October 15, 2010 -- To simplify the storage equation in Hyper-V virtual server environments, and to decrease costs, VM6 Software is shipping a suite of modules that, among other things, allows end users to leverage direct-attached storage (DAS) and eliminate the need for a physical SAN.
To understand where these folks are coming from, a little history: The company started out about six years ago as VM6 Inc., a systems integration and services provider specializing in VMware virtualization. According to COO and co-founder Eric Courville, the company started encountering a lot of remote sites that didn't have expertise in virtual servers, much less complex SANs. In addition, those sites found it difficult to justify the costs associated with VMware and SANs.
VM6 delivered its first software product -- VMex 1.0 -- about five years ago, but it was based on VMware and required a shared-storage physical SAN.
Given the requirements of remote sites and SMBs, VM6 went back to the well and introduced in September 2009 Version 2.0 of VMex, with two key changes: The software now leveraged Microsoft's Hyper-V, instead of VMware, and VMex 2.0 eliminated the need for a physical SAN.
Courville claims that VMex now provides all of the storage functionality users would expect from an iSCSI SAN, including high availability, but the software leverages DAS and eliminates the need for expensive SAN components such as switches.
VMex sits below Hyper-V and on top of Windows 2008 R2. Connections between servers provide high availability via heartbeats and failover. VMex also includes block-level replication across connected servers.
In addition to the Virtual Shared Storage (V-SAN) module, the VMex suite includes Advanced Clustering for high availability, support for Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI), and virtualization management and monitoring tools. The latest version is VMex 2.1.
The company is targeting companies with less than 50 servers.
If you're looking for inexpensive, SAN-free virtualization, it might be worth checking out VM6.
Showing posts with label virtual servers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label virtual servers. Show all posts
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
NAS gains in virtual server environments
April 1, 2010 – I’ve been tracking how users configure their storage in virtualized environments for several years, via end-user surveys, and have noticed that NAS is gaining in popularity vs. other alternatives such as Fibre Channel SANs, iSCSI SANs, and direct-attached storage (DAS).
For example, an IDC survey of 168 IT professionals conducted in the fourth quarter of last year asked users “Which of the following storage types are currently deployed with your company’s server virtualization?” The results:
NAS: 37%
FC SAN: 35%
iSCSI SAN: 29%
Virtual storage appliance: 20%
Internal DAS: 20%
External DAS: 14%
Granted, IDC only surveyed 168 companies, but that’s the first time that I’ve seen NAS top the list (although statistically it’s practically a dead heat between NAS, FC SANs and iSCSI SANs).
In comparison, a survey of infostor.com visitors, conducted a few months prior to the IDC survey, had the following results (note: The InfoStor survey asked users to choose their primary storage configuration, and did not allow multiple responses):
FC SAN: 53%
iSCSI SAN: 28%
NAS: 10%
DAS: 9%
It’s meaningless to compare the results of the two surveys, but it’s clear from the IDC survey that, rather than trying to standardize on a single architecture for their virtual server storage environments, end users are moving toward a mix of two or more architectures.
I suppose that NAS’ strong showing is attributable in part to the rapid growth of unstructured file data in virtualized environments, as well as improvements in the latest versions of NFS. And, of course, to its relatively low cost, which has given NAS a boost not only in virtual server environments but across the board during the financial downturn. Also, the increasing use of “hybrid” or “unified” storage systems (i.e., NAS + SAN) may also be jacking up the percentages for NAS.
For more on the expanding applications for NAS, see “Evolving use cases for file-based storage,” by IDC analyst Noemi Greyzdorf.
For example, an IDC survey of 168 IT professionals conducted in the fourth quarter of last year asked users “Which of the following storage types are currently deployed with your company’s server virtualization?” The results:
NAS: 37%
FC SAN: 35%
iSCSI SAN: 29%
Virtual storage appliance: 20%
Internal DAS: 20%
External DAS: 14%
Granted, IDC only surveyed 168 companies, but that’s the first time that I’ve seen NAS top the list (although statistically it’s practically a dead heat between NAS, FC SANs and iSCSI SANs).
In comparison, a survey of infostor.com visitors, conducted a few months prior to the IDC survey, had the following results (note: The InfoStor survey asked users to choose their primary storage configuration, and did not allow multiple responses):
FC SAN: 53%
iSCSI SAN: 28%
NAS: 10%
DAS: 9%
It’s meaningless to compare the results of the two surveys, but it’s clear from the IDC survey that, rather than trying to standardize on a single architecture for their virtual server storage environments, end users are moving toward a mix of two or more architectures.
I suppose that NAS’ strong showing is attributable in part to the rapid growth of unstructured file data in virtualized environments, as well as improvements in the latest versions of NFS. And, of course, to its relatively low cost, which has given NAS a boost not only in virtual server environments but across the board during the financial downturn. Also, the increasing use of “hybrid” or “unified” storage systems (i.e., NAS + SAN) may also be jacking up the percentages for NAS.
For more on the expanding applications for NAS, see “Evolving use cases for file-based storage,” by IDC analyst Noemi Greyzdorf.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Virtual server SANs: FC vs. iSCSI vs. NAS
February 8, 2010 – In the beginning, most virtual server environments relied on either Fibre Channel SANs or direct-attached storage (DAS). As the virtual environments grew, end users quickly found out that DAS wasn’t going to cut it. Fibre Channel remained king for awhile (and still is), but iSCSI – and NAS – appear to be coming on strong.
In mid-2009, we polled infostor.com visitors regarding what type of storage network protocol they were using in their virtual server environments:
The question: “If you have virtual servers, what is your primary storage configuration? (check one)”
The results: 53% cited Fibre Channel SAN; 28% iSCSI SAN; 10% NAS; and 9% DAS.
A recent report from Forrester Consulting, based on a survey commissioned by Dell (no doubt the EqualLogic crew), suggests that iSCSI – as well as NAS -- is narrowing the gap with Fibre Channel. Forrester surveyed 200 IT storage decision-makers.
The question: “What storage network protocol(s) are you using (or plan to use) for your virtual server environment? (select all that apply)”
The results: 59% Fibre Channel, 57% iSCSI, and 52% NFS [NAS]. Almost a dead heat. (3% of the respondents are using non-networked storage; e.g., DAS.)
In addition to the impressive showing of both iSCSI and NAS, a key conclusion here is that end users are obviously using a mix of storage protocols in their virtual server environments.
There was, however, one seeming inexplicable anomaly in the results to that Forrester survey question: 33% cited FCoE. I’m at a loss to explain that, but here’s the explanation from the report’s authors:
“FCoE interest appears very high. There may well be some confusion regarding the adoption of FCoE, as anecdotal evidence suggests that the 34% current usage number [referring to another question] is very high for this emerging protocol. Products are just now coming onto the market and are usable only for the server side of storage networking, aggregating traffic in top-of-rack and edge switches. The reality here is likely that respondents have interest in or plans to move forward with FCoE, but have not yet implemented FCoE in such high numbers.
Confusion with FCIP, used to carry FC traffic over the WAN for distance replication, may also be increasing the adoption rates reported in this survey.
Another area of confusion relates to the adoption of 10GbE. Respondents who stated that they currently have FCoE in place in the quantitative survey revealed in interviews that they actually have 10GbE for file data traffic but are not using FCoE equipment. Suffice it to say that interest in FCoE is high at this point, but confusion about what really constitutes FCoE is clouding the adoption picture.”
Back to Fibre Channel, iSCSI and NAS: Not surprisingly, use of these protocols in virtual server environments varies by the size of the organization. For example, 70% of large enterprises (1,000 or more employees) cited Fibre Channel, compared to 50% of the SMBs.
66% of the SMBs cited iSCSI, compared to 47% of the large enterprises. And 49% of the SMBs cited NFS, compared to 57% of large enterprises.
The full report is posted on Dell’s site: “Benefits Of SAN/LAN Convergence: Evaluating Interest In And Readiness For Unified Fabric,” is posted on Dell’s site.
If you’re struggling with the storage challenges associated with rapidly growing virtual server environments, consider attending our Webcast, “Managing VM Sprawl and Reducing Costs with Disk Archiving,” tomorrow (Tuesday), February 9 at 10:00 PST, 1:00 EST.
You can get a description of the Webcast and register HERE.
In mid-2009, we polled infostor.com visitors regarding what type of storage network protocol they were using in their virtual server environments:
The question: “If you have virtual servers, what is your primary storage configuration? (check one)”
The results: 53% cited Fibre Channel SAN; 28% iSCSI SAN; 10% NAS; and 9% DAS.
A recent report from Forrester Consulting, based on a survey commissioned by Dell (no doubt the EqualLogic crew), suggests that iSCSI – as well as NAS -- is narrowing the gap with Fibre Channel. Forrester surveyed 200 IT storage decision-makers.
The question: “What storage network protocol(s) are you using (or plan to use) for your virtual server environment? (select all that apply)”
The results: 59% Fibre Channel, 57% iSCSI, and 52% NFS [NAS]. Almost a dead heat. (3% of the respondents are using non-networked storage; e.g., DAS.)
In addition to the impressive showing of both iSCSI and NAS, a key conclusion here is that end users are obviously using a mix of storage protocols in their virtual server environments.
There was, however, one seeming inexplicable anomaly in the results to that Forrester survey question: 33% cited FCoE. I’m at a loss to explain that, but here’s the explanation from the report’s authors:
“FCoE interest appears very high. There may well be some confusion regarding the adoption of FCoE, as anecdotal evidence suggests that the 34% current usage number [referring to another question] is very high for this emerging protocol. Products are just now coming onto the market and are usable only for the server side of storage networking, aggregating traffic in top-of-rack and edge switches. The reality here is likely that respondents have interest in or plans to move forward with FCoE, but have not yet implemented FCoE in such high numbers.
Confusion with FCIP, used to carry FC traffic over the WAN for distance replication, may also be increasing the adoption rates reported in this survey.
Another area of confusion relates to the adoption of 10GbE. Respondents who stated that they currently have FCoE in place in the quantitative survey revealed in interviews that they actually have 10GbE for file data traffic but are not using FCoE equipment. Suffice it to say that interest in FCoE is high at this point, but confusion about what really constitutes FCoE is clouding the adoption picture.”
Back to Fibre Channel, iSCSI and NAS: Not surprisingly, use of these protocols in virtual server environments varies by the size of the organization. For example, 70% of large enterprises (1,000 or more employees) cited Fibre Channel, compared to 50% of the SMBs.
66% of the SMBs cited iSCSI, compared to 47% of the large enterprises. And 49% of the SMBs cited NFS, compared to 57% of large enterprises.
The full report is posted on Dell’s site: “Benefits Of SAN/LAN Convergence: Evaluating Interest In And Readiness For Unified Fabric,” is posted on Dell’s site.
If you’re struggling with the storage challenges associated with rapidly growing virtual server environments, consider attending our Webcast, “Managing VM Sprawl and Reducing Costs with Disk Archiving,” tomorrow (Tuesday), February 9 at 10:00 PST, 1:00 EST.
You can get a description of the Webcast and register HERE.
Monday, October 5, 2009
iSCSI + NAS for virtual servers?
October 8, 2009 – When end users first started the mass migration to virtual servers, the majority did so with direct-attached storage (DAS) as the underlying storage architecture. They quickly found out that virtualization required networked storage, and the incumbent SAN protocol – Fibre Channel – became the front runner in the race toward dominance in server virtualization storage architectures.
Fibre Channel SANs are still the dominant storage architectures in virtual operating environments, but iSCSI – and also NAS – are coming on strong.
In an infostor.com QuickVote poll (conducted last year), we asked virtual server users what their primary storage configuration was. More than half (53%) cited Fibre Channel SANs, 28% were relying primarily on iSCSI, 10% on NAS, and only 9% on DAS. Since then, I’m sure the percentages for iSCSI and NAS have shifted upward.
That survey didn’t ask whether users were combining different storage architectures to support their burgeoning virtual server implementations. However, combining SANs and NAS appears to be a strong trend.
In an end-user survey, Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) posed the following question:
Does your organization have plans to consolidate NAS and SAN storage resources into a unified storage architecture that supports both file-based NAS and block-based SAN storage?
With the caveat that the question was not posed in a virtual server context, it’s interesting to note that well over half of the respondents (67%) planned to pursue a “unified storage” (SAN+NAS) strategy. In fact, 18% were already underway – and the ESG survey was conducted late last year.
Among those that are moving to unified storage architectures, 41% plan to rely primarily on NAS gateways to front-end SANs; 18% plan to rely primarily on unified NAS-SAN storage systems; and 40% plan to use both approaches.
If you’re among the growing group of users that are deploying iSCSI + NAS architectures – particularly if you have virtual servers – check out our Webcast, “Unified Storage for Virtual Servers: iSCSI SANs and NAS.” If you missed the "live" version earlier this week, you can view the archived version here.
ESG analyst Terri McClure presents interesting data from ESG’s end-user surveys and discusses trends in the context of unified storage and virtual servers. And John McArthur, president and co-founder of Walden Technology Partners, discusses solutions that enable you to combine iSCSI SANs and NAS to optimize efficiencies in virtual server environments – at a low cost and with minimal management overhead.
Choosing the right storage architecture for your virtual server environment is not an either-or decision.
Fibre Channel SANs are still the dominant storage architectures in virtual operating environments, but iSCSI – and also NAS – are coming on strong.
In an infostor.com QuickVote poll (conducted last year), we asked virtual server users what their primary storage configuration was. More than half (53%) cited Fibre Channel SANs, 28% were relying primarily on iSCSI, 10% on NAS, and only 9% on DAS. Since then, I’m sure the percentages for iSCSI and NAS have shifted upward.
That survey didn’t ask whether users were combining different storage architectures to support their burgeoning virtual server implementations. However, combining SANs and NAS appears to be a strong trend.
In an end-user survey, Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) posed the following question:
Does your organization have plans to consolidate NAS and SAN storage resources into a unified storage architecture that supports both file-based NAS and block-based SAN storage?
With the caveat that the question was not posed in a virtual server context, it’s interesting to note that well over half of the respondents (67%) planned to pursue a “unified storage” (SAN+NAS) strategy. In fact, 18% were already underway – and the ESG survey was conducted late last year.
Among those that are moving to unified storage architectures, 41% plan to rely primarily on NAS gateways to front-end SANs; 18% plan to rely primarily on unified NAS-SAN storage systems; and 40% plan to use both approaches.
If you’re among the growing group of users that are deploying iSCSI + NAS architectures – particularly if you have virtual servers – check out our Webcast, “Unified Storage for Virtual Servers: iSCSI SANs and NAS.” If you missed the "live" version earlier this week, you can view the archived version here.
ESG analyst Terri McClure presents interesting data from ESG’s end-user surveys and discusses trends in the context of unified storage and virtual servers. And John McArthur, president and co-founder of Walden Technology Partners, discusses solutions that enable you to combine iSCSI SANs and NAS to optimize efficiencies in virtual server environments – at a low cost and with minimal management overhead.
Choosing the right storage architecture for your virtual server environment is not an either-or decision.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Virtual servers cause bottlenecks
June 20, 2009 – If you’ve moved beyond test/dev and into full production with your virtual server deployment, you’re well aware of the fact that as ‘VM sprawl’ creeps in performance goes down. And you’ve also probably figured out that in the majority of cases, SANs are the culprit.
In fact, in a presentation at the VMworld Europe show in Cannes earlier this year (no, I didn’t go), Scott Drummonds, VMware’s group manager, technical marketing, said that 90% of the performance problems in VMware environments were SAN-related.
In researching an InfoStor Special Report on SAN management in virtual server environments, I checked with some industry analysts and end users and that percentage may be closer to 70%, but nevertheless it’s clear that in order to maximize performance of virtual server farms you have to maximize storage performance.
But first, you have to monitor and analyze performance across your entire virtual infrastructure, particularly the SAN fabric. In researching the Special Report I came across some tools that you should look into before you actually try to tune your environment, because “you can’t optimize what you can’t measure” as the folks at Virtual Instruments say.
Those tools include Akorri’s BalancePoint, NetApp’s SANscreen VM Insight, and Virtual Instruments’ VirtualWisdom (which is based on the company’s NetWisdom and is currently in beta, with general availability slated for the fourth quarter).
The Taneja Group research and consulting firm refers to these products, and others, under the umbrella term ‘virtual infrastructure optimization, or VIO.’ These cross-domain monitoring and analysis tools provide very deep visibility into the virtual infrastructure, with an emphasis on performance analysis and optimization recommendations.
I spoke to SAN administrators that were using some of these tools and I’d highly recommend at least taking them for a test drive if you’re having any performance problems in your virtual server implementation.
Also check out a recent Webcast, archived at infostor.com, titled Eliminating the I/O bottleneck that limits scalability in today’s virtual servers. The main presenter was Greg Scherer, Neterion’s CTO, and although it does have some Neterion-specific content it’s an excellent look at I/O issues that often crop up in virtual server environments.
That Webcast was the first in a four-part series on Virtual Servers and the Impact on Storage, brought to you by InfoStor and our partner, Virtual Strategy Magazine.
The next Webcast in this series is coming up fast: On Thursday, June 25, 10:00a.m. PDT, 1:00p.m. EDT, we’ll host Virtual Servers: Six Ways to Reduce Your Backup Window. The key presenters for this Webcast will be executives from Vizioncore. To register, click here.
I’ll keep you posted on future Webcasts in this series.
In fact, in a presentation at the VMworld Europe show in Cannes earlier this year (no, I didn’t go), Scott Drummonds, VMware’s group manager, technical marketing, said that 90% of the performance problems in VMware environments were SAN-related.
In researching an InfoStor Special Report on SAN management in virtual server environments, I checked with some industry analysts and end users and that percentage may be closer to 70%, but nevertheless it’s clear that in order to maximize performance of virtual server farms you have to maximize storage performance.
But first, you have to monitor and analyze performance across your entire virtual infrastructure, particularly the SAN fabric. In researching the Special Report I came across some tools that you should look into before you actually try to tune your environment, because “you can’t optimize what you can’t measure” as the folks at Virtual Instruments say.
Those tools include Akorri’s BalancePoint, NetApp’s SANscreen VM Insight, and Virtual Instruments’ VirtualWisdom (which is based on the company’s NetWisdom and is currently in beta, with general availability slated for the fourth quarter).
The Taneja Group research and consulting firm refers to these products, and others, under the umbrella term ‘virtual infrastructure optimization, or VIO.’ These cross-domain monitoring and analysis tools provide very deep visibility into the virtual infrastructure, with an emphasis on performance analysis and optimization recommendations.
I spoke to SAN administrators that were using some of these tools and I’d highly recommend at least taking them for a test drive if you’re having any performance problems in your virtual server implementation.
Also check out a recent Webcast, archived at infostor.com, titled Eliminating the I/O bottleneck that limits scalability in today’s virtual servers. The main presenter was Greg Scherer, Neterion’s CTO, and although it does have some Neterion-specific content it’s an excellent look at I/O issues that often crop up in virtual server environments.
That Webcast was the first in a four-part series on Virtual Servers and the Impact on Storage, brought to you by InfoStor and our partner, Virtual Strategy Magazine.
The next Webcast in this series is coming up fast: On Thursday, June 25, 10:00a.m. PDT, 1:00p.m. EDT, we’ll host Virtual Servers: Six Ways to Reduce Your Backup Window. The key presenters for this Webcast will be executives from Vizioncore. To register, click here.
I’ll keep you posted on future Webcasts in this series.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Virtual servers and storage
One of the, if not the, most interesting topics in the storage space these days -- and probably for the next couple years -- is the challenge of optimizing your storage environment, devices, and software in order to maximize the benefits of virtual servers. For me, it's interesting in part because I don't know squat about virtual server technology. Sure, I understand the basics and the benefits, but I've never been a server administrator, let alone a virtual server administrator.
But I have friends who do understand the synergies between storage and virtual servers in detail. For example, InfoStor recently hosted a Webcast titled Storage Challenges Created by a Virtualized Server Infrastructure, which was presented by Taneja Group analysts Jeff Byrne and Jeff Boles and sponsored by FalconStor Software. (NOTE: Registration is required to view the Webcast.)
The bulk of the presentation addressed the "Five Storage Challenges Exacerbated by Server Virtualization":
1. Storage Utilization Decreased by Server Virtualization
2. Application Performance Dependent on Storage Performance
3. End-to-End Visibility from Virtual Machine through Physical Device
4. Diagnostics, Tuning and Change Management Are More Difficult
5. Backup and Recovery are More Complex
The two Jeffs also provided advice on how to address all of these daunting challenges. If you have anything to do with the storage side of the virtual server equation I urge you to check out this Webcast.
This topic is so hot that VMworld may be one of the, if not the, pre-eminent storage-related trade shows in 2009.
But I have friends who do understand the synergies between storage and virtual servers in detail. For example, InfoStor recently hosted a Webcast titled Storage Challenges Created by a Virtualized Server Infrastructure, which was presented by Taneja Group analysts Jeff Byrne and Jeff Boles and sponsored by FalconStor Software. (NOTE: Registration is required to view the Webcast.)
The bulk of the presentation addressed the "Five Storage Challenges Exacerbated by Server Virtualization":
1. Storage Utilization Decreased by Server Virtualization
2. Application Performance Dependent on Storage Performance
3. End-to-End Visibility from Virtual Machine through Physical Device
4. Diagnostics, Tuning and Change Management Are More Difficult
5. Backup and Recovery are More Complex
The two Jeffs also provided advice on how to address all of these daunting challenges. If you have anything to do with the storage side of the virtual server equation I urge you to check out this Webcast.
This topic is so hot that VMworld may be one of the, if not the, pre-eminent storage-related trade shows in 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)