- Storage White Papers
Although I haven’t attended this week, I have been keeping more than a passing eye on the events unfolding at this year’s VMworld 2013. After having absorbed some of the keynotes, blog posts and tweets, it’s about time I expressed an opinion on some of the announcements so far.
The Software Defined Mantra
Say it often enough and people will come to believe it. We now live in a Software Defined Data Centre world, where everything is in software. Not quite. Hardware still has to exist somewhere, however we’re certainly in a place where all of the physical components of compute, networking and storage can be abstracted away from direct access. In essence that’s what we’ve been doing for years – look back at the original hypervisor, IBM’s VM, or the rationale of any operating system. However being slightly less cynical, in the x86 world, we are now at the point where we should be able to deploy infrastructure in hardware slices of our choice and let the software to the rest.
I’ve never really got networking. It seems such as simple idea to me – push packets from one place to another, however invariably, it seems to have been over-engineered in so many places I’ve worked in. No situation more exemplifies this than when the networking team are allowed to implement Fibre Channel infrastructure. So, virtualising the network seems like a great idea, especially as a huge amount of the configuration of the network must be for virtual infrastructure anyway (I hasten not to say “traffic” as there’s a difference between configuration overhead and the traffic that flows across that configuration). Whilst I can’t comment on the virtues of VMware’s design, what I do wonder is how VMware’s implementation of virtual networking will fit into a wider architecture. Will NSX run separately from ESX? Could I for instance buy virtual networking from VMware and take my compute from Microsoft with Hyper-V? I hope you will be able to, but alas suspect not (please correct me if I’m wrong though). Keep that thought for a moment.
vSAN, vVol, Flash (Read) Cache & Virsto
VMware virtual storage – quite the collection now. New virtual SANs (is this VSA revamped?), vVols (although not yet announced or available), Flash Read Cache and their acquisition, Virsto. With EMC as the parent company, what’s an architect to think? Should I be using external storage any more? Which is better, Virsto or vSAN? Will both of these support vVOLs or will that be purely for external arrays? The message is confused and is made even more confusing with EMC in the mix and their ScaleIO acquisition. I think the sales team will have a difficult time positioning each of these technologies, however I will have a go.
- Virsto – VDI competition beater to try and kill off SSD arrays for VDI (hello Violin & frenemies)
- Virtual SAN – noSAN competition beater to try and kill off Nutanix
- vVOLs – intelligent array beater to try and kill off Tintri
- Flash Read Cache – take your choice here – Proximal Data, PernixData, plus a range of PCIe SSD vendors
OK, that’s the cynical part over with. In reality VMware will always see other startup features they can either acquire or emulate and integrate into their platform. Storage isn’t immune from being SDx’d although the issues of dealing with persistent data are different. But, here’s the thing to think over; how many of these infrastructure components will be compatible with other hypervisors? The answer again is none.
The Architect’s View
VMware are doing a great job of evolving the data centre and the move to Software Defined is a good thing. vVOLs are definitely a step forward; Virsto was a great acquisition. However if you’re not all-in with VMware, then getting the most out of their new features will be tough. VMware are a business and it’s all about control and market share. They want you using their technology and theirs alone. Although this isn’t a bad thing in itself (and something I’m not naive enough to expect all vendors to do), it’s one angle that needs to be thought through. If you’re happy being fully VMware integrated, then that’s great.
On a positive note, I like the sound of the new features listed above and I look forward to trying them out and seeing how they fit into an overall virtualisation strategy, so ultimately it’s not all bad!
P.S. – I realise I’ve skipped over quite a few other announcements. They will have to wait for another day.
Comments are always welcome; please indicate if you work for a vendor as it’s only fair. If you have any related links of interest, please feel free to add them as a comment for consideration.
Subscribe to the newsletter! – simply follow this link and enter your basic details (email addresses not shared with any other site).
Copyright (c) 2013 – Brookend Ltd, first published on http://architecting.it, do not reproduce without permission.
- Netapp: The Inflexibility of Flexvols (12,306)
- Windows Server 2012 (Windows Server “8″) – Storage Spaces (11,469)
- Enterprise Computing: Why Thin Provisioning Is Not The Holy Grail for Utilisation (9,669)
- Comparing iSCSI Targets – Microsoft, StarWind, iSCSI Cake and Kernsafe – Part I (7,506)
- Windows Server 2012 (Windows Server “8″) – Virtual Fibre Channel (7,376)
- Review: Compellent Storage Center – Part II (7,333)
- Why Does Microsoft Hyper-V Not Support NFS? (6,724)
- How To: Enable iSNS Server in Windows 2008 (6,277)
- Data ONTAP 8.0 – Part III (5,750)
- How Many IOPS? (4,710)
- Comparing and Contrasting All Flash Arrays – All Vendors (22)
- The Virtual Machine is a Legacy Construct (10)
- ScaleIO, EMC’s New Baby (6)
- Comparing iSCSI Targets – Microsoft, StarWind, iSCSI Cake and Kernsafe – Part I (5)
- Will Connected Data be Good for Drobo? (5)
- Enterprise Computing: Sun/Oracle Kicks Hitachi To The Kerb (4)
- Storage QoS In The Cloud (3)
- EMC Megalaunch – Speeding to Lead Balloon (3)
- SolidFire Update: New Products and Review (3)
- Virtualisation – Solving the Storage Problem (3)