via Red Hat Appliance Smooths Storage on Amazon Cloud | Cloudline | Wired.com.

This announcement coincides with the publishing of ESG’s whitepaper on “DR in the Cloud” using AWS.

All things being considered, I am very excited about the AWS Storage gateway (AWS SG), mostly because it reminds me in some ways of Microsoft’s for-sale backup product, System Center Data Protection Manager that I used to manage.  DPM wasn’t the most full-featured backup software on the market, but it did at least two very good things:

The AWS Storage Gateway is a credible offering for what its initial release is designed to do.  And like most cloud-based offerings, one can expect it to be enhanced in months, not years, as customers give feedback and operational lessons are learned.  As Terri points out, the AWS Storage Gateway may not be taking over the world of cloud-based storage enablement quite yet.  But the AWS Storage Gateway, when seen alongside all of the other AWS offerings, shows how Amazon is continuing to evolve its Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) and infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) offerings.   And those evolutions are good not only to Amazon and its ever-growing AWS direct customer base, but also to the partners that will develop even more solutions based on them for the rest of us.

ESG recently authored a white paper on “DR in the Cloud“, based on where we see companies struggling with home-grown DR solutions — and how the AWS offerings can help.

To read the ESG Whitepaper on “DR in the Cloud” using AWS, click here.

Thanks for reading.

But an AWS new gateway won’t kill the independent gateway market near term – this beta version is really basic and does not have much in terms of bells and whistles – it is much less feature-rich than the initial implementations from the existing independent gateway vendors (CTERA, Nasuni, Panzura, Riverbed, StorSimple, Twinstrata, and I probably missed some), and those vendors have not stood still. There is no deduplication (but there is compression) – depending on how compressible the data set is, without deduplication the AWS capacity and data transfer service charges could lead to some pretty big fees on the storage services side depending on the nature and use of the data. Uploading data (data transfer IN) is free, but retrieving data (data transfer out) costs $$, so a restore of any size or frequent restores could add up. This is a pure backup and DR play for now rather than a local cache for primary data in the cloud, but AWS is expected to expand functionality and use cases over time.

It is interesting to note that there is also no hardware node–not surprising, but interesting, and a possible challenge. The AWS gateway runs in a VMware virtual machine and uses local disk capacity. While some may consider this a good thing, experience has taught gateway providers like TwinStrata that sometimes you need to sell an appliance that can be dropped into the data center and dedicated to being the gateway – you often get better performance and have no worries about resource contention or workload management. Plus – there is the mentality that storage buyers want to touch and feel something – pure cloud is still a tough sell in the enterprise.

And I hate to use the term “vendor lock in” because at some level everyone is locked into someone, but the independent gateway providers do provide users an option of transparently migrating data to a different service provider if their current provider does something like change the pricing model or SLA. Just think about what happened when Iron Mountain decided to get out of the storage services business (not that I think this will happen at AWS, but pricing model tweaks are certainly a possibility). Nasuni went out and proactively migrated their customers under the covers to their new service provider of choice. By the time the IM news was public, Nasuni had done a ton of migration work. While not an “apples-to-apples” comparison, it is illustrative of what is possible when using an independent.

The initial target use cases for AWS are dead on though – of the current cloud storage users we surveyed in our spending intentions research, the biggest use cases for them are backup (a whopping 67% are using cloud storage for backup), followed by DR (58%) and Archive (58%). And that certainly reflects where some of the independent gateway vendors like Riverbed are finding a niche, so this will increase pressure on them.

Looking a little deeper – this is really a brilliant move by AWS, not because they have a gateway for cloud storage use, though. It is because these snapshots are stored as Elastic Block Storage (EBS) snapshots. This means they can be used to create EBS volumes and run against applications in EC2. Test and dev operations can now be run against production snapshots in EC2. And over time, users can just migrate applications into the cloud – after all, the data migration will already be done for them. Once you do test and dev and get comfortable, the leaps to running tier 2 applications, then tier 1, become smaller – just ask VMware. At the end of the day I don’t think Amazon is really interested in being a gateway so some of your data can be stored in the cloud – I believe that they want all of your data, and compute, in the cloud. And it may take years, but this is the gateway to that.

You can read Terri’s other blog entries at IT Depends.

ESG recently published our market landscape report on OLFS at www.enterprisestrategygroup.com/2011/12/online-file-sharing-and-collaboration-in-the-enterprise/

Last year, ESG shared its perspectives on BaaS at www.enterprisestrategygroup.com/2011/02/data-protection-backup-as-a-service/

BaaS and OLFS have a lot in common, so their convergence is natural, and frankly, almost inevitable.

• They work by installing an agent on the range of consumer devices that you carry. After installation and a usually user-friendly (wizard or push-button) experience, they routinely if not near-continuously transmit changed data to the cloud.
• They rely on a massive cloud-based storage architecture, whether it is self-maintained by the original vendor or leveraging a public cloud’s storage platform, e.g. Amazon.
• They’re sold usually on a subscription basis, almost always with tiered offerings, based on how much storage you plan to consume

So, what is different between OLFS and BaaS?

• BaaS is focused on multiple recovery points as a key design criteria, often including a definable retention period for past versions
• OLFS is focused on sharing – whether that means across your varied devices, or between you and your friends/coworkers, will vary based on the OLFS offering

Some OLFS offerings do support previous versions, though its usually within the context of restoring that Word document that you just accidently overwrote — and not preserving your data for a year. And while whole-machine recovery may not be a primary design function of most OLFS, the reality is that if your machine is re-image-able from either it’s factory DVDs, a monthly backup to a USB drive, or perhaps your corporate backup solution … and your data is regularly uploaded to some OLFS cloud — then whole machine recovery really can be a fairly trivial event.

BaaS-only solutions know that that they are “backup” solutions, so sharing options aren’t typically part of the model — which makes sense.

So, how does Mozy’s Stash solution stack up?

I took the opportunity to try out both the Mozy Backup and Stash offerings on one of my home machines. The setup for backup was relatively straight forward and I found it interesting how they pre-define data types and then simply prompt you to either back them up or not. I will look closer at its BaaS capabilities in a later blog post (or ESG Lab validation) but for now, I just wanted to get it installed so that I could be one of the millions of Mozy Backup customers that could now try the Stash feature.

Stash functionality enabled pretty easily, with the standard OLFS concept of defining a root-level folder for data storage. And as exciting as it sounds, I dropped some files into it and watched my drive light and network lights start blinking away. Sure enough, by installing the same Mozy client software on my work laptop, the files were there. Yay! But let’s be clear — it is a beta of a first release in the space. I am actually an avid user of another OLFS service which has a key feature that Mozy doesn’t yet offer — sharing between users. For that reason alone, I can’t use it yet. If you don’t share data with others, is Mozy viable for you? Maybe.

Although it is ‘beta’, it isn’t fair to call their offering a ‘1.0’ — because they aren’t standing it up from scratch. Mozy has oodles of experience with what it takes to create a lightweight agent technology across a variety of consumer devices. They understand how to build and operate a cloud-based storage platform at scale. They have millions of subscribers. Some of them may be using another OLFS, and if they aren’t sharing with others, may be happy to run one less agent and pay one less monthly bill. Other Mozy subscribers may have been thinking about OLFS, and the Stash offering will be what gets them started. And don’t forget, it is still only in beta.

So, more functionality will eventually come, and like most cloud-services, incremental features will come months, not years, later. Some of Mozy’s backup users will jump on this (likely increasing their storage consumption subscription in the process) — and Mozy will invariably hear the feedback of what their install base wants vs. needs. And with Mozy’s agility, as well as their commitment to cloud-enabled storage, things can only go up.

What excites me the most is seeing examples of the convergence between BaaS and OLFS. And if Stash helps more folks to get their data into the cloud, that is goodness. Beyond the convergence, I’m also looking forward to seeing what happens with Mozy Stash 1.1 … 1.5 … 2.0.

Background

With continued economic uncertainty, it’s no surprise IT organizations are looking for ways to reduce data center costs without impacting business continuity and performance. In a recent survey, ESG asked IT professionals to name the greatest challenges being faced by midmarket organizations with respect to storage environments. As shown in Figure 1, the top-two responses, both at 38%, were cost-reduction initiatives and maintaining an acceptable pace with overall data growth.[1]

ESG research also shows that the increased use of server virtualization is a top priority in the IT industry over the next 12-18 months.[2] How will businesses reduce cost and improve business processes? To consolidate IT infrastructures, organizations are using server virtualization, which helps reduce the complexity that comes with managing data growth in an efficient, cost-effective way. This ESG Lab Report documents and validates the NetApp FAS2240 entry-level solution as a means to easily keep up with the ever-growing data in a data center at an affordable price, as well as to counter the complexity of managing that data.

Introducing the NetApp FAS2240

The FAS2240 is a new entry-level storage system offered by NetApp. With increased performance, the inclusion of ONTAP Essentials, and configuration flexibility, the FAS2240 can help storage professionals increase storage system utilization and efficiency. The product’s affordability, best-in-class technology, adaptability, and manageability help customers start right with simple-to-manage storage that can grow to meet business demands.

ESG Lab evaluated the FAS2240, focusing on quick deployment, simple manageability, and scalable performance. Figure 2 demonstrates how the FAS2240 fits into any small to medium-sized business’s data center.

The FAS2240 comes in two options: 2U and 4U. The 2U option uses SAS drives internally, and the 4U option uses SATA drives internally. Both allow up to 24 internal disks, and both leverage the same new controller, which substantially boosts performance. The internal drive storage configurations for a single shelf range from 5.2 TB up to 72 TB. These options provide flexibility depending on the needs of the environment, which may be more performance or more capacity oriented.

The standard FAS2240 configuration comes integrated with four 1 GbE ports for front-end connectivity and two 6 Gb SAS ports per controller for back-end expandability. An optional flexible IO port, which can contain dual 10 GbE Ethernet or dual 8 Gb Fibre Channel ports, is also available. Also, the FAS2240 now offers highly reliable and scalable cluster-mode configurations to the SMB market space. The FAS2240 is based on NetApp’s existing disk shelf design, which enables customers to convert the FAS2240 to a shelf in a mid-range or high-end storage system if more performance or space is required.

NetApp now offers its existing mid-range and high-end software features in low-end systems. Included in the entry-level bundle are ONTAP Essentials and all protocols. Coupled with a new pricing structure, the FAS2240 is channel-friendly and affordable.

OnCommand System Manager 2.0

OnCommand System Manager is a simple, powerful tool used to manage NetApp storage. By merging the pre-existing System Manager, FilerView, and Cluster Element Manager into a single management solution, the new tool makes it easy to manage everything from a consolidated web interface. System Manager automates the discovery of all NetApp storage, simplifying the setup, protocol management, and configuration of a NAS and SAN. Figure 3 shows an example dashboard view of OnCommand System Manager, including storage capacity and availability, as well as configured aggregates and volumes.

OnCommand System Manager aids in implementing storage best practices from a single interface. Improved storage utilization and space savings are possible through the use of the product’s advanced storage capabilities including deduplication and thin provisioning. Real-time views of system health are visible through a performance dashboard.

NetApp’s System Manager monitors storage system health and performance, and it manages all storage components, which allows IT administrators to increase system efficiency and strengthen business continuity.

ESG Lab Validation

ESG Lab performed hands-on evaluation and testing of the FAS2240 at the Sunnyvale, CA, NetApp facility. Testing was designed to demonstrate how quick and easy it is to deploy and manage a new FAS2240 and to assess its ability to support real-world workload performance requirements for small and mid-sized organizations.

Start Right

“Starting right” is the ability to deploy a storage solution that can be easily managed, changed, and scaled to meet the ever-changing business requirements of modern IT environments. Figure 4 shows the test bed used by ESG Lab for the validation of the NetApp FAS2240. The left side of Figure 4 shows the Windows and Linux hosts used for testing.  The right side of Figure 4 shows the multi-protocol (file- and block-capable) FAS2240 storage array that supported the lab validation host environment. The center of Figure 4 shows the OnCommand System Manager that was used to set up and configure the test environment from a “single pane of glass” management interface.

ESG Lab Testing

ESG Lab testing began right after the FAS2240 was rack mounted and provided with power and physical network connections.  The initial boot and configuration was initiated from a console connection on the FAS2240. As part of this process, ESG Lab assigned simple configuration information, such as hostname, IP address, subnet, and gateway. In less than 10 minutes, the FAS2240 was on the network and ready for more advanced configuration tasks.

As shown in Figure 5, ESG Lab next launched the OnCommand System Manager interface and used the discovery feature to identify the FAS2240 filer configuration. After the test filer was discovered, ESG Lab leveraged the System Manager interface for all other validation, configuration, and management procedures.

ESG Lab configured the FAS2240 with its controllers in active/active mode as an HA pair. Figure 5 shows the test bed filer detail, including HA pair controller partners, IP address of each controller, and their serial numbers. ESG Lab first configured the filer to support multi-protocol NAS testing with both CIFS and NFS. Later, the same filer was converted to iSCSI block storage to support mixed workload performance testing.

With a 24-drive FAS2240 base configuration, ESG Lab divided the available disks into two sets of equal size with a hot spare in each set. One disk set was configured to Controller A and the other to Controller B. The creation of an aggregate is shown in Figure 6. Using RAID DP configured disks, two aggregates were created. Each aggregate was configured with 11 physical drives. For ultimate flexibility and scalability, two dynamically sizeable volumes (FlexVols) capable of supporting multiple protocol block and file devices were deployed on each aggregate.

Keep It Simple

“Keeping it simple” is the design philosophy built into the OnCommand System Manager interface. With this new interface, storage administrators can leverage built-in configuration wizards to simplify common provisioning tasks. The intuitive navigation of OnCommand System Manager, combined with its wizard-driven configuration, helps turn otherwise complex storage procedures that often require specialized skills into a straightforward, guided process.

ESG Lab Testing

ESG Lab used configuration wizards for the majority of validation tasks. As shown in Figure 7, the Create LUN Wizard was used to build the iSCSI LUNs that were presented to the Windows 2008 host for the workload testing detailed later in the “Grow Smart” section of this document.  Figure 7 shows each step ESG Lab completed to create the 500 GB LUN used to host the Microsoft Exchange workload testing. These steps were repeated for each independent-workload-associated LUN.

Next ESG Lab created a volume and CIFS share on one of the aggregates that was configured in the “Start Right” section of this document.  Again, a configuration wizard was used for both the volume and network share setup. On the wizard-created new test volume, ESG Lab was able to specify a host name, specify security type of NTFS, and join an existing Windows domain via active directory using the CIFS creation wizard.

The new CIFS share was then connected to the Windows 2008 host in the test bed environment. To validate the successful presentation of storage to the Windows host, multiple test files were created, updated, and copied between a local drive and the new share.

Next, as shown in Figure 8, the test volume was edited to enable mixed-mode security. ESG Lab then created an NFS export on the same volume with the original CIFS share. The new NFS export was mounted on a Linux host in the test environment.

As shown in Figure 9, the VI (visual interface) editor was used from the Linux host to create and edit the “editor.txt” file on the mixed-mode test volume. The same file was updated on the Windows 2008 host using the Notepad text editor. With mixed-mode security enabled, the same file was accessible from both the Windows host via CIFS and the Linux host using NFS. As shown in Figure 9, the update made with Notepad was confirmed on the Linux host using the VI editor.

Finally, ESG Lab used OnCommand System Manager to create and test a snapshot copy.  As shown in Figure 10, a test volume was selected from the Volumes tab for a snapshot copy. The Snapshot Copies dropdown menu (highlighted in red) was selected, launching the volume snapshot configuration wizard. ESG Lab selected the option to make the snapshot visible as part of the configuration process. This option allows the snapshot directories to be browsed from the host.

A snapshot was taken for a volume with a CIFS share. From the Windows host, ESG Lab confirmed access to the snapshot directory.  After the snapshot was created, a file was deleted from the primary share directory on the Windows host.  ESG Lab used the snapshot directory to recover the deleted file from the snapshot to the primary directory using a simple drag-and-drop process.

Grow Smart

“Growing smart” is the ability to provide a flexible architecture that supports the growing and changing business and application demands of an IT environment. The FAS2240 accomplishes this by delivering storage capacity and performance in a multi-protocol, unified solution. Starting with a complete 2U enclosure, the FAS2240 can scale from 24 to 144 drives. Should capacity requirements exceed this total, then the existing enclosures can be repurposed as disk-shelves in a larger storage system.

ESG Lab Testing

ESG Lab tested the performance of a FAS2240 by scaling simultaneous applications focused in two main areas: (1) acceptable email response time, and (2) user scalability, as applications were added to the mix. ESG Lab selected four applications common to small and medium-sized businesses: email, web server, file server, and database. Performance tests were run using two industry-standard tools: Jetstress for the email application and Iometer for the other three applications.

Jetstress was configured to emulate 500 users with 400 MB mailboxes performing typical Exchange operations at an IO rate of 0.12 IOPS per mailbox. A response-time goal of 20 milliseconds or less for database reads is required to pass the test. These values are defined by Microsoft as a limit beyond which end-users will feel that their email system is acting slowly.[3] Figure 11 shows the email response time as applications are added.

What the Numbers Mean

• The red dotted line at the top of the chart represents the acceptable 20 ms response-time cutoff guideline recommended by Microsoft for the Microsoft Exchange application.
• The response time ranged between a low of 9.656 ms for Email and Database together and a high of 11.134 ms with all applications running together, which ends up being a difference of approximately 15%.
• All scenarios are well under the 20 ms latency guideline, which implies there is room for even more applications to run simultaneously without severely impacting response time.

Next ESG Lab calculated the user counts each application could support. By taking the overall throughput of each application and dividing it by the average number of IOPS per user,[4] [5] [6] ESG Lab determined how many users could be supported for each application simultaneously. As shown in Figure 12, the active user count grows in an upward trend as additional applications are layered into the solution.

What the Numbers Mean

• Both email and web services easily support 500 users for each application.
• With file services, 380 active users can access a network-attached shared home or corporate directory.
• Database applications such as Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server can support 144 users.
• 1,524 total active users of four different applications were supported by a single FAS2240.

ESG Lab Validation Highlights

• ESG Lab brought a new FAS2240 system online in less than 10 minutes and evaluated the ease of creating controller-centric aggregates and volumes to present to a physical server.
• ESG Lab explored the NetApp OnCommand System Manager and validated the easy-to-use, wizard-driven setups as well as the intuitive, browser-based management capabilities. This included the creation and presentation of CIFS and NFS file shares over a 1 GbE network, allowing both a Windows and a Linux host to create and edit files.
• ESG Lab successfully scaled the environment to four common business applications. While running the applications simultaneously, the Exchange workload simulation easily remained within response-time requirements. (The maximum response time of 11.134 ms was witnessed as all four applications ran simultaneously.)
• ESG Lab scaled the active user count from 500 users using an email application only, up to 1,524 users using email, file services, web services, and a database.

Issues to Consider

• It should be noted that the standard controller configuration mode for the FAS2240 is active/active. This means that the drive assignment will be split between controller one and controller two. This requires due diligence in implementing best practices, especially in smaller configurations, as this can limit the number of spindles available when creating an aggregate. If larger aggregates are required, the FAS2240 can be configured in active/passive mode, but only through the command line interface.
• Using the snapshot functionality included at no additional cost in the Data ONTAP Essentials software bundle, ESG Lab explored the ability to easily create snapshot copies for individual file recovery. This was accomplished using the Snapshot Creation Wizard option, which made the snapshot directory structure visible and available at the host level. Features such as SnapRestore , SnapMirror , SnapVault and FlexClone are also available for the FAS2240 as software options that extend functionality beyond the Essentials bundle. These options are competitively priced and can be added individually or added as a group via the SnapManager Suite.
• For those environments that need to support a high performance application, ESG Lab was pleased to see that the FAS2240 currently offers SSD drive support via the optional expansion disk enclosures. We believe this feature would be extremely valuable if it were extended to base FAS2240 enclosure and hope to see this option in a future release.

The Bigger Truth

Small and medium-sized businesses are faced with many of the same storage challenges as their counterparts in the enterprise. Explosive data growth, backup and recovery challenges, and flat to declining IT budgets are pervasive—especially in mid-sized businesses and distributed enterprises with undertrained IT staff. The NetApp FAS2000 Series was designed from the ground up to address those challenges. ESG Lab confirmed that the NetApp FAS2240 is easy to deploy, simple to manage, and able to cost-effectively grow to the meet the needs of the business.

A FAS2240 with prices starting under $16,000 was tested by ESG Lab. Keeping it simple with the slick graphical user interface provided by the new OnCommand System Manager, we were able to efficiently configure storage and implement NetApp storage-management best practices through a single interface.  The ONTAP Essentials package included features that enabled seamless and flexible scaling. Not only did the bundled software features provide flexibility, but the hardware did too: It can be repurposed into larger NetApp storage solutions as capacity and performance requirements exceed the SMB space.

The ability to grow smart with enterprise-class functionality and performance was tested with a mix of applications that are commonly deployed in mid-sized businesses and distributed enterprise environments. These workloads included email, database, web, and file services. Starting with a 500-user Exchange environment that maintained performance levels that are well within Microsoft’s recommended guidelines, response times stayed manageably low as additional application workloads were tested simultaneously. We were able to support practical user counts as business applications were added to the test environment.

ESG Lab feels the FAS2240 is packaged well with a robust family of high-end features and functions that are simple to use and priced right for mid-sized organizations and their channel partners. IT managers within small to medium-sized businesses and distributed enterprises would be wise to consider the benefits of starting right, keeping it simple, and growing smart with the NetApp FAS2240.

Appendix

[2] Source: ESG Research Report, 2011 IT Spending Intentions Survey, January 2011.

[3] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb738152(EXCHG.80).aspx

[4] Source: http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/

[5] Source: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/ns955/ns964/netApp_refDG.pdf

[6] Source: http://www.vohkus.co.uk/ipexpo/downloads/FlexPod_Data_Ctr_Sizing_Guide.pdf

We were extremely impressed by the simplicity and performance of a multi-site file share that was automatically protected in the cloud.  While you’re waiting for our report which will be published early next year, you might want to check out this amazing report from Nasuni:  http://www.nasuni.com/cloudreport.

The report documents the results of Nasuni testing with a goal of emulating the storage activity of real-world applications that rely on public cloud storage services.  Nasuni tested 16 public cloud service providers, but only six were found to be ready for prime time. Amazon S3 got the highest marks. Microsoft Azure scored well along with AT&T, Nirvanix, Peer1 hosting and Rackspace.  Testing is smartly focused on verifying one of the key benefits of cloud-based computing:  on-demand elasticity and scalability.    Testing is also focused on two of the biggest concerns with cloud computing: performance and stability.   Performance testing with a variety of block sizes and activity levels makes the results applicable to a wide variety of real-world applications and use cases.   Testing with millions of objects over time provides a good measure of ongoing availability and sustainable performance.

While the scalability and exhaustiveness of Nasuni’s ongoing testing efforts creates activity levels that are well beyond the current needs of most organizations,  ESG Lab believes that the findings provide a sound basis for evaluating the performance, scalability, and availability of real-world applications that rely on public cloud storage services.   Nasuni’s bold and refreshing decision to publish the results of tests is a huge win for forward-looking IT managers that are trying to quantify the benefits—and risk—of betting on a public cloud provider.

Brian

via DRFortress Selects Nirvanix to Deploy Hawaiis First Enterprise Cloud Storage Service -sacbee.com.

McClure said the Atmos storage cloud is used by 30 service providers in 50 locations. She considers that impressive, especially compared to competitors such as Cleversafe, DataDirect Networks and Scality that sell software to cloud providers. “As you go down the list of cloud providers, you would be hard-pressed to find some that have 50 sites,” she said.

via EMC upgrades Atmos Cloud Delivery Platform to a vApp.

via HPC Roundup: Data Direct Networks, Virident, Intel, Ciena.

via Nasuni Smites Storage Goliaths – Network Computing.