Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The disk storage is attached externally to the gateway, and may also be a standalone offering for direct or SAN attachment. The gateway accepts a file I/O request and translate that to a SCSI block-I/O request to access the external attached disk storage.
Potential advantages Increased choice of disk types. Increased capability (such as large read/write cache or remote copy functions). Increased disk capacity scalability (compared to the capacity limits of an integrated NAS appliance). Ability to preserve and enhance the value of selected installed disk systems by adding file sharing. Ability to offer file sharing and block-I/O on the same disk system. A gateway can be viewed as a NAS/SAN hybrid increasing flexibility and potentially lowering costs(vs. capacity that might go underutilized if it werepermanently dedicated to a NAS appliance or to aSAN).
In addition, NAS gateways offer increased flexibility by delivering greater performance, increased scalability and the ability to mix and match multiple tiers of storage (Fibre Channel and ATA) as well as different classes of storage arrays. Additionally, because NAS gateways separate the NAS head from the storage, they help lower administrative costs, avoid unnecessary hardware purchases and offer high-end NAS services at the price of most midtier appliances. NAS gateways are fast becoming the de facto standard deployment model for the data center.
NAS gateways connect to the existing SAN and provide multiprotocol file services to clients connected to the IP network. NAS gateways leverage SAN storage arrays for their capacity. SAN management tools are used to provision and manage storage resources. NAS gateways can leverage multiple storage arrays for increased performance.
By Rick Cook Fibre Channel for SANs comes mostly in two flavors: Fibre Channel Arbitrated Loop (FC-AL) and Fibre Channel Fabric. The two differ considerably in their topology and capabilities. (A third topology, point-to-point, isn't as commonly used for SANs.) FC-AL is the most common and least expensive form of Fibre Channel. It links up to 127 ports in a network sharing the media (either Cat 5, unshielded twisted-pair copper or optical fiber). When a device has data to put on the channel, it requests the use of the media by sending an arbitration signal. If more than one device attempts to use the channel at the same time, the system uses the arbitration signal to decide which device gets the use of the channel. The device with control of the loop then sends an 'open' signal to the destination device and starts sending data. The connection is essentially point-to-point with all the devices between the source and destination of the loop simply repeating the data to pass it on. Although the network's topology is usually in a circle, the devices may also be connected through hubs for reliability and ease of management. A hub or concentrator makes cabling easier and can detect and bypass a bad device or segment of broken fiber so it won't bring down the whole network. Fibre Channel fabric is much simpler than FC-AL, but also more expensive. It relies on one or more central switches to establish direct, point-to-point connections
Arbitrated loop topology
Fibre Channel Arbitrated Loop (FC-AL) is a ring topology that enables you to interconnect a set of nodes. The maximum number of ports that you can have on an FC-AL is 127. The storage unit supports FC-AL as a private loop. It does not support the fabric-switching functions in FC-AL.
The storage unit supports up to 127 hosts or devices on a loop. However, the loop goes through a loop initialization process (LIP) whenever you add or remove a host or device from the loop. LIP disrupts any I/O operations currently in progress. For this reason, you must have only a single host and a single storage unit on any loop. Note: The storage unit does not support FC-AL topology on adapters that are configured for FICON protocol. Figure 1 shows an illustration of an arbitrated loop topology configuration that includes two host systems and two storage units. Figure 1. Arbitrated loop topology example
Point-to-point topology
The point-to-point topology, also known as direct connect, enables you to interconnect ports directly. Figure 2 shows an illustration of a point-to-point topology configuration that includes one host system and one storage unit. Figure 2. Point-to-point topology example
The storage unit supports direct point-to-point topology at the following maximum distances: 1 Gb shortwave adapters have a maximum distance of 500 meters (1640 ft) 2 Gb shortwave adapters have a maximum distance of 300 meters (900 ft) 4 Gb shortwave adapters have a maximum distance of 300 meters (900 ft) 8 Gb shortwave adapters have a maximum distance of 150 meters (492 ft) 2 Gb longwave adapters have a maximum distance of 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) 4 Gb longwave adapters can have a maximum distance of 4 kilometers (2.5 mi) or 10 kilometers (6.2 mi), depending on the hardware configuration. 8 Gb longwave adapters can have a maximum of 4 km (2.5 miles) or 10 km (6.2 miles), depending on the hardware configuration
The maximum distances also vary depending on the cable type. There are three basic types of optical cable fibre. The orange colored cables are shortwave, multimode OM2 type cables. The aqua colored multimode cables are OM3 type and are laser optimized. The yellow colored longwave cables are single fibre. The connection speed in Gigabits per second will determine the distance that is allowed. Table 1. Connection speed and distance by cable type Cable type OM2 OM3 OM2 OM3 OM2 OM3 OM2 OM3 Speed 1 Gbps 1 Gbps 2 Gbps 2 Gbps 4 Gbps 4 Gbps 8 Gbps 8 Gbps Distance 500 m (1640 ft) 500 m (1640 ft) 300 m (900 ft) 500 m (1640 ft) 150 m (492 ft) 270 m (886 ft) 50 m (164 ft) 150 m (492 ft)
The maximum distance for a longwave cables will also vary depending on the speed and the type of optical transducer. Most small form-factor pluggables (SFPs) can operate at 10 km but must be selected for that distance and consistent with the connection speed. For example, 4 Gb longwave adapters can have a maximum of 4 km (2.5 miles) or 10 km (6.2 miles) depending on the hardware configuration.
Switched-fabric topology
The switched-fabric topology provides the underlying structure that enables you to interconnect multiple nodes. The distance can be extended by thousands of miles using routers and other storage area network components. The storage unit supports increased connectivity with the use of Fibre Channel (SCSI-FCP and FICON) directors. Specific details on status, availability, and configuration options that are supported by the storage unit are available at IBM System Storage DS8000 series. The storage unit supports the switched-fabric topology with point-to-point protocol. You must configure the storage unit Fibre Channel adapter to operate in point-to-point mode when you connect it to a fabric topology. Figure 3 shows an illustration of a switched-fabric topology configuration that includes two host systems, two storage units, and three switches. Figure 3. Switched-fabric topology example
The storage unit supports FC-AL as a private loop. It does not support the fabric-switching functions in FC-AL. The storage unit supports up to 127 hosts or devices on a loop. However, the loop goes through a loop initialization process (LIP) whenever you add or remove a host or device from the loop. LIP disrupts any I/O operations currently in progress. For this reason, you must have only a single host and a single storage unit on any loop. Note: The storage unit does not support FC-AL topology on adapters that are configured for FICON protocol. Figure 1 shows an illustration of an arbitrated loop topology configuration that includes two host systems and two storage units. Figure 1. Arbitrated loop topology example
Point-to-point topology
The point-to-point topology, also known as direct connect, enables you to interconnect ports directly. Figure 2 shows an illustration of a point-to-point topology configuration that includes one host system and one storage unit. Figure 2. Point-to-point topology example
Legend
The storage unit supports direct point-to-point topology at the following maximum distances: 1 Gb shortwave adapters have a maximum distance of 500 meters (1640 ft) 2 Gb shortwave adapters have a maximum distance of 300 meters (900 ft) 4 Gb shortwave adapters have a maximum distance of 300 meters (900 ft) 8 Gb shortwave adapters have a maximum distance of 150 meters (492 ft) 2 Gb longwave adapters have a maximum distance of 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) 4 Gb longwave adapters can have a maximum distance of 4 kilometers (2.5 mi) or 10 kilometers (6.2 mi), depending on the hardware configuration. 8 Gb longwave adapters can have a maximum of 4 km (2.5 miles) or 10 km (6.2 miles), depending on the hardware configuration
The maximum distances also vary depending on the cable type. There are three basic types of optical cable fibre. The orange colored cables are shortwave, multimode OM2 type cables. The aqua colored multimode cables are OM3 type and are laser optimized. The yellow colored longwave cables are single fibre. The connection speed in Gigabits per second will determine the distance that is allowed. Table 1. Connection speed and distance by cable type Cable type OM2 OM3 OM2 OM3 OM2 OM3 OM2 OM3 Speed 1 Gbps 1 Gbps 2 Gbps 2 Gbps 4 Gbps 4 Gbps 8 Gbps 8 Gbps Distance 500 m (1640 ft) 500 m (1640 ft) 300 m (900 ft) 500 m (1640 ft) 150 m (492 ft) 270 m (886 ft) 50 m (164 ft) 150 m (492 ft)
The maximum distance for a longwave cables will also vary depending on the speed and the type of optical transducer. Most small form-factor pluggables (SFPs) can operate at 10 km but must be selected for that distance and consistent with the connection speed. For example, 4 Gb longwave adapters can have a maximum of 4 km (2.5 miles) or 10 km (6.2 miles) depending on the hardware configuration.
Switched-fabric topology
The switched-fabric topology provides the underlying structure that enables you to interconnect multiple nodes. The distance can be extended by thousands of miles using routers and other storage area network components. The storage unit supports increased connectivity with the use of Fibre Channel (SCSI-FCP and FICON) directors. Specific details on status, availability, and configuration options that are supported by the storage unit are available at IBM System Storage DS8000 series. The storage unit supports the switched-fabric topology with point-to-point protocol. You must configure the storage unit Fibre Channel adapter to operate in point-to-point mode when you connect it to a fabric topology. Figure 3 shows an illustration of a switched-fabric topology configuration that includes two host systems, two storage units, and three switches. Figure 3. Switched-fabric topology example
Legend 1 is the host system. 2 is the storage unit. 3 is a switch. United StatesSite MapContactsHitachi Global
Home > Corporate > HDS Blogs > HDS Blog Roll > Hu's Blog
dynamically configured to scale up or to scale out to meet different host server requirements. Separate caches, in controllers or in nodes, create silos of storage resources. Host server volumes can only access the storage resources that are in the controller or node that it is attached to. The host server may access another volume in another controller or node, but it cannot have one volume extend across multiple controllers or nodes. Since this is not a common pool of storage resources, this leads to fragmentation and under-utilization of resources within the controllers or nodes. One node may be running at 90% utilization while other nodes are idling at 10% or 20%. While most analysts like Gartner will acknowledge that dual controller systems, with limited amounts of cache and compute capacity, cannot match monolithic systems in performance and throughput. They make the assumption that multinode scale-out architectures hold the promise of helping modular systems to asymptotically approach monolithic storage system levels of throughput. I disagree since the throughput and performance that you get from multimode scale-out architecture is limited to a distribution of the workload across multiple nodes. Unless the distribution is perfectly balanced across the nodes, you have the fragmentation that I mentioned earlier. Even if the cumulative total of cache and compute capacity is the same as what is in a monolithic storage system, it is not tightly coupled into a common pool of resources, and cannot match their performance and throughput . The Hitachi AMS 2000 family of modular storage is a dual controller storage system with separate caches. However, there is additional intelligence in the architecture that enables load balancing of LUN ownership between the two controller caches to ensure that one controller is not overworked while the other controller is idling. There are some single thread workloads where modular storage can outperform monolithic storage, but in multithreaded workloads the monolithic storage will have higher performance and throughput due to its larger cache, multiple compute processors, and load balancing across storage port processors. So while there are important differences between monolithic and modular storage, the best way to use them is to use them in a tiered configuration. Since 60% to 80% of storage does not need tier 1 performance, it does not need to be on tier 1 storage. However, all your storage needs tier 1 protection and availability. You can achieve that by virtualizing modular storage as tier 2 or 3 storage behind a tier 1 monolithic storage front-end. The modular dual controller or multi-node scale out storage systems now sit behind a global cache, and become part of a pool of common resources that can be dynamically allocated based on business requirements. The advantages of modular storage around cost and ease of expansion are coupled with the advantages of monolithic (enterprise) tier 1 functionality and performance, with common management, protection, and search. USP V/VM: the best of both worlds One of the disadvantages cited for monolithic storage is the higher cost. That is only true in smaller configurations if all the storage capacity resides in the monolithic system. If most or even all of the storage capacity resides on external modular storage that is virtualized behind a USP V/VM, the cost of the combination will be even lower since all the storage is now efficiently managed as a common pool of
storage resources, saving operational as well as capital costs. Since the USP V/VM does Dynamic Provisioning, it can save time and the costs for provisioning external modular storage, thin provision and reclaim unused capacity, and wide stripe the modular storage for higher performance. The data mobility provided by the USP V/VM will increase availability by non-disruptively moving the data off of the modular storage during scheduled down times or for technology refresh migrations, further reducing operational costs over stand alone modular storage. Host servers are going through a massive consolidation with the availability of multi-core processors and virtual server platforms like VMware and Hyper- V. These virtual server platforms are driving 10 to 20 times the I/O workload of non- virtual servers, and virtual server cluster are driving as much as 100 times this load through one file system. This type of workload requires a monolithic storage system that can scale up through a tightly coupled, global cache on the front end while the majority of the storage capacity resides on lower cost modular storage that is virtualized behind it. So I do agree with Gartner for the most part on the differences between monolithic and modular storage, but I do not think it has to be an either/or decision as to which storage you chose. I believe the best choice is a combination of modular storage that is virtualized behind monolithic storage as we do with the USP V/VM. This way you can have the best of modular storage combined with the best of monolithic storage, at the lowest total cost. Where do you fall on this issue? You might also like:
inShare Posted in Enterprise Solutions, Industry Talk, Midrange Solutions, Software 6 Comments
Comments (6 )
Post Comment
[...] their knowledge, which is the same as building trust. Dont be skimpy. Look at the length of this excellent blog post by Hu Yoshida at [...]
Vinod
The Storage Architect Blog Archive Choosing Between Monolithic and Modular Architectures Part I on 24 Aug 2010 at 11:21 am
[...] sometimes called Enterprise storage array. Hu Yoshida discusses the subject on one of his recent blog posts. Looking at the wide range of storage devices, Ive categorised arrays into the following [...]
bottlenecking on something in the mix, almost certainly CPU power in the controller or maxed out controller bus systems. The very large amount of storage used for the SPC-1 benchmark pretty much limits the influence of cache, for most products. So, your thesis is proven and well documented in this one (admittedly fairly simple-minded) metric. I/O loads vary, but in the aggregate, this is what would be expected to happen out in the real world as well, with multiple transactional loads and other random loads eventually finding the bottleneck at peak load time. The fly in the ointment is 3PAR, which is not really modular storage, having up to 8 controllers fronting shared storage. But your assertion is that this type of multi-node array without shared global cache will still not perform as well as the USP/USP-V. In fact, 3PAR exhibits almost exactly the same type of nearflat performance scaling, with no knee on the line at all, just like USP. No bottleneck appears as you approach max IOPS. And 3PAR has a higher IOPS max than USP. The USP SPC1` test was from 2008, and 3PAR was from 2009 (I believe), but these were the latest published figures for either. USP @ ~ 200K IOPS, and 3PAR @ ~225K IOPS. I suspect that this is the type of possible performance from multi-node modular arrays that Gartner was referring to in their paper (which I have NOT seen, so I dont know for sure) but it lines up nicely with the one line from Garner that you quoted, where they assumed that multinode scale-out architectures hold the promise of helping modular systems to asymptotically approach monolithic storage system levels of throughput. Quite frankly, the 3PAR SPC-1 result makes their assertion a bit obsolete at least the part about asymptotically approaching monolithic performance. Multi-node modular arrays without shared global cache can outperform monolithic, even at extremely heavy pseudo-random transactional loads. Of course, real world environments never match benchmark loads, no matter how much pseudorandomness is embodied in the benchmark, which is EMCs pretend reason for not particpating (in reality, if they could outperform the rest, theyd be there with bells on, can there be any question of that?) So, I am watching the new USP/V/VS with great interest, to see how it stacks up using the industry standard SPC benchmark (if HDS will go there). I would expect it to handily put HDS back into the lead for max IOPS, but 3PAR and others have not been sitting idle either.
Post a Comment
Name (*)
Website
Comment
Hu Yoshida
Vice President and Chief Technology Officer
Most Popular
10A Consensus on Storage Efficiencies 4Why RAID and Erasure Codes Need to be Considered in Disk Purchases 2Buying Disks or Buying Storage Efficiencies 1The Tipping Point for Hard Disk Prices? 1HDS Places in FORTUNEs 100 Best Places to Work with Innovation and Trust
Recent Videos
How to solve the Information Glut
Neville Vincent, vice president and general manager, Hitachi Data Systems Australia and New Zealand, provides some recommendations... Watch or download the Video
Hu Yoshida on Twitter
Today on #HDS.com: I take a look at the different roles of #storage#data protection efficiencies:http://t.co/Ed8wsX8N
4 days ago
What can Jeremy Lin teach us about #IT? Do more with what we have. I explain here:http://t.co/eVwJxn9g #HDS #linsanity#virtuaLINsanity
5 days ago
Building on my last few posts, I discuss #storage performance#efficiency implications for#mainframe (Cc: @YoClaus)http://t.co/NMs7tAiI
7 days ago
Powered by
Translate