Lasers by dmuth (cc) (from Flickr)

Read an article today on AAAS Science Now online magazine (See Hot Idea for a Faster Hard Drive) on using lasers alone to toggle magnetic moments in specially designed ferro-magnetic materials.

The disk industry has been experimenting with bit patterned media/shingled writes (see our post on Sequential Only Disk)  and thermally or heat assisted magnetic recording (TAR or HAMR) heads for some time now.  The TAR/HAMR heads use both magnetization and heat to quickly change magnetic moments in ferro-magnetic material (see our post on When will disks become extinct).

Laser’s can magnetize!!

The new study seems to be able to do away with the magnetic recording mechanism and is able to change the magnetic value with a short focused laser burst alone.   But what does this mean for the future of disk drives.

Well one thing the article highlights is that with the new technology disks can transfer data much faster than today.   Apparently magnetic recording takes a certain interval of time (1 nanosecond) per bit and getting below that threshold was previously unattainable.

That is until this new laser magnetization came along.  According to the article they can reliably change a bits magnetic value in 1/1000th of a nanosecond with heat alone.  This may enable disk data transfers a 100X faster than available today.

Seagate’s 600GB-15Krpm 15.7 Cheetah disk has an sustained data transfer rate of from 122 to 204 MB/sec (see their 15K.7 Cheetah drive data sheet).  A 100 times that we will need a much faster interface than 16Gb/s FC which probably only transfers data at ~1600 MB/sec burst which means these drives will need like 128Gb/s FC.  In addition to the data transfer speed up, with the laser pulse alone it is much more energy efficient than the HAMR heads which need both magnetics and laser.

How soon such advances will make their way into disk drives is another question.

Is today’s 15Krpm disk speed limit due to writing speeds?

I have been struck for some time now why 3.5″ disk drives never went faster than 15Krpm.  I had always surmised it was something to do with the material mechanics at the outer diameter that limited the rotational speed.

Then when drives were shrunk to 2.5″ I thought we would see some faster rotational speed, but it never happened.  Perhaps magnetic write speeds are the problem.   At the 204MB/sec we are reading bits in under a nanosecond but write sustained data transfer is another question.  Maybe there will be a 22Krpm disk in my future?

Fixed head disks déjà vu

Ok now that that’s settled we need to work on speeding up seek times.  I  could see some sort of a rotating diffraction grating or diffraction comb taking the laser and splitting it up into multiple beams to cover each track at almost the same time, sort of like a fixed head disk of old (see IBM 2305).  This would allow disks to write seek to any track in microseconds rather than milliseconds and write data in picoseconds rather than nanoseconds.

How to do something like this for reading data off a track is yet another question.  It’s too bad we couldn’t use the laser alone to read the magnetic information as well as write it.

If you could do that and use a similar diffraction grating/comb for reading data, one could conceivably create a cost effective, competitive solution to the performance of SSD technology.  And that would be very interesting device indeed!

Comments?

© RayOnStorage.com. for RayOnStorage Blog, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Disk data transfer speeds, Disk RPM, disk technology, Drive write head, fixed head disks, Laser magnetization, Seagate, Ultrafast magnetization

rayo 3 by El Garza (cc) (from Flickr)

Although technically Project Lightening and Thunder represent some interesting offshoots of EMC software, hardware and system prowess,  I wonder why they would decide to go after this particular market space.

There are plenty of alternative offerings in the PCIe NAND memory card space.  Moreover, the PCIe card caching functionality, while interesting is not that hard to replicate and such software capability is not a serious barrier of entry for HP, IBM, NetApp and many, many others.  And the margins cannot be that great.

So why get into this low margin business?

I can see a couple of reasons why EMC might want to do this.

• Believing in the commoditization of storage performance.  I have had this debate with a number of analysts over the years but there remain many out there that firmly believe that storage performance will become a commodity sooner, rather than later.  By entering the PCIe NAND card IO buffer space, EMC can create a beachhead in this movement that helps them build market awareness, higher manufacturing volumes, and support expertise.  As such, when the inevitable happens and high margins for enterprise storage start to deteriorate, EMC will be able to capitalize on this hard won, operational effectiveness.
• Moving up the IO stack.  From an applications IO request to the disk device that actually services it is a long journey with multiple places to make money.  Currently, EMC has a significant share of everything that happens after the fabric switch whether it is FC,  iSCSI, NFS or CIFS.  What they don’t have is a significant share in the switch infrastructure or anywhere on the other (host side) of that interface stack.  Yes they have Avamar, Networker, Documentum, and other software that help manage, secure and protect IO activity together with other significant investments in RSA and VMware.   But these represent adjacent market spaces rather than primary IO stack endeavors.  Lightening represents a hybrid software/hardware solution that moves EMC up the IO stack to inside the server.  As such, it represents yet another opportunity to profit from all the IO going on in the data center.
• Making big data more effective.  The fact that Hadoop doesn’t really need or use high end storage has not been lost to most storage vendors.  With Lightening, EMC has a storage enhancement offering that can readily improve  Hadoop cluster processing.  Something like Lightening’s caching software could easily be tailored to enhance HDFS file access mode and thus, speed up cluster processing.  If Hadoop and big data are to be the next big consumer of storage, then speeding cluster processing will certainly help and profiting by doing this only makes sense.
• Believing that SSDs will transform storage. To many of us the age of disks is waning.  SSDs, in some form or another, will be the underlying technology for the next age of storage.  The densities, performance and energy efficiency of current NAND based SSD technology are commendable but they will only get better over time.  The capabilities brought about by such technology will certainly transform the storage industry as we know it, if they haven’t already.  But where SSD technology actually emerges is still being played out in the market place.  Many believe that when industry transitions like this happen it’s best to be engaged everywhere change is likely to happen, hoping that at least some of them will succeed. Perhaps PCIe SSD cards may not take over all server IO activity but if it does, not being there or being late will certainly hurt a company’s chances to profit from it.

There may be more reasons I missed here but these seem to be the main ones.  Of the above, I think the last one, SSD rules the next transition is most important to EMC.

They have been successful in the past during other industry transitions.  If anything they have shown similar indications with their acquisitions by buying into transitions if they don’t own them, witness Data Domain, RSA, and VMware.  So I suspect the view in EMC is that doubling down on SSDs will enable them to ride out the next storm and be in a profitable place for the next change, whatever that might be.

And following lightening, Project Thunder

Similarly, Project Thunder seems to represent EMC doubling their bet yet again on the SSDs.  Just about every month I talk to another storage startup coming out in the market providing another new take on storage using every form of SSD imaginable.

However, Project Thunder as envisioned today is not storage, but rather some form of external shared memory.  I have heard this before, in the IBM mainframe space about 15-20 years ago.  At that time shared external memory was going to handle all mainframe IO processing and the only storage left was going to be bulk archive or migration storage – a big threat to the non-IBM mainframe storage vendors at the time.

One problem then was that the shared DRAM memory of the time was way more expensive than sophisticated disk storage and the price wasn’t coming down fast enough to counteract increased demand.  The other problem was making shared memory work with all the existing mainframe applications was not easy.  IBM at least had control over the OS, HW and most of the larger applications at the time.  Yet they still struggled to make it usable and effective, probably some lesson here for EMC.

Fast forward 20 years and NAND based SSDs are the right hardware technology to make  inexpensive shared memory happen.  In addition, the road map for NAND and other SSD technologies looks poised to continue the capacity increase and price reductions necessary to compete effectively with disk in the long run.

However, the challenges then and now seem as much to do with software that makes shared external memory universally effective as with the hardware technology to implement it.  Providing a new storage tier in Linux, Windows and/or VMware is easier said than done. Most recent successes have usually been offshoots of SCSI (iSCSI, FCoE, etc).  Nevertheless, if it was good for mainframes then, it certainly good for Linux, Windows and VMware today.

And that seems to be where Thunder is heading, I think.

Comments?

Comments?

© RayOnStorage.com. for RayOnStorage Blog, 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: commoditization of storage performance, Commodity hardware, EMC, EMC Project Lightening, EMC Project Thunder, external shared memory, Linux, NAND, SSD, VMware, Windows

(SCISFS111221-001) (c) 2011 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

[We are still catching up on our charts for the past quarter but this one brings us up to date through last month]

There’s just something about a million SPECsfs2008(r) NFS throughput operations per second that kind of excites me (weird, I know).  Yes it takes over 44-nodes of Avere FXT 3500 with over 6TB of DRAM cache, 140-nodes of EMC Isilon S200 with almost 7TB of DRAM cache and 25TB of SSDs or at least 16-nodes of NetApp FAS6240 in Data ONTAP 8.1 cluster mode with 8TB of FlashCache to get to that level.

Nevertheless, a million NFS throughput operations is something worth celebrating.  It’s not often one achieves a 2X improvement in performance over a previous record.  Something significant has changed here.

The age of scale-out

We have reached a point where scaling systems out can provide linear performance improvements, at least up to a point.  For example, the EMC Isilon and NetApp FAS6240 had a close to linear speed up in performance as they added nodes indicating (to me at least) there may be more there if they just throw more storage nodes at the problem.  Although maybe they saw some drop off and didn’t wish to show the world or potentially the costs became prohibitive and they had to stop someplace.   On the other hand, Avere only benchmarked their 44-node system with their current hardware (FXT 3500), they must have figured winning the crown was enough.

However, I would like to point out that throwing just any hardware at these systems doesn’t necessary increase performance.  Previously (see my CIFS vs NFS corrected post), we had shown the linear regression for NFS throughput against spindle count and although the regression coefficient was good (~R**2 of 0.82), it wasn’t perfect. And of course we eliminated any SSDs from that prior analysis. (Probably should consider eliminating any system with more than a TB of DRAM as well – but this was before the 44-node Avere result was out).

Speaking of disk drives, the FAS6240 system nodes had 72-450GB 15Krpm disks, the Isilon nodes had 24-300GB 10Krpm disks and each Avere node had 15-600GB 7.2Krpm SAS disks.  However the Avere system also had a 4-Solaris ZFS file storage systems behind it each of which had another 22-3TB (7.2Krpm, I think) disks.  Given all that, the 16-node NetApp system, 140-node Isilon and the 44-node Avere systems had a total of 1152, 3360 and 748 disk drives respectively.   Of course, this doesn’t count the system disks for the Isilon and Avere systems nor any of the SSDs or FlashCache in the various configurations.

I would say with this round of SPECsfs2008 benchmarks scale-out NAS systems have come out.  It’s too bad that both NetApp and Avere didn’t release comparable CIFS benchmark results which would have helped in my perennial discussion on CIFS vs. NFS.

But there’s always next time.

~~~~

The full SPECsfs2008 performance report went out to our newsletter subscriber’s last December.  A copy of the full report will be up on the dispatches page of our site sometime later this month (if all goes well). However, you can see our full SPECsfs2008 performance analysis now and subscribe to our free monthly newsletter to receive future reports directly by just sending us an email or using the signup form above right.

For a more extensive discussion of file and NAS storage performance covering top 30 SPECsfs2008 results and NAS storage system features and functionality, please consider purchasing our NAS Buying Guide available from SCI’s website.

As always, we welcome any suggestions on how to improve our analysis of SPECsfs2008 results or any of our other storage system performance discussions.

Comments?

© RayOnStorage.com. for RayOnStorage Blog, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Avere FXT 3500, Chart of the month, Data ONTAP 8.1, EMC, EMC Isilon, EMC Isilon S200, NetApp, NetApp C-mode, NetApp FAS6240, NFS ops/sec, Scale out NAS, Scale-out storage performance, SPECsfs2008, SSD

Bloggers and HP people waiting to tour lab

[long post 945 wds] HP held their (annual?) HP Tech Days in Fort Collins, Colorado this last week. We had presentations from a number of HP product managers and got to meet a number of new and old bloggers there.

In attendance from the blogosphere were: Alastair Cooke (@DemitasseNZ), Brian Knudtson (@bknudtson), Howard Marks (@DeepStorageNet), John Obeto (@JohnObeto), Jeff Powers (@Geekazine), Rich Schandler (@recklessop), Derek Schauland (@webjunkie), Justin Vashisht (@3cVGuy), and Matt Vogt (@MattVogt).

Craig Nunes VP of Marketing, HP Storage got up and led off the day’s discussion talking about recent results. HP disk storage is up 11% for the quarter, 3par is growing by triple digit growth (QoQ maybe YoY?) and channel sales are growing by 10%.  HP storage is gaining market share, grew 3% for the quarter.  Also, HP is #2 is shipped backup appliances (1H11).  The current focus for HP storage is in three areas:

• Invest in established platforms, MSA and EVA (with a 100K customers)
• Invest in converged storage aimed at new data centers, 3PAR, Lefthand, IBRIX and StoreOnce.
• Invest in converged systems knocking down barriers between servers, storage and networking with Virtual Systems.

Craig spent most of his time talking about converged storage. HP’s converged storage includes:

• built in autonomic storage automating operations with one pain of glass and an orchestration layer on top to oversee everything.
• scale out storage providing simpler ways to grow storage.
• built on standardized platforms using off the shelf server platform technology

Craig ended up discussing HP’s Virtual System, their response to VCE’s Vblock, NetApp’s FlexPod and Dell’s vStart Bundle.   HP’s Virtual System was announced earlier last year and has been doing well in the market.

Brad Katz, Product Manager got up next and talked about Lefthand storage solutions.  Lefthand’s portfolio now ranges from the Virtual Storage Appliance (VSA) all the way up to a P4800 SAN storage blade with P4300 and P4500 rackmountable storage systems between those two.   Lefthand systems provide a clustered, scale-out IP/SAN and NAS storage.   Cluster data is striped across all disks in all storage nodes.

The VSA runs as a virtual machine and utilizes any ESX  (direct or SAN attached) storage.  The P4800 operates as a storage blade in an HP blade server and uses storage in the blade system.  The two rackmount systems P4300 and P4500 connect to SAS attached, external disk shelves.

Steve Johnson on StoreOnce

Steve Johnson and Mat Jacoby talked next about the StoreOnce deduplicating backup appliance product line.  StoreOnce is an HP R&D Labs home grown, deduplication technology which provides balanced ingest-restore rates and memory efficient deduplication.  The current product line spans D2D25xx, D2D41xx, D2D43xx and the recently announced, B6200 backup storage blade.

StoreOnce use a variable block, 4K chunksize and a sparse index which saves on server memory size which both lead to great deduplication rates.   Most deduplication functionality is memory intensive making it hard to scale without increasing memory or using different dedupe engines across a product line.  StoreOnce’s sparse indexing fixed that issue and as such, can use the same deduplication engine across their entire product line.

JR talking about 3PAR advantages

Jim Richardson or JR, a 3PAR SE from the start, got up and discussed 3PAR.  Early on, 3PAR brought to the market three characteristics that differentiated it from other enterprise storage products:

• Multi-tennancy – today’s cloud service providers and just about anyone running enterprise storage needs to support mixed workloads on shared storage. 3PAR’s ASIC allows data to be placed on any storage node and be serviced at direct access speeds to better support these multi-application environments. 
• Thin provisioning – although certainly not the first to support thin provisioning (Iceberg was the first), 3PAR did much to popularize it.  Once again the ASIC provides automated support for thin provisioning.  
• Autonomic functionality – optimization of storage performance across nodes and tiers of storage was also helped by their ASIC’s ability to transfer data without involving processor interaction.  Also 3PAR, tried to take the drudgery out of administration by automatically wide striping and making provisioning easier.

Jim Hankins and Chris Duffy came up next and talked about the X9000 IBRIX storage system.  Ibrix has intrinsic scale out NAS support and provides automatic failover across dual processing nodes called couplets. The B6200 backup system (see above) is based on Ibrix technology.  Ibrix supports a 15PB single name space that is segmented across cluster couplets.  Ibrix also comes in a gateway configuration using shared SAN storage behind it.

HP X5000 NAS system

Robert Thompson got up and talked about the X5000 Windows Server WSS based NAS product.  It is the industry’s first two node file system with active/active clustering in a box.  As the product runs Windows Server, one can run Anti-Virus or other server applications directly on the storage and is customer maintainable. Robert pulled out every replaceable unit in the system.  Apparently the E5000, HP Storage’s Exchange Appliance is also based on the same hardware.   The two servers in the storage system are clustered together using MSCS.

HPer showing off intelligent floor tiles

In the afternoon we went on a lab tour and got to see some of HP’s storage and data center cooling technology on display.

On the second day, Mike Koponen got up and discussed HP’s Virtual System (or Vblock competitor) and Aboubacar Diare gave some of his opinions on VMware VAAI & VASA integration from his testing perspective.  Finally, Calvin Zito wrapped up the two day event and everyone (except me and a few others) went on a brewery tour.

~~~~

All in all, we had a good time with HP.  Too bad, I didn’t get to go on the New Belgium Brewery tour, perhaps next time.

Comments?

© RayOnStorage.com. for RayOnStorage Blog, 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: autonomic storage, converged storage, HP 3PAR, HP B6200, HP data center cooling technology, HP Ibrix, HP StoreOnce, HP Tech Days, HP X5000, HP X9000, Multi-tenancy

Isilon Packaging by ChrisDag (cc) (from Flickr)”]

[InfiniBand interconnected

From many analyst’s perspective, IB is one of the only technologies out there that can efficiently interconnect a cluster of commodity servers into a supercomputing system.

What’s InfiniBand?

Recall that IB is one of three reigning data center fabric technologies available today which include 10GbE, and 16 Gb/s FC.  IB is currently available in DDR, QDR and FDR modes of operation, that is 5Gb/s, 10Gb/s or 14Gb/s, respectively per single lane, according to the IB update (see IB trade association (IBTA) technology update).  Systems can aggregate multiple IB lanes in units of 4 or 12 paths (see wikipedia IB article), such that an IB QDRx4 supports 40Gb/s and a IB FDRx4 currently supports 56Gb/s.

The IBTA pitch cited above showed that IB is the most widely used interface for the top supercomputing systems and supports the most power efficient interconnect available (although how that’s calculated is not described).

Where else does IB make sense?

One thing IB has going for it is low latency through the use of RDMA or remote direct memory access.  That same report says that an SSD directly connected through a FC takes about ~45 μsec to do a read whereas the same SSD directly connected through IB using RDMA would only take ~26 μsec.

However, RDMA technology is now also coming out on 10GbE through RDMA over Converged Ethernet (RoCE, pronounced “rocky”).  But ITBA claims that IB RDMA has a 0.6 μsec latency and the RoCE has a 1.3 μsec.  Although at these speed, 0.7 μsec doesn’t seem to be a big thing, it doubles the latency.

Nonetheless, Intel’s purchase is an interesting play.  I know that Intel is focusing on supporting an ExaFLOP HPC computing environment by 2018 (see their release).  But IB is already a pretty active technology in the HPC community already and doesn’t seem to need their support.

In addition, IB has been gradually making inroads into enterprise data centers via storage products like the Oracle Exadata Storage Server using the 40 Gb/s IB QDRx4 interconnects.  There are a number of other storage products out that use IB as well from EMC Isilon, SGI, Voltaire, and others.

Of course where IB can mostly be found today is in computer to computer interconnects and just about every server vendor out today, including Dell, HP, IBM, and Oracle support IB interconnects on at least some of their products.

Whose left standing?

With Qlogic out I guess this leaves Cisco (de-emphasized lately), Flextronix, Mellanox, and Intel as the only companies that supply IB switches. Mellanox, Intel (from Qlogic) and Voltaire supply the HCA (host channel adapter) cards which provide the server interface to the switched IB network.

Probably a logical choice for Intel to go after some of this technology just to keep it moving forward and if they want to be seriously involved in the network business.

IB use in Big Data?

On the other hand, it’s possible that Hadoop and other big data applications could conceivably make use of IB speeds and as these are mainly vast clusters of commodity systems it would be a logical choice.

There is some interesting research on the advantages of IB in HDFS (Hadoop) system environments (see Can high performance interconnects boost Hadoop distributed file system performance) out of Ohio State University.  This research essentially says that Hadoop HDFS can perform much better when you combine IB with IPoIB (IP over IB, see OpenFabrics Alliance article) and SSDs.  But SSDs alone do not provide as much benefit.   (Although my reading of the performance charts seems to indicate it’s not that much better than 10GbE with TOE?).

It’s possible other Big data analytics engines are considering using IB as well.  It would seem to be a logical choice if you had even more control over the software stack.

~~~~

Comments?

© RayOnStorage.com. for RayOnStorage Blog, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 10GBE, BIGData, EMC Isilon, ExaFLOP computing, Flextronics, Hadoop, HDFS, HPC, IB EDR, IB QDR, IBTA, Intel, IPoIB, Melanox, OpenFabrics Alliance, Qlogic, supercomputing clusters, Voltaire

(SCISPC111122-004) (c) 2011 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

[As promised, I am trying to get up-to-date on my performance charts from our monthly newsletters. This one brings us current up through November.]

The above chart plots Storage Performance Council SPC-1 IOPS against spindle count.  On this chart, we have eliminated any SSD systems, systems with drives smaller than 140 GB and any systems with multiple drive sizes.

Alas, the regression coefficient (R**2) of 0.96 tells us that SPC-1 IOPS performance is mainly driven by drive count.  But what’s more interesting here is that as drive counts get higher than say 1000, the variance surrounding the linear regression line widens – implying that system sophistication starts to matter more.

Processing power matters

For instance, if you look at the three systems centered around 2000 drives, they are (from lowest to highest IOPS) 4-node IBM SVC 5.1, 6-node IBM SVC 5.1 and an 8-node HP 3PAR V800 storage system.  This tells us that the more processing (nodes) you throw at an IOPS workload given similar spindle counts, the more efficient it can be.

System sophistication can matter too

The other interesting facet on this chart comes from examining the three systems centered around 250K IOPS that span from ~1150 to ~1500 drives.

• The 1156 drive system is the latest HDS VSP 8-VSD (virtual storage directors, or processing nodes) running with dynamically (thinly) provisioned volumes – which is the first and only SPC-1 submission using thin provisioning.
• The 1280 drive system is a (now HP) 3PAR T800 8-node system.
• The 1536 drive system is an IBM SVC 4.3 8-node storage system.

One would think that thin provisioning would degrade storage performance and maybe it did but without a non-dynamically provisioned HDS VSP benchmark to compare against, it’s hard to tell.  However, the fact that the HDS-VSP performed as well as the other systems did with much lower drive counts seems to tell us that thin provisioning potentially uses hard drives more efficiently than fat provisioning, the 8-VSD HDS VSP is more effective than an 8-node IBM SVC 4.3 and an 8-node (HP) 3PAR T800 systems, or perhaps some combination of these.

~~~~

The full SPC performance report went out to our newsletter subscriber’s last November.  [The one change to this chart from the full report is the date in the chart's title was wrong and is fixed here].  A copy of the full report will be up on the dispatches page of our website sometime this month (if all goes well). However, you can get performance information now and subscribe to future newsletters to receive these reports even earlier by just sending us an email or using the signup form above right.

For a more extensive discussion of block or SAN storage performance covering SPC-1&-2 (top 30) and ESRP (top 20) results please consider purchasing our recently updated SAN Storage Buying Guide available on our website.

As always, we welcome any suggestions on how to improve our analysis of SPC results or any of our other storage system performance discussions.

Comments?

© RayOnStorage.com. for RayOnStorage Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 17 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 3PAR, Chart of the month, HDS, HDS VSP, HP, HP 3PAR V800, IBM, IBM SVC, IBM SVC 4.3, IBM SVC 5.1, IOPS, IOPs/Drive, SPC-1, Storage Performance Council

(SCIESRP111029-003) (c) 2011 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

The above chart is from our last Exchange [2010] Solution Review Program (ESRP) performance dispatch released in our October newsletter (sign-up upper right).  The 1K mailbox and under category for ESRP represents Exchange storage solutions for SMB data centers.

As one can see from the above the NetApp FAS2040 has done well but an almost matching result came in from the HP P2000 G3 MSA system.  What’s not obvious here is that the FAS2040 had 8 disks and the P2000 had 78 so there was quite a difference in the spindle counts. The #3&4 runs from EMC VNXe3100 also posted respectable results (within 1sec of top performer) and only had 5 and 7 disks respectively, so they were much more inline with the FAS2040 run.  The median number of drives for this category is 8 drives which probably makes sense for SMB storage solutions.

Why log playback

I have come to prefer a few metrics in the Exchange 2010 arena that seem to me to capture a larger part of the information available from an ESRP report.  The Log Playback metric is one of them that seems to me to fit the bill nicely.  Specifically:

• It doesn’t depend on the Jetstress IO/rate parameter that impacts the database transfers per second rate.  The log playback is just the average time it takes to playback a 1MB log file against a database.
• It is probably a clear indicator of how well a storage system (configured matching the ESRP) can support DAG log processing.

In addition, I believe Log Playback is a great stand-in for any randomized database transaction processing. Now I know that Exchange is not necessarily a pure relational database but it does have a significant component of indexes, tables, and sequentiality to it.

My problem is that there doesn’t seem to be any other real database performance benchmark out there for storage.  I know that TPC has a number of benchmarks tailored to database transaction activity but these seem to be more a measure of the database server than the storage.  SPC-2 has some database oriented queries but it’s generally focused on through put and doesn’t really represent randomized database activity and for other reasons it’s not as highly used as SPC-1 or ESRP so there is not as much data to report on.

That leaves ESRP.  For whatever reason (probably the popularity of Exchange), almost everyone submits for ESRP. Which makes it ripe for product comparisons.

Also, there are a number of other good metrics in ESRP results that I feel have general applicability outside Exchange as well.  I will be reporting on them in future posts.

~~~~

Comments?

Sorry, I haven’t been keeping up with our chart-of-the-month posts, but I promise to do better in the future.  I plan to be back in synch with our newsletter dispatches before month end.

The full ESRP performance report for the 1K and under mailbox category went out to our newsletter subscriber’s last October.  A copy of the full report will be up on the dispatches page of our website sometime this month (if all goes well). However, you can get performance information now and subscribe to future newsletters to receive these reports even earlier by just sending us an email or using the signup form above right.

For a more extensive discussion of block storage performance in ESRP (top 20) and SPC-1&-2 (top 30) results please consider purchasing our recently updated SAN Storage Buying Guide available on our website.

As always, we welcome any suggestions on how to improve our analysis of ESRP results or any of our other storage system performance discussions.

© RayOnStorage.com. for RayOnStorage Blog, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 1K-and-under mbx, Chart of the month, database performance, EMC VNXe3100, ESRP, Exchange performance, Exchange Solution Reviewed Pro, HP P2000 G3 MSA, Log playback, Microsoft Exchange, NetApp FAS2040

Merry Christmas! Buon Natale! Frohe Weihnachten! by Jakob Montrasio (cc) (from Flickr)

Happy Holidays.

I ranked my blog posts using a ratio of hits to post age and have identified with the top 10 most popular posts for 2011 (so far):

1. Vsphere 5 storage enhancements – We discuss some of the more interesting storage oriented Vsphere 5 announcements that included a new DAS storage appliance, host based (software) replication service, storage DRS and other capabilities.
2. Intel’s 320 SSD 8MB problem – We discuss a recent bug (since fixed) which left the Intel 320 SSD drive with only 8MB of storage, we presumed the bug was in the load leveling logic/block mapping logic of the drive controller.
3. Analog neural simulation or digital neuromorphic computing vs AI - We talk about recent advances to providing both analog (MIT) and digital versions (IBM) of neural computation vs. the more traditional AI approaches to intelligent computing.
4. Potential data loss using SSD RAID groups - We note the possibility for catastrophic data loss when using equally used SSDs in RAID groups.
5. How has IBM researched changed – We examine some of the changes at IBM research that have occurred over the past 50 years or so which have led to much more productive research results.
6. HDS buys BlueArc - We consider the implications of the recent acquisition of BlueArc storage systems by their major OEM partner, Hitachi Data Systems.
7. OCZ’s latest Z-Drive R4 series PCIe SSD - Not sure why this got so much traffic but its OCZ’s latest PCIe SSD device with 500K IOPS performance.
8. Will Hybrid drives conquer enterprise storage – We discuss the unlikely possibility that Hybrid drives (NAND/Flash cache and disk drive in the same device) will be used as backend storage for enterprise storage systems.
9. SNIA CDMI plugfest for cloud storage and cloud data services – We were invited to sit in on a recent SNIA Cloud Data Management Initiative (CDMI) plugfest and talk to some of the participants about where CDMI is heading and what it means for cloud storage and data services.
10. Is FC dead?! – What with the introduction of 40GbE FCoE just around the corner, 10GbE cards coming down in price and Brocade’s poor YoY quarterly storage revenue results, we discuss the potential implications on FC infrastructure and its future in the data center.

~~~~

I would have to say #3, 5, and 9 were the most fun for me to do. Not sure why, but #10 probably generated the most twitter traffic. Why the others were so popular is hard for me to understand.

Comments?

© RayOnStorage.com. for RayOnStorage Blog, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Analog synapse simulation, BlueArc, Cognitive computing, Data loss, HDS, IBM Research, Intel SSD, neuromorphic computing, OCZ SNIA, SyNAPSE chip, VMware, vSphere 5