IBM FlashSystem

IBM FlashSystem

Find answers and share expertise on IBM FlashSystem

 View Only

More Like A Cul-De-Sac

By Tony Pearson posted Mon November 23, 2009 05:19 PM

  

Originally posted by: TonyPearson


I almost sprayed coffee all over my screen when I read this post from fellow blogger from EMC Mark Twomey on his StorageZilla blog titled [Dead End]. In it he implies that you should only consider storage technologies based on x86 technologies such as those from Intel, not other CPU technologies like POWER or MIPS.

Puh-leeze!

When IBM first came out with the SAN Volume Controller in 2003, we were able to show that adding Intel-based SVC nodes can improve the performance and functionality of POWER-based DMX boxes from EMC. EMC salesmen often retorted with "Yes, but do you really want to risk your mission-critical data going through an Intel-based processor solution?" This FUD implied that Intel had a bad reputation for quality and reliability. The original Symmetrix were based on Motorolla 68000's but they modernized to use IBM's POWER chips in their later models. EMC's previous attempt to use Intel technology was their EMC Invista, a commercial failure. It is no surprise then that EMC DMX customers are scared to death to move their mission critical data over to Intel-based V-max.

I have found the primary reason people fear Intel-based solutions is their experience with poorly-written Windows programs. There were enough of these poorly-written Windows programs that everyone has either personal experience, or knows someone who has, and that was enough.

It reminds me of the time I was in Vac, Hungary, giving a lab tour to a set of prospective clients where we manufacture the DS8000 series and SAN Volume Controller. Rows and rows of beautiful Hungarian women sliding disk drives in place, and big hefty Hungarian beefcake moving the finished units to their appropriate places. The head of the facility explained all about the hardware technology, how we check and double check all of the equipment individually, and together as a system. One client stated "Yes, but how often are problems from the hardware? We find nearly all of our problems on disk systems from whichever storage vendor we buy from are in the microcode." It's true.

Both Intel-based processors and POWER-based processors have all the technological functions needed to run storage systems. The difference is all in the microcode. So, if you are looking for safe and stable microcode, the IBM System Storage DS8700 continues its POWER-based tradition for compatibility with previous models. For those that demand x86-based units, the IBM SAN Volume Controller has been around since 2003, the XIV Storage System has been in production since 2005, and our IBM N series are also Intel-based, running Version 7 of the ONTAP operating system.

technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 comment
6 views

Permalink

Comments

Mon November 23, 2009 10:13 PM

Originally posted by: thestorageanarchist


Geez, Tony, if the DS8700 is safe, stable and steeped in the POWER tradition, then why does it not support all the same features as the DS8300 it replaces? Could it be that the POWER microcode is in fact incompatible across processor AND platform generations? Or perhaps you have some other creative excuse why the announcement materials and RedBooks call out that the new DS8700 doesn't support either Thin Provisioning nor Remote Pair FlashCopy as is offered on the archaic DS8300? In stark contrast, the new Intel-based Symmetrix V-Max not only supports all the features offered on the PPC-based DMX3 and DMX4 with inherently compatible management GUI, API and CLI, it also builds upon the proven DMX base with numerous new capabilities and features. You see, properly architected SOFTWARE (as opposed to microcode) is easily ported to a new hardware platform with out compromizing features OR availability. IFF you know what you're doing, that is. Oh, and the fact that there is virtually ZERO shared hardware or software between SVC, XIV and (NetApp's) N Series, not to mention the DS8K, DS5K or DS3K, is surely not lost on the audience.