Tape Library

Tape Library

Cyber resilient, energy-efficient tape storage with airgap and long-term retention

 View Only

I nearly fell out of my chair

By Tony Pearson posted Thu February 21, 2008 02:45 PM

  

Originally posted by: TonyPearson


I nearly fell out of my chair when I read EMC's press release[EMC a Leader in Virtual Tape Libraries Writes Top Independent Research Firm], as pointed to by fellow EMC blogger Chuck Hollis in his post[How The EMC Disk Library Came To Be]. The EMC Disk Library(EDL) was formerly known as the EMC CLARiiON Disk Library, but was renamed somewhere along the way to drop the CLARiiON brand. Given CLARiiON's poor reputation in the marketplace, this was probablya smart move.

First, an excerpt from the EMC Press Release:

EMC Corporation (NYSE:EMC) today announced it has been positioned as a leader in the Forrester Wave™: Enterprise Open Systems Virtual Tape Library (VTL), Q1 2008 by Forrester Research, Inc. (January 31, 2008), an independent market and technology research firm. EMC achieved a position as a leader in the Forrester Wave report on virtual tape libraries based on the largest installed base of the EMC® Disk Library family of systems, its broad ecosystem interoperability. Virtual tape libraries emulate tape drives and work in conjunction with existing backup software applications, enabling fast backup and restoration of data by using high-capacity, low-cost disk drives.

EMC was the first major vendor in the open systems virtual tape library market as it introduced the EMC Disk Library in April 2004 and today is a leading provider of open systems virtual tape solutions, with systems that are designed for businesses and organizations of all sizes.

While the press release implies that "EDL equals VTL", Chuck tries to explain they are in fact very different. Here is an excerpt from his blog post:

Virtual Tape Libraries vs. Disk Libraries

As many of you know, VTLs have been around for a while. They use disk as a cache -- they buffer the incoming backup streams, do some housekeeping and stacking, then turn around and write tape efficiently. When you go to restore, you're usually coming back off of tape, unless the backup image in question is sitting in the disk cache.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the VTL approach, but it was conceived in a time when disks were horribly expensive. It was also pretty clear to many of us that disks were going to be a whole lot cheaper in the near future, and this fundamental assumption wouldn't be valid for much longer.

I kept thinking in terms of disk as a direct target for a backup application. No modifications to the backup application. Native speed of sequential disks for both backup and restore. Tape positioned as a backup to the backup. Use the strengths of the underlying array (e.g. CLARiiON) for performance, availability, management, etc.

We ended up calling the concept a "disk library" to differentiate from the VTLs that had come before it. It was a different value proposition and offering, based on the emergence of lower-cost disk media.

... It's nice to see we're at 1,100+ customers, and still going strong.

For those new to the blogosphere, there is a difference between "Press Releases" as formalcorporate communications versus "Blog Posts" which are informal opinions of the individual blogger, whichmay or may not match exactly the views of their respective employer.As we've learned many times before, one should not treat termslike "first" or "leader" in corporate press releases literally! Let's explore each.

Was EDL the first "open systems" Virtual Tape Library?

This is implied by the Forrester report. Chuck mentions the "VTLs that had came before it" in his blog, and many people are aware that IBM and StorageTek had introduced mainframe-attached VTLs in the 1990s. But what about VTL for "open systems"?

(Hold aside for the moment that IBM System zmainframe is an open system itself, with z/OS certified as a bona fide UNIX operating system by the [the Open Group] standards body. Most analysts and research firms usually refer only to the non-mainframe versions of UNIX and Windows. Alternative definitions for "open systems" can be foundin [Web definitions or Wikipedia]. I will assume Forrester meantnon-mainframe servers.)
IBM announced AIX non-mainframe attachment via SCSI connectivity to the IBM 3494 Virtual Tape Server (VTS) on Feb 16, 1999, with general availability in May 28, 1999. That's nearly FIVE YEARS before the April 2004 introduction of EDL. IBM VTS support for Sun Solaris and Microsoft Windows came shortly thereafter in November 2000, and support for HP-UX a bit later in June 2001. One of my 17 patents is for the software inside the IBM 3494 VTS, so like Chuck, I can takesome pride in the success of a successful product.
(I don't remember if StorageTek, which was subsequently acquired by Sun, had ever supported non-mainframe operating systems with their Virtual Storage Manager[VSM] offering, but if they did, I am sure it was also before EMC.)

Last week, another EMC blogger, BarryB (aka [the Storage Anarchist]),took me to task in comments on my post [IBM now supports 1TB SATA drives]. He felt that IBM should not claim support, given that the software inside the IBM System Storage N series is developed by NetApp. He compared this to the situation of HP and Sun re-badging the HDS USP-V disk system. If someone else wrote the software, BarryB opines, IBM should not claim credit for it. I tried to explain how IBM provides added value and has full-time employees dedicated to N series development and support, butdoubt I have changed his mind.

Why do I bring that up? Because the EMC Disk Library runs OEM software from FalconStor. Basically EMC is assembling a hardware/software solution with components provided from OEM suppliers. Hmmm? Sound familiar? Who is calling the kettle black?

If there is a clear winner here, it is FalconStor itself.Perhaps one of the worst kept industry secrets is that FalconStor software is also used in VTL offerings from Sun, Copan, and IBM, the latter embodied as the [IBM TS7520 Virtualization Engine] offering. If you like the concept of an EDL,but prefer instead one-stop shopping from an "information infrastructure" vendor, IBM can offer the TS7520 along with servers, software and services for a complete end-to-end solution.

Can EMC claim to be "a leader" in Virtual Tape Libraries?

The timing of all this couldn't have been better. IDC analyst firm just came out with their latest 3Q07 "Tape Tracker" analysis report of the tape industry.Here's an excerpt from [Report: IBM Number One in Worldwide Branded Tape Revenue]:

  • During the measured quarter, IBM shipped its 10 millionth LTO-4 tape drive cartridge to Getty Images, the world's leading creator and distributor of still imagery, footage and multi-media products, as well as a recognized provider of other forms of premium digital content, including music. Getty Images is using the LTO-4 drives as part of a tiered infrastructure of IBM disk and tape solutions that help support the backup needs of their digital imagery;
  • IBM shipped more than 1,500 Petabytes of tape storage in Q3'07 alone;
  • During Q3'07, IBM shipped the 10,000th IBM System Storage TS3500 Tape Library. The TS3500 is a highly scalable tape library with support from 1 to 192 tape drives and up to 6,400 cartridge slots for open system, mainframe and virtual tape system attachment.

Let's take a look at the numbers. IBM has sold over 5,400 virtual tape libraries. Sun/STK has sold over 4,000 virtual tape libraries. Both are drastically more than the 1,100 mentioned in Chuck's post. Does IDC recognize EMC in third place? No, EMC chooses instead to declare EDL as disk arrays (probably toprop up their IDC "Disk Tracker" numbers), so they don't even earn an honorable mention under the virtual tape librarycategory. This of course includes the number of mainframe-attached models from IBM and Sun/STK. So, if EMC did call these tape systems instead, they might showup in third place, and as such EMC could claim to be "a leader" in much the same way an athlete can claim to be an "Olympic medalist" winning the bronze for third place. (If you limit thecount to just the FalconStor-based models from IBM, EMC, Sun and Copan, then EMC moves up to first or second, but then press release titles like "EMC a Leader in FalconStor-based non-mainframe Virtual Tape Libraries" can get too confusing.)

Chuck, if you are reading this, I feel you have every right to celebrate your involvement with the EDL. Despite having common software and hardware components, both IBM and EMC can rightfully declare their own unique value-add through their respective VTL offerings. Like the IBM N series, the EMC Disk Library is not diminished by the fact the software was written by someone else. BarryB might disagree.

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

6 comments
7 views

Permalink

https://community.ibm.com/community/user/blogs/tony-pearson1/2008/02/21/i-nearly-fell-out-of-my-chair

Comments

Archive User
Tue March 04, 2008 11:50 AM

Nuff Said,I glad you like my blog. Tape today streams at 100-120 MB/sec, so depending on how many tape drives you have running concurrently, versus how many disk drives are the source in a RAID configuration, tape can be faster, but often is not. In any backup scenario, the slower media is the factor.
There are moving parts in disk systems as well.
IBM has had the ability to duplicate tape data offsite since the 1990s with the IBM Virtual Tape Server peer-to-peer feature without manual intervention. Many applications are able to create two tapes concurrently in a library also without any manual intervention.
Faster restore is valid, and a small amount of disk in front of tape resources to cache the most likely data to recover provides significant value at modest cost. We find that only 0.4 percent of backups are every recovered, so to store any more than most recent data on disk would be costly and consume a lot of energy needlessly.

Archive User
Fri February 22, 2008 07:14 PM

Taylor,Your shameless plugs for Sun products on my blog make me giggle. I agree whole-heartedly about your point about choosing and buying from a choice of nearly comparable VTLs comes down to infrastructure and preferred vendor. Many customers prefer to buy their tape libraries from the vendor that sells them servers and backup software, for a complete end-to-end solutino, and both IBM and Sun are better positioned in that regard than EMC.--Tony

Archive User
Fri February 22, 2008 06:25 PM

Thanks for the response Tony. I agree, in one respect, we are debating with inadequate information (without having read the report) and it is partly a discussion of what to label something. Having said that, while I agree that the 3494 VTS could have be used in the open systems environment (and in that limited sense can be labeled the "first" open systems VTL), I think we can agree that was not the primary intent when the product was developed. I can cite two proof points for that claim: one, the very small disk cache (5 TB on the B20 model) and the consistent marketing messaging around batch jobs and volume utilization (neither point is even relevant, really, in the open systems world). While I admit that I don't know how it was actually deployed by your customers, I still doubt that more than 10% of them ended up in the open systems backup world. I would further suggest that if that were not the case, there would be no need for the TS7520. In the same vein, it would be disingenuous for me to suggest that a Maybach is a wonderful comfortable leather chair--it may offer comfortable leather seating, but that clearly is not the design intent.
I agree that the segmentation is difficult, certainly more so for Forrester who really has no rigorous way of determining if a 3494 is used primarily for mainframe or open attach... But perhaps you and I, as well as your readers, could indulge in a bout of common sense and agree that the 3494 VTS (as well as its TS7700 descendant) are really mainframe devices. You can spin it however you want, but a backup device that offers a miniscule disk capacity of 18 TB is not destined to sell well in the open systems world--certainly not at the price points they are at, and not if it is advertised as a batch processing aid.
Net: an honest comparison would examine market share, including # of customers and units shipped, of the EDL, 7520, and the equivalent Sun product (VTL Value and brethren--not VSM!). EMC tends not to disclose the latter, and until you (and to some degree Sun) agrees that this is the relevant point of comparison, I guess I am not surprised! At the end of the day however, unless you want to state that IBM has shipped more than 1100 TS7520s, I don't think there is any doubt who the leader is!

Archive User
Fri February 22, 2008 04:50 PM

Hi TonyI usually find most of your posts interesting but this was weak. Try to say more with less words. The rear view mirror is great for safety but does not help taking you forward. I would much rather read about your view of the future of IT infrastructure. Stay relevant and avoid these nonsense posts. Thanks and keep writing. "You cannot stop the evolution, you can only stop yourself from taking part of it"

Archive User
Fri February 22, 2008 03:56 PM

To clarify, Sun StorageTek VSM is almost 100% mainframe attach.
Tony's point on VTL's big winner being FalconStor is a good one, not all users may know that this is the software behind EMC, IBM and Sun's offerings in this open systems space. (And yes, vendors do sometimes add value to this software layer)
But, seems to me, the key differentiation in this segment comes down to the infrastructure (that's running FalconStor) and the preferred vendor.
Now comes my shameless Sun plug....
Our VTL Value product was built on our Sun Fire X4500 platform. This is a storage server that includes the FalconStor software + Server + OS + 24TBs of storage + networking - all in a 4U rack.
I grabbed a couple stats off of the EMC DL210 spec sheet, so correct me if I am wrong - but I see 1 server + 48 SATA drives for 24TBs. Consuming a total of 1,315 Watts in a 15U rack. Running FalconStor.
Sun StorageTek VTL Value consumes 1,100 Watts (16% less) and takes up 4U of space (73% less) - running FalconStor.
Now our Sun Fire X4500 (aka "Thumper") platform is relatively new - but already this fiscal year we have shipped ~70PB of capacity. (Not all for VTL as we can run a lot of different software in this platform).
So Sun (and IBM) can claim leadership in the mainframe space. Open systems is a new market, and since FalconStor is the common denominator, Sun's play here is to leverage innovative platforms and our intergated disk and tape portfolio...
- Taylor

Archive User
Fri February 22, 2008 10:53 AM

I don't have any official data to backup the poor reputation of CLARiiON but I do have first hand experience of its relatively abysmal performance - remember we get to see EVERY vendors products behind SVC, and SVC can very easily overload most entry and mid-range products. We therefore have to qualify each controller, and set some 'limits' internally so we don't start getting queue full etc Lets just say some boxes surprise you at how low you have to set the limit.
The multiple seconds or so of 'reset time' the box takes when you re-map luns has caught out more than one customer I've spoken to.
These are just a couple of issues, just because you have a sales channel that can ship lots of boxes to unsuspecting customers (maybe Equallogic/Dell will put an end to some of that in the future) but equally some of it could be real FUD, I'd certainly not like my storage to be running on a Redmond based OS - no matter how cut-down - same reason I don't think DataCore is the best solution.
Just my 2c / 2p