* Posts by El Storage Guy

8 posts • joined 21 Oct 2014

Array with you: Hitachi's Vantara begins rip-and-replace rampage

El Storage Guy

Let's not forget that Big Iron for many customers means "hide the money because the vendors are coming for it"... If they find no money, then, they will pitch you their "classic" mid-range array.

...And with some magic Power Point tricks, (find/replace), AI is now part of their portfolio.

INFINIDAT Big Iron? We should ask customers... maybe the Gartner Peer Insights can shed light on this and understand why INFINIDAT is taking market share away. A Classic, Maybe Not There yet.

Big iron storage supplier Infinidat blags more o' that sweet VC cash

El Storage Guy

Re: Tegile and Nimble aren't "really" AFAs: they were hybrids like Infinidat until recently

To AC, - INFINIDAT Employee here.

YOU SAID: "Infinidat is a "me to" hybrid platform with large scale that wows potential customers with its 1PB marketing. Very capable storage, very large scale, but the performance is certainly NOT, nor can it ever be (unless RAM becomes MUCH less expensive) comparable to an All Flash Array."

>> This is what happens when platforms are compared based on Spec Sheets. HW is the defining element of traditional, tier-based, RAID-based architectures. Traditional Hybrid-Architectures are NOT truly smart when it comes to data properties and that is reflected on their sub-par Cache Hit-Ratio's. (which means you 100% depend on Disc/Media speeds). InfiniBox does not rely on media... as a matter of fact, we don't care whether is SAS or FC spinning rust. What matters is: We get the SPEED, We lower the cost, and we deliver 100x more reliable storage. To me, that's what customers really want.

Note: I personally had tested and replaced VMAX AFAs, XtremIO, Pure, Solid-Fire, V9000's and A9000s, Violin and I'm sure I'm forgetting others. I had been part of the Performance Engineering teams and ALL Flash teams of my previous employers (EMC and IBM).

YOU SAID: Plain and simple, folks that can address ALL THREE requirements: Consistent Low Latency (Flash), Very Low Latency (Hybrid), and Extreme Scale (PB+) are the overall companies that will "win".

>> I honestly believe that is an INCOMPLETE statement. It has an engineering perspective, but in the end, customers don't care if it is SSD, All-Flash, Hybrid or not. (They should not), They (should) care about price, reliability, speed, latency, ease of use, space, integration, support, ROI, stability and future of the company (Pure is dripping money every day), future-proof and overall: value. None of that should be dependent on media (like SSDs and defined as AFAs).

NOW, If a solution can provide that to any customer, what's wrong with that?

Pure Storage's coming high-end array: We have the details

El Storage Guy

Hi, Why do you call it "usable" capacity when in reality it is not. Basically it is the new, inflated "effective" capacity. Do we know if Pure or any other vendor that touts "effective" can commit such levels in Writing (PO contract), and not only to their markitecture?

Moshe's monster seven-nines disk box blooms

El Storage Guy

Re: But...

oh, something hurts I can tell.... you know you want to watch it ;-)

Are you in the 1%? The 1% of sysadmins who need specialized flash?

El Storage Guy

Well, i think the article point the obvious and many of us have stated this years (yes, years) before. SSD is not the same as hardware-based, FPGA, non-customized NAND appliances...

The points made are not truly accurate. And, quite blatantly wrong, btw. Please fix.

1. NAND is not more durable than disk. It just happens that when you have lots of it (SSD or NAND chips) the time it takes of rewriting over the same cell are diminished, hence wearing out is PE cycles become less of a problem. Yet, that doesn't make an AFA/SSA any more reliable than a standard dual-controller mid-range array.

2. Capacity is not a problem of the past. It is the problem. AFA/SSA might get to 1/GB, but not without compression, de duplication and thing provisioning. As much as we want to say Flash is the answer, it is still long ways to go to absorb the PB of capacity that currently live on Hybrid NAS and Block arrays. And let's not forget that reliability is still in question.

3. NAND is no better predictable than disk. As a matter of fact, it is it's very mature that makes it more volatile and risky, hence the massive investment in coding data protection to make sure that the data doesn't flip when voltage changes, or christalized contamination hits a NAND cell, etc. I've seen unpredictable failure ratios on Flash that above and beyond those that I have seen on disk.

All-flash storage or will you settle for hybrid? How to decide

El Storage Guy

Good article... but I was really waiting for better punch line at the end. :-)

As others mentioned, it seems pretty obvious to the reader to do their own homework and determine which one, the hybrid or all-flash will make sense in any given particular environment.

What I thought was missing the fact that there's plenty of ALL-flash arrays betting on the future of ALL-SSD data centers, yet their market (All-Flash) still only constitutes a fraction of the overall capacity footprint needed (this includes disk, tape, flash, etc.).

Also, worth mentioning, is the fact that usually, these speed-thirst applications are usually the business crown jewels, which means that arrays will be required to provide real enterprise level reliability levels (many times beyond the simple dual-controller) and, full integrated data mobility.

In the end, it seems to me that as much as we want the world to be all-flash. We are simply not there yet.

Violin: Don't weep for Tier 1 storage... it'll soon be flashtastic

El Storage Guy

Re: Sustained writes flash sucks

Nate, you missed the point earlier... it is NOT about how much you can write on an SSD. Is about "Sustained Write BW". Maybe it fits your environment (low write BW), but for many others, SSD/Flash can't provide that.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022