Extensible NetApp: Thinking outside of the box

A new program for Real FC customers who want Better Than Real FC utilization

Last night I wrote about how in every recession there is one good idea (storage virtualization) and one bad idea (fine grained HSM). And in that discussion I observed that whereas HSM is a bad idea whose time should never come, storage virtualization is actually a very good idea that has been poorly executed.

Todays NetApp announcement about extending our space efficiency program should really be the time and place where everyone re-examines the value of storage virtualization.

So what was the underlying problem storage virtualization tried to solve:

• How to use storage that was purchased during the good times more efficiently.

So let's recap, the problems with Storage Virtualization Classic were:

1. The virtualization layer really didn't add any features above and beyond migration
2. The storage efficiencies obtained through pooling of storage were not that significant
3. The vendors supporting it were not able to offer the same customer experience as the underlying storage providers.

The real problem was more insidious than that. Storage virtualization isn't something that you deploy during a recession, rather it should be part of your infrastructure to begin with. But to be part of the infrastructure it had better have compelling features, provide real demonstrable efficiences beyond pooling and the vendor supporting it better have a first class global support organization. Storage virtualization to be useful has to be useful in good and bad times.

Thankfully NetApp has a such a storage virtualization layer (WAFL). Customers who have deployed this technology benefit from a layer that:

1. Adds a whole slew of features like REAL snapshots, FlexClone
2. Really saves space through things like RAID-DP and dedup
3. And is backed by a company that has the heft to provide global customer support.

For those of you who have Real FC, the good news is that you can get the benefits of Better Than Real FC as well through a NetApp v-series. And what's really interesting is this announcement by NetApp that extends our program about space efficiency to Real FC when you deploy v-series.

And why do EMC and HP etc hate this program?

Well as advocates of Real FC, and sadly the biggest provider of underutilized disk out there, this program is really targetted at them. Look the recession has left with customers with disks that are under-utilized or not utilized. How about taking advantage of this program to get some real efficiences from the sunk cost in your Real FC infrastructure?

MAD Blog: HP not letting it go ...

There is a specter haunting HP's Karl Dohm, the specter of NetApp's sale force snookering customers about the real value of NetApp storage.

Patrick mentions the true test, i.e. that there are many happy NetApp customers who are running Exchange.  There is truth to this of course, but it isn't a good basis of comparison because every major array vendor has happy Exchange customers.  However, its reasonable to say that these installations can't know what they don't know. 

Karl can not accept the notion that the value NetApp brings to the market is real. After first trying to prove that NetApp can not run on Exchange:

The problems we are talking about here are the core of WAFL, and are clearly not easy to fix - or they would be already fixed.  NetApp is not unique is having problems of course, all array vendors have their strong and weak points.  But to assert that WAFL has no weaknesses around fragmentation, performance, and capacity utilization defies common sense.  The old wounds are there for a reason.

Karl had to back peddle and admit:

I'm not saying you can't run Exchange successfully with NetApp.  In fact I'm sure you can.  The question looking for an answer is whether the user gets good value in choosing NetApp to run Exchange.

So reading Pat Cimprich's latest response was particularly gratifying.

Look, the FUD that HP is currently throwing out there is age old FUD that EMC has been throwing out for a while.

After 10 years of watching an artiste like EMC spread FUD, watching this ham-fisted attempt at spreading the same FUD is, well, embarrassing. And having to respond to it, is well irritating.

A Response

Couldn't resist linking to this blog from Pat Cimprich of Avanade which is a response to Karl's comments on WAFL.

Progress of a kind.

When I wrote my series on WAFL, I was hoping to cure the storage industry of a virulent form of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt  (FUD) centered around WAFL performance.

The story, typically, goes like this:

1. WAFL is a file system and hence not a real storage system
2. WAFL performs great but over time the performance degrades
3. When it degrades it gets much worse than everyone else's
4. And worse there are all these latency spikes
5. Because WAFL is a file system (cue spooky music!)

I figured, if I killed point 1, then the rest of this FUD would die...

So imagine my surprise when i read Karl'sblog on WAFL

What I didn't count on was the virulence of this FUD.

Instead of ridding the industry of the FUD, the FUD changed into:

1. WAFL is this unique thing that nobody understands
2. WAFL performs great but over time the performance degrades
3. When it degrades it gets much worse than everyone else's
4. And worse there are all these latency spikes
5. Because WAFL is this thing nobody understands

Well, that's progress of a kind. 

Previously the argument would have begun with an appeal to general misunderstandings of how SAN and WAFL worked together. Now the argument is based on an appeal to the basic lack of information about our system works, that allows the author to argue whatever point they want, and then leverage a synthetic benchmark that proves whatever the author wants.

But back to Karl and his blog...

Karl was making the following bold assertions based on his research:

FAS systems not suitable for Exchnage

But of course, Avanade's white paper would disagree.

FAS systems perform poorly over time

But our SPC-1 longevity results would differ

A large number of NetApp customers have been tricked by our sales force

After all, that is the only possible explanation for our market share given how inappropriate our system is for the kinds of workloads we've been selling quite well into.

The problem that Karl has is that without appealing to some basic architectural understanding that we can all share, he is forced to create synthetic workloads that prove his point. And the problem is that there are real workloads with real data that prove the opposite point.