« What is WAFL part V: Confusion and Conclusion | Main | Why WAFL is at the core of unified storage »

October 21, 2008

Why WAFL is Not a File System.

In response to a set of comments, I wrote up a series on WAFL to address the common misconception about WAFL being a file system and in particular, how SAN is layered within Data ONTAP.

This post will act as a launch point to that series.

In my first post, I explained why the notion that WAFL is a file system did not match my experiences using WAFL.

Next I explored what is a file system and offered a reasonable set of attributes that defined a file system.

Then I compared WAFL to those attributes. I used that comparison to argue WAFL was not a file system but something new.

I then turned to the question of how WAFL and SAN are layered.

Finally I offered some thoughts on why there is so much confusion about WAFL.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341ca27e53ef0105359aad06970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why WAFL is Not a File System.:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thank you for the in depth write up over the past several days.

I wasn't trying to be difficult, just trying to better understand how NetApp was handling Unified Storage, since it appears that different people within NetApp have explained it in different ways. It is also clear that WAFL has changed over the years from it's original design.

My first feeling on why I had considered it a "file system" was based on how it talked about, and the recent legal "conversations" about WAFL and ZFS.

I look forward to diving deeper into your posts over the next few days so I can get a better handle on NetApp's WALF in this millennium.

Can I add to Steven's thanks; it's been a very interesting read. I'm going to have to a good read and think.

To a certain degree, I wonder if it all really matters; if it works and you get the performance/features that us users require, who cares if you are storing your data in cardboard boxes in a storage facility in Outer Mongolia?

Technically, it's interesting and I like to know what's going on under the covers but ultimately, it shouldn't matter! All vendors like to throw FUD around, some more openly than others. It's up to the informed user to question the FUD.

Martin,

First off, thanks for the kind words.

I think you thumped the proverbial nail with the proverbial hammer.

How WAFL is, is interesting if you are an engineer, irrelevant if you are customer.

Ultimately NetApp storage systems should be judged on their ability to meet customer requirements, not on how they may or may not be architected.

If you want a longer set of posts on this idea, you can check out:

http://blogs.netapp.com/extensible_netapp/group_theory/index.html

cheers,
kostadis


Steven,

I hope I clarified my statements about WAFL.

Of course, I must admit the whole WAFL is a Platypus post makes me wonder if I clarified anything.

cheers,
kostadis

Martin,

Dang, your platypus post cracked me up.

As to why bother writing all of that text? Like you said, it should be irrelevant to our customers...

So why did I write it up?

Because our competitors insist on making factually incorrect statements about our technology.

For some of our competitors it's just plain ignorance. Since we've done so much to not share with folks the layering, I can only blame NetApp.

But there are EMC employees, like the Oracle Storage Guy, who abuse their prior relationship to NetApp, abuse the lack of information on the net, to wilfully spread misinformation about the relationship between SAN and WAFL.

So this is about providing some facts to counter some of the distortion.

cheers,
kostadis

It's a great thing to write it up; it was something which needed to be done. It would be nice if it was turned into a white-paper BTW. It's not necessary for me to understand how my storage arrays work but it is useful.

And I'm glad you liked the Platypus thing.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Subscribe to This Blog



Additional Information and Where to Find It
In connection with the proposed acquisition of Data Domain, on June 17, 2009, NetApp filed with the SEC Amendment No. 1 to a Registration Statement on Form S-4 containing a Proxy Statement/Prospectus for Data Domain’s stockholders. Before making any investment or voting decision, investors are urged to read the documents filed with the SEC carefully in their entirety because such documents contain important information about the proposed transaction. You may obtain free copies of the Form S-4 and other documents filed with the SEC by NetApp and Data Domain through the web site maintained by the SEC at www.sec.gov, on NetApp's website at www.netapp.com and on Data Domain's website at www.datadomain.com.

Extensible NetApp Links

© NetApp, Inc.  |  "Safe Harbor" Statement