker. The first order of business for the new HP executive team appears to be reassuring the entire world that management has not gone completely insane.

Stephen’s Stance

To an outsider like me, the most disappointing thing about HP’s mighty stumble is that it has nothing to do with the people who really make the company what it is. I have met many creative, hard-working individuals in HP’s storage, server, networking, and printer groups, and they could not be more different from the executive soap opera. I only hope that this new board and CEO will bring some stability and let HP cruise forward once again.

Disclaimer: HP has sponsored the Tech Field Day events which I organize, and has on occasion invited me to attend events at their expense.  But I do similar work with nearly every company in the IT industry, and this piece is my own opinion.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2012. | HP’s Mighty Stumble
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Gestalt IT. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

I Promise Not To Quote That Old Annoying Dell PC Slogan

I’ve been buying Dell computers for decades, but not really because I loved them. Sure, my XPS laptop was awesome, but it burned out its motherboard and I never really touched the RMA replacement, having bought a MacBook Pro in the meantime. Enterprise buyers seem to have the same ambivalence about Dell. They buy it, but I’m not sure they really “buy” the company as an IT partner.

I’m sure you’ve heard the same comments as me: “Dell just assembles off-the-shelf components and sells them in volume” or “Dell’s a follower, not an innovator.” There seems to be a great deal of respect for Dell’s ability to produce competitive products and sell them at reasonable cost. Truly, most of their competitors would love to have this kind of reputation. But most of their competitors also have a reputation for partnership, innovation, and solution selling.

Dell Is Making An Effort

It seems clear that Dell would like to change this attitude, and they are investing serious resources to make it happen. While acquisitions like Compellent and Force10 raised eyebrows in storage and networking, it is the activity I see behind the scenes that paints the clearest picture. Dell isn’t just buying into new markets, they’re investing to change the company.

When Dell acquired EqualLogic in 2008, many assumed it was a tactical investment to increase margins over the (resold) EMC storage equipment the company was then pushing. Pundits were similarly dismissive of the acquisition of Perot Systems in 2009, calling it a “me too” effort after HP acquired rival EDS. Regardless of the motivations, however, Dell was becoming more of a serious challenger to HP and IBM every day.

After failing to acquire 3PAR in 2010, then picking up Compllent shortly after, accusations that Dell was “mini me” to HP were rampant. But HP stumbled mightily in 2011, and many in IT quickly lost confidence in that company’s management. All the while, Dell moved forward, increasing in-house IP and expanding enterprise offerings.

What Is The Result?

Today, one sees a very different landscape than just last year. Dell’s acquisitions focused on some of the ripest spots in storage and networking, and no one would disagree that the company has the ability strongly to push these products. Compellent and Force10 went from interesting startups to serious contenders overnight.

Dell really pulled out all the stops to tell us they are "Fluid by Design"

More importantly, Dell has retained much of the innovation these companies offered, from employees to support programs. Last week, I attended the Dell Storage Forum in London, an event initiated by Compellent prior to the acquisition. At the event, I talked to many Dell employees who came to the company through acquisition but had now been given power to challenge the status quo in their respective areas.

If Dell really intended only to push product, why retain marketing personnel? Why invest in the Dell Storage Forum? Why continue Compellent’s beloved Co-Pilot support program?

Then there are the products. Dell leveraged its investment in Ocarina Networks to create a deduplicating backup appliance, the new DR4000. They salvaged file system startup ExaNet and are beginning to bring scale out technology to market. The latest revision of the Compellent software finally brings it to parity in terms of VMware support. And Dell is really working to sell their DX Object Store.

This is the sort of activity one would expect from a contender, not a “box pusher”.

Stephen’s Stance

In the words of Malcolm Reynolds, my days of not taking Dell seriously are certainly coming to a middle. Dell is investing in product IP, innovative marketing and PR events, customer support, and personnel. This does not mean that Dell is instantly a player in the enterprise storage and networking markets, or that all this work will pay off. But I don’t laugh when I hear Dell boast that they intend to be a “top three” enterprise storage company in a few years. It could happen.

Disclaimer: Dell sponsored two Tech Field Day events in 2011, paid me as a speaker at two DX events, and paid for my trip to Dell Storage Forum in London. But no one can buy a post on this site, and I did similar business with IBM, HP, Cisco, and many other companies. This is my opinion.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2012. | Why Should Anyone Take Dell Seriously in Enterprise Storage?
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

The new XQD memory card format will replace CompactFlash in pro SLR and video cameras

The CompactFlash Association announced a new media card format last month, and now Sony and Nikon have introduced the first media and digital cameras, respectively. But what exactly is an XQD memory card? Read on for the details.

A Different Type of Media for Different Type of Camera

XQD falls between SD and CompactFlash in physical size

Most consumers have grown used to the standard SD card for digital media. It is become ubiquitous in consumer and even semi-pro digital cameras, computers, and other devices from phones to game machines. SD (short for Secure Digital) is the descendent of the basic MultiMediaCard (MMC) format introduced in the mid-90′s. Like MMC, SD uses a simple and basic transfer mechanism rooted in the interface of flash memory chips themselves.

The SD card format has been continually updated and refined, culminating in the current SDHC and future SDXC formats used by the most advanced consumer cameras today. But SD has many limitations, and even the highest speed SD cards cannot meet the demands of fast shooting many-megapixel and pro video cameras.

Professional cameras, including full-frame digital SLR and high definition video cameras, typically use higher bandwidth formats like CompactFlash or P2. These cards may not seem all that impressive on paper, but their real-world performance justifies their extreme pricing. CompactFlash is based on now-outdated computer standards, including PCMCIA (16-bit ISA bus) and ATA, though in a smaller form factor. P2, the Panasonic format, also uses the 16-bit PCMCIA interface as well as its form factor.

XQD: A Next-Generation Memory Card Format

The new XQD card format is philosophically similar to CompactFlash in that it uses a high-speed computer bus rather than a flash interface. XQD adopts PCI Express version 2 for 2.5 Gbps throughput, with 5 Gbps promised in the future. The physical form factor falls in between CompactFlash and SD, and the CompactFlash Association suggests we will see terabyte-sized cards in the not so distant future.

Sony is first up with XQD card media, though Nikon has the first camera

XQD will likely see rapid adoption from CompactFlash adherents like Nikon and Canon. Sony appears to be getting on the XQD bandwagon as well, at least on the media side, and I expect that their future full frame cameras and pro video equipment we use the format. One expects Olympus, Fujifilm, and niche players like Sigma, Leica, and Hasselblad to join the XQD team as well. The big question is Panasonic, which seems satisfied with P2.

Although SDXC appears promising, implementation details have caused it to stumble out of the gate. The use of MBR partitioning limits capacity to “just” 2 TB, and not everyone loves the appointed exFAT filesystem. Plus, initial SDXC cards poke along even slower than conventional (and far cheaper) SDHC alternatives.

In contrast, Sony’s first batch of XQD cards are 4 times faster, allowing them to keep up with the punishing data rates generated by the new 16 megapixel Nikon D4 DSLR. With Sony set to introduce a 24 megapixel A99 and 36 megapixel hybrid mount full frame camera, it is very likely that this performance will come in handy!

Stephen’s Stance

XQD is complementary to SDXC, a high-bandwidth, high-capacity alternative for professional cameras. It is likely to be adopted by makers of professional or full frame digital SLR cameras, and one expects it to make a big splash in the digital video market as well. Future high megapixel prosumer cameras may feature both XQD and SDXC slots, giving consumers an alternative for maximum performance.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2012. | What Is an XQD Card? The New Media for Pro Cameras!
This post was categorized as Computer History, Personal, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Learn to drive a Ford Model T and you will be amazed how automobile controls have progressed! It looks similar but it's totally different from today's cars.

“The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from.” Andrew Tanenbaum’s statement may be a cynical and dismissive, but it’s not far from the mark. Indeed, there are a great many standards, perhaps as many as there are efforts to standardize the world around us! But what good are standards, really?

The 3 Standard Types

In technical fields, standardization is a process of establishing a specification, definition, or procedure that is generally applicable. In other words, a standard is the exact opposite of a one-off or proprietary item.

End-users and vendors often clamor for standardization, though not usually for the same reasons:

• End users like standards because they promote options and tend to drive down costs
• Incumbent vendors like standards that give them control over the market or competitors, while challengers prefer “open standards” that allow them entry

Not all standards are created equal, however. Some are designed to be open and free to use, while others simply fall into widespread use. Some are designed by committee, while others are driven by a dominant player in the market. Generally, standards fall into one or more of the following categories:

• De facto standards emerge “accidentally” as they become used more and more broadly. In many cases, companies are hesitant for their developments to become de facto standards, since they may lose control of the market and usage of their products.
• De jure standards are legally binding requirements from contracts, laws, or regulations. These are quite rare, and often adopted only when absolutely required to ensure safety or avoid major market upheaval.
• Other standards are made available on a voluntary basis, in hopes that they will be used. Whether designed by a committee or a single entity, voluntary standards usually serve to encourage market development.

Whose Standard Is It?

When considering one standard or another, it’s important to keep in mind it’s origin. Sony’s Memory Stick, the Blu-Ray disc, the Apple dock connector, the Microsoft Windows API, and so many more were all developed to lock in licensing and product revenue. Although it is beneficial to consumers to have standard camera media, multimedia discs, and such, these were not developed solely with the interests of consumers in mind.

Automobiles present an interesting case in standardization. It may come as a surprise to the uninitiated, but nearly every part of the car is proprietary, right down to the control mechanisms we take for granted while driving. Certain elements (seatbelts, windshield wipers, and the gasoline fill valve) are indeed de jure standards, but most everything else is subject to the whims of each manufacturer. Think of how difficult it is to operate the air conditioning or set the cruise control in a rental car. Then go to the auto parts store and see just how many different air filters they stock!

Consumers generally benefit when broadly accepted standards emerge, regardless of the origin. The Edison screw base on a lightbulb, for example, was developed to encourage a market for electric light fixtures but also to secure licensing revenue for the Edison company. In contrast, the “flash shoe” found the top most high-end cameras developed accidentally and incrementally over the last century. Both are now de facto standards out of control of their originators, but despite major shortcomings the value of interchangeability has made them commonplace.

Stephen’s Stance

I certainly benefit from standardization of the world around me, and I welcome interoperability and interchangeability as well as the price and product selection advantages. But I am not blithely focused on standardization above all else. I will happily use a proprietary solution if the alternative is inelegant, ineffective, or insufficient.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | The Myths of Standardization
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History, Features, Personal, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Even the fanciest technology can spiral down the drain

I am certainly not the first person to notice the peculiar “race to the bottom” that happens when products are commoditized. But it is been much in my thoughts recently as I observed the annual tragedy of holiday price wars. How can a company economically produce a DVD player, tablet computer, or even a string of Christmas lights at the prices we see today? Working conditions, quality, environmental protection, and reliability have all gone out the window. But how can a business resists joining this downward spiral?

Consider the lowly lightbulb. Once a subject for great national pride, with intense research and development and patent battles, today’s incandescent light bulbs are utter garbage. Standard 40 W bulbs sell for under a dollar and last just a few months. Burned out bulbs are chucked and replaced without a thought, yet they were once prized and protected. Once upon a time, companies even specialized in refilling lightbulbs!

Over the course of 150 years of development, the technology of incandescent lamps became sufficiently mature that the main differentiator between bulbs was price. This led to an industrywide crash, with production moved and outsourced and quality falling away. Today, with the technology on its last legs, the once proud lightbulb has become worthless trash. The same effect is rapidly taking over the CFL bulb market.

The same phenomenon happens with television sets (witness Sony’s recent decision abandon mainstream television production to ODMs), DVD players (and Blu-ray on the way), and PC computers (especially consumer laptops). Differentiation and quality fall by the wayside as consumers focus entirely on price. Before long, companies decided they can no longer compete for ever smaller margins and give up the market entirely.

There is one antidote to the downward spiral: Consumers must choose to spend more wisely. The greatest modern example is Apple, which refuses to do battle on price and focuses instead on innovation, quality, and (yes) fashion. In this way, Apple is indeed the BMW of computers, since both companies have long since given up competing on price yet both still find mass-market success.

But is it possible to continue producing successful, innovative, high-quality products in the face of a flood of trash? Sadly, consumers will likely always respond to mind bogglingly low prices. Fashion and features do offer some protection for premium producers, but nothing can stave off “nearly free” pricing. The only way to truly weather the storm, as demonstrated by the iPod, is ever tighter integration with ecosystems that differentiate the product.

But change will come regardless. Android smartphones and tablets are eroding the iPhone and iPad market, though Apple has held on to the lions share of profits. Chinese automobiles will eventually arrive in the West with good design and well-known brands like Volvo. Real innovation will move on in new directions as the downward spiral continues.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | The Downward Spiral: How Economic Pressure Turns Commodities to Junk
This post was categorized as Computer History, Personal, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

The great battle of enterprise storage is on!

The time has come to take sides on the core question of storage for virtual servers: Do you want storage intelligence to live in the hypervisor or the array? Most administrators are already lining up on one side or the other, unintentionally casting their vote while the rest flounder. But the storage industry must wake up and embrace the divide.

Hypervisor Huggers Unite!

Do you "heart" virtualization?

VMware’s vSphere dominates the world of enterprise server virtualization and has become the core element of the modern open systems datacenter. Microsoft recognizes this but has been unable to field a competitive hypervisor ecosystem for the virtual datacenter. Today, vSphere is the state of the art and nowhere is this more apparent than in storage.

In just a few years, VMware has delivered and updated a host of advanced storage functionality, from provisioning to migration and load balancing to backup and data protection. vSphere 5 includes an advanced and scalable storage virtualization layer, delivering everything a datacenter needs. VMFS sculpts basic block storage into a shared resource for virtual machines, with snapshots, policy-based layout and movement, and flexible allocation and thin provisioning.

Most VMware administrators are “server guys” and relish these features. They have never experienced an automated “storage service” like this, and the enterprise storage world has never been able to construct anything remotely as flexible, user-friendly, and functional. And Hypervisor Huggers don’t need complex enterprise storage arrays to do it: They can use basic iSCSI or Fibre Channel devices to provide performance and capacity and let VMware do the rest!

Storage DRS is exemplary of the new virtual datacenter world. Introduced in vSphere 5 (and restricted to the pricey Enterprise Plus license), Storage DRS uses the core technology of Storage vMotion to dynamically balance I/O and capacity across a diverse pool of storage. Storage DRS even uses Policy-Driven Storage and VASA to enforce tiered storage and data placement strategy. This kind of virtualization has been a “holy grail” quest for the enterprise storage industry, but they’ve never delivered on their promises.

Cheers for Storage Stalwarts!

Do you wish all this virtualization nonsense would just go away?

But not every IT environment wants be 100% vSphere focused, and many aren’t convinced that dumb storage is the smartest place for their data. These Storage Stalwarts want smarter and better-integrated storage arrays, and VMware is innovating here as well.

VMware’s Storage APIs for Array Integration (VAAI) technology is squarely aimed at this market. VAAI allows vSphere to hand off heavy storage operations to the high-end storage arrays from the major players. It works transparently, too, coordinating cloning without the kind of scripting and hair-pulling that used to require. VAAI in vSphere 4.1 also includes block zeroing support and something called “atomic test and set” which we’ll get to in a moment. Microsoft announced their own cloning integration, ODX, but it won’t ship until Windows Server 8 appears sometime next year.

But cloning is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Hypervisor-to-array integration. The rising army of NAS users have seen the glory of more-complete array integration for a while, and they’re not quiet about it. They love that VMware’s NFS protocol support makes storage “disappear” in vCenter, becoming just another resource with integrated thin provisioning and flexible allocation and movement.

VMware is moving aggressively to please their Storage Stalwarts, adding more VAAI support for block and file in vSphere 5. But, as the company laid out at VMworld 2011, neither access method is ideal for virtual servers. So VMware has been pushing the enterprise array vendors for ever-greater integration. They see a future where a VAAI-based protocol enables arrays to de-multiplex I/O streams from the hypervisor and intelligently handle per-VM data.

Stephen’s Stance

You can spot a Hypervisor Hugger by their big LUNs: They would rather treat storage as a bulk commodity, and array vendors should be lining up to get their business. Storage Stalwarts will jump on each new VMware innovation, finally making use of the capabilities they have spent over a decade paying for but not utilizing. The only untenable stance is trying to keep a foot in both worlds: It’s foolish to buy an enterprise array and use it as bulk storage!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Are You a Hypervisor Hugger or a Storage Stalwart?
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Features, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Ready For Prime Time?

Now, “ready for prime time” isn’t really a technical term with a defined meaning, and perhaps this is the root of our issue. “Prime time” refers to the weekday night hours that have  traditionally been popular with television viewers and from which network ratings are derived. A program in prime time must have broad appeal and be developed well enough for a good long run if it becomes popular. It doesn’t need to be popular yet, but it must be ready for mass market acceptance.

J Metz goes out of his way to argue that FCoE really is “ready for prime time”, refuting four “statements” attributed to critics (including me). But he appears to be using a different definition of that term, suggesting that Cisco’s product GA is sufficient. This is his opinion, but I don’t share it. I think it takes much more than a few initial products and deployments for any technology to be ready for prime time, especially in storage!

Multi-Hop Standards

My article poses the question, “why use a 10 Gb Ethernet standard that remains in flux when 16 Gb FC is shaping up nicely?” Looking back, I agree that the standards aren’t what’s in flux so much as the interpretation and implementation of them. Although the standards will evolve (and are already evolving), they are fixed and functional today.

The standards for DCB are done, and implementation and interoperability is looking good (with the exception of QCN, which is of questionable value). But multi-hop FCoE needs way more than DCB. FC-BB5 is the real standard for placing Fibre Channel over an Ethernet backbone, and that’s been accepted for a long time. Real scalable FCoE networks will also probably need a datacenter fabric, and Cisco’s TRILL-esque FabricPath technology is closest to some kind of standard for that.

But real, functioning end-to-end multi-hop FCoE networks need more than standards, they need consistent and predictable implementation, and that picture is a lot less clear. For every confident Metz, Miniman, or Onisick there’s a Ferro, Fratto, or Bourke who continue to question the implementation of, and need for, these standards.

Multi-Hop Implementation

I later call Fibre Channel Forwarding and Ethernet fabric technology “decidedly experimental.” Metz counters that Cisco has a functional implementation, and I do not doubt that. But one company’s recent GA status doesn’t make Multi-Hop FCoE “ready for prime time” by my standards. By his own admission, “multihop FCoE for Director-Class systems (the most common for Aggregation and Core deployments) has only been available for two months.”

I trust that Cisco and Metz have a working implementation, but not enough to go out telling enterprise storage administrators to take the plunge on multi-hop FCoE in general or even Cisco’s product in particular. Give it a little more time to mature, and give me a reference customer or two. And it would be nice to have more than one vendor to buy from.

FCoE Interoperability

I also state that Multi-Hop FCoE interoperability “is a serious question” and Metz points out that HP and Cisco have an interoperable solution. But his example is an FEX module for HP blade servers, not an FCoE-capable switch that interacts correctly with Cisco Nexus using standards-based Multi-Hop FCoE technology. It’s not even using FabricPath, let alone TRILL or some other FCoE standard!

This whole interoperability conversation reminds me of the “Fool the Guesser” scene in The Jerk: Your interoperability is right here, between the ashtrays and the thimbles. As long as you want to connect this very specific thing with that very specific thing, ignoring the rest of the world of products, you’re interoperable. And don’t ask for multi-vendor FC forwarding yet.

Metz also makes a non-sequitur suggestion that someone wants the industry to wait for Brocade, but I’ve never said anything of the sort. We don’t need everyone to proceed, but we do need more than one company. Standards only matter if they help us do something productive and positive, and single-vendor standards might as well not exist at all.

The bottom line is that we do not have interoperability of FCoE switches today, and we won’t have it for a long, long time. This is not Cisco’s fault, since they’re closest to standards-compliant, but it’s the truth. Eventually someone (Juniper? HP? Brocade? Dell?) will come out with a standards-compliant FCF/TRILL FCoE switch and they will issue a joint press release with Cisco and the industry will rejoice. But most customers probably won’t mix switch vendors anyway…

FCoE Adoption

This big V8 is a "mild hybrid", delivering all of the "warm fuzzies" of alternative fuels without changing the world...

Metz’ final point is to refute something I’ve often said: That “no one” is using FCoE today. Truly, I say this more for laughs and to provoke thoughtful questions than as a statement of fact. I know that lots of customers are using edge-only FCoE in critical production environments with Cisco UCS today. In fact, I consider edge-only FCoE to be a sound practice and do recommend it to buyers of high-end enterprise IT gear.

But edge-only FCoE adoption is a double-edged sword (if you pardon the pun) for proponents of convergence. It benefits customers with simplified client connectivity, delivering much of the benefit of convergence in an easy-to-adopt package. And it gets the protocol out there in production, offering a path to an Ethernet-based SAN future. But it might just short-circuit the value proposition for full end-to-end FCoE, blunting its impact and slowing the urgency for exactly the kind of customers who might adopt FCF switches.

Metz and I have often talked about real customer adoption, and he assures me that there are customers of “Full Monty FCoE” out there, but they’re not talking yet. After all, it’s only been available for two months.

Stephen’s Stance

I leave it to the reader (and the buyer) to decide if FCoE is ready for prime time.

• First, they have to define FCoE: Does edge-only count?
• Then they have to decide if they have a use case that some flavor of FCoE fits.
• Then there’s the real question of risk: Are you ready to take the plunge?

I know that a number of FCoE-related standards are settled, and I know that there are products in the market and even some limited multi-vendor compatibility. I even accept that some customers are deploying real “Full Monty FCoE” in production. But I just can’t recommend that technology yet: It’s not prudent, widespread, and low-risk, so I say it’s not ready for prime time.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Multi-Hop FCoE Is Not Ready For Prime Time (Yet)
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

I stirred up a lot of controversy last week after posting what I thought was a fairly innocuous question: Will 16 Gb Fibre Channel Derail FCoE? That short post focused on the prospects for 16 Gb FC and was the result of questions I received from the audience at Interop New York. Yet the resulting controversy is all about the fitness of FCoE and my personal motivations. So I suppose it’s time to clarify my position more fully. This will be a multi-part series, since it’s getting kind of long, but let me spoil the ending for you: I believe that FCoE will displace traditional Fibre Channel (“FCoFC”) in about a decade.

This Is Storage!

The enterprise storage industry and market is very, very different from other sectors of IT. It can seem illogical and even foolish to outsiders, but there’s a method to the madness. It isn’t easy to “do storage right” and failures are catastrophic.

This is why storage architects are in love with “best practices” and hardware compatibility lists. And it’s also why I never recommend any solution that isn’t prudent, low-risk, and in widespread usage. Read that again. As much as I love startups and cool new technologies, I never recommend their products for enterprise production use. Storage people have always been cautious, and I’m a storage guy.

There’s also an extremely long tail for storage protocols since minor compatibility and interoperability issues can have major consequences, too. It’s crazy, really, that we still use SCSI as our primary protocol, but we do. Rather than replacing it with something more suited to virtualized environments we extend it with nips and tucks to make it keep working. As much as I’d like to just ditch SCSI and use a protocol that can handle unreliable networks, I know that won’t happen for a long time.

One must also consider the useful lifetime of enterprise storage devices and architectures. Today’s buyers will continue to use and grow their SAN for years to come. If history is a guide, it will take many years for anything to replace 8 Gb Fibre Channel as the majority datacenter SAN interconnect regardless of how awesome the replacement product is.

Just An Ignorant Old Man

So this is my axe, and this is how I grind it:

1. I don’t care if anyone buys anything from anyone, let alone what they buy. I work for no man and I don’t need any vendor’s love. I take money from most companies from time to time, but none owns my loyalty.
2. Although I love cutting-edge tech, I’m professionally very conservative and base all of my recommendations on my three-part definition of “Best Practice”. That includes the part about “widespread usage” – let someone else risk his job on cool new technology.
3. I’ve watched all this happen before, and know it takes a long, long time for serious adoption of any storage technology. Real value is about way more than technical elegance, but it does eventually show through.
4. I don’t care about protocols per se, I care about what customers do with them. I’m not an idiot or a luddite but I’m not a willfully-ignorant cheerleader, either.

I am biased against FCoE because it’s too new to be blithely and broadly recommended for production enterprise use. That’s all. Yes, the standards are standardized and there are products extant. But that’s not enough for me. Next, I’ll talk more about why FCoE is not ready for prime time.

Note: The original post, Will 16 Gb Fibre Channel Derail FCoE? was written as part of an ongoing paid contract with IBM Storage Community, a site funded by IBM. But that post was entirely my own conception and creation with no input from the site editors or IBM and should not be construed to reflect their strategy or opinion.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Why I Am Biased Against FCoE
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Features, Personal, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

whith·er – Adverb/ˈ(h)wiT͟Hər/
1. To what place or state: “whither are we bound?”.

VMworld always generates buzz, but news of a major push to change the basic access method for enterprise storage took many by surprise. Extending the work already done with VAAI and VASA, this new development takes VMware storage integration to a whole new level. But the one element of announcement caused alarm for many: VMware’s admission that they would be working with just five major enterprise storage companies to develop this technology. Missing along with the many exciting storage startups is Hitachi Data Systems (HDS), undoubtedly a major player in the industry.

HDS and VMware: Expertise and Partnership

Where is HDS in VMware's roadmap?

Hitachi Data Systems (HDS) is perhaps not as well-known as storage giants EMC and NetApp and server leviathans, IBM, HP, and Dell. But HDS is a major player in the industry with a long history of innovation and expertise in storage and server virtualization.

HDS has lately driven innovation in virtualization of block storage (the VSP), object storage (HCP), midrange performance (AMS), and recently announced they would acquire enterprise NAS contender, BlueArc. Although not quite market leaders, HDS has a huge base of enterprise storage customers and a broad product line from midrange to massive scale.

HDS was right there with EMC and NetApp at VMware’s original announcement of VAAI, even as the mainstream products from IBM and HP lagged months behind. And HDS’ Chief Scientist, Clais Mikkelsen, assured me at their “Geek Day” earlier this year that his company was deeply involved in developing the VAAI specification with VMware. Indeed, VAAI was a major theme of the presentations back in March, with Virtualization Product Manager Michael Heffernan dazzling us with his knowledge of the subject.

You might also like reading Concerning HDS and VMware VAAI Storage Array Support in Plain English

Wherefore Art Thou, HDS?

Now that all that has been said, consider how startling VMware’s omission of HDS was when outlining “VAAI 3.” This is a huge snub for such a major player in the industry with deep expertise and a long history of partnership with VMware. Contrast this to IBM and HP, who were notably absent in many earlier discussions of VAAI, and are still working to bring VAAI to all their platforms. Only HP’s LeftHand and (ironically) Hitachi-sourced XP/P9000 arrays included VAAI plugins from the start. HP’s 3PAR had VAAI too, but HP didn’t have that yet.

Many will likely blame EMC, claiming their influence on VMware (a child company) pushed HDS aside. This same line of reasoning was suggested regarding IBM and HP when VAAI version 1 appeared. But IBM and HP (not to mention NetApp and EMC’s new rival Dell) are at the table this time around, and EMC seems far more concerned by competition from them (not to mention new startups!)

So Where is HDS?

Let me get this straight: WMware is NOT working with HDS on next-gen VAAI storage?

Perhaps this is all some sort of gigantic mistake. Maybe the VMware presenter simply failed to include HDS in his list. Or maybe HDS didn’t choose to get involved this time around, though I can’t fathom why. I put the question to HDS on Twitter over the weekend and hope to hear some sort of answer, though I fear that a convincing response might not come.

The HDS response was unsurprisingly nonspecific (and surprisingly "teen txt-spk")

The only response I got from HDS was a tweet from Claus Mikkelsen stating that HDS and VMware “work all levels to deliver solutions” and that there was “more 2 come.”

What does this mean? I can think of a few possibilities:

1. HDS is way beyond every other storage company, and the “VAAI Cabal” are themselves the odd ones out, trying to keep up with HDS’ “L33T” tech and VMware influence
2. HDS was indeed omitted from the list and possibly the “cabal” and are busy working in the background to make sure they’re included in the future

Personally, the second possibility seems much more plausible.

Update: Some responses to this post:

• Exclusion or Not? (Scott Lowe of EMC)
• VAAI Posturing (Chris Evans)

Stephen’s Stance

If VMware aims to transform storage presentation, and is working with major storage vendors to make it happen, HDS ought to be part of it. Their history, technology, and market position earn them a spot in the “VAAI Cabal” and their omission was a bombshell to industry-watchers like me.

Then there is the other question: What about the startups? Innovation in enterprise storage is often driven by new companies, and VMware would be better served by working with the likes of Tintri, Nutanix, and Fusion-io than the same old major players. But this, as they say, is a topic for a different day.

Disclaimer: I’ve never done business with HDS, but they did fly me to the UK for their 2011 “Geek Day” along with a number of other independent bloggers. I have attended similar events sponsored by HP, IBM, and EMC. VMware, EMC, Dell, HP, and NetApp have sponsored Tech Field Day, and I am currently writing for an online community supported by IBM.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Alas, VMware, Whither HDS?
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Everything, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Hard disk drive capacity continues to increase at breakneck speed

Earlier this week, Hitachi GST (soon to be part of Western Digital) announced they would soon ship a 1 TB single-platter hard disk drive. But archrival Seagate rained on their parade financing immediate shipment of their own 4 TB unit. With the industry consolidating rapidly, it’s good to see healthy competition among the two remaining hard disk drive giants.

Seagate’s 4 TB GoFlex Desk

The 4 TB GoFlex Desk sets a new capacity record for hard disk drives

I’ve been quite impressed by Seagate’s GoFlex family of hard disk drives, and have bought quite a few for my own personal use. I love being able to mix and match interfaces based on immediate needs: I snap on a FireWire dock for bulk transfers from my Mac, then hand off the drive with a USB dock for maximum compatibility.

Seagate has been quite aggressive in pricing their GoFlex drives as well. I recently picked up a pair of 3 TB GoFlex Desk drives at Best Buy for under $140 each. The idea that I could buy 6 TB of capacity for under $300 is really mind blowing!

Now Seagate has announced immediate shipment of the highest capacity drive yet. The 4 TB GoFlex Desk drive will be available for a suggested retail price of $249.99, and will likely drop quickly below.

Hitachi GST’s 1 TB Deskstar 7K1000.D

Hitachi GST's Deskstar 7K1000 line packs 1 TB on a single platter

A few days before this, Hitachi GST announced that they would soon ship a single platter 1 TB hard disk drive, the Deskstar 7K1000.D. This marks the first time any hard disk drive company has been able to squeeze a terabyte onto a single 3.5 inch platter, and suggests that Hitachi may soon introduce a 4 TB four platter hard disk drive of their own.

Increasing areal density is a constant trend in the storage industry, but it is important since performance and thermal efficiency are driven by it. A four platter 4 TB hard disk drive will have somewhat faster sequential access performance than a less dense drive and will run cooler as well.

Stephen’s Stance

This is really an amazing capacity point, but Seagate’s method and timing is a little suspect. The company reached the 4 TB mark by packing five 800 GB hard disk platters into a single drive. Considering how hot my GoFlex Desk drives run, I’m somewhat concerned by this. Clearly, Seagate took a shortcut so they could jump ahead of Western Digital/Hitachi GST in claiming to be the first to ship a 4 TB hard disk drive, but it’s likely that a family of 1 TB per platter Seagate drives will be released shortly as well. So goes the march of progress!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Seagate Jumps Hitachi’s Density Record With 4 TB Hard Disk Announcement
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.