IBM FlashSystem

 View Only



LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn

IBM XIV Gen3 SSD Caching versus EMC VFCache

By Tony Pearson posted Thu February 09, 2012 03:05 PM

  

Originally posted by: TonyPearson


Have you ever noticed that sometimes two movies come out that seem eerily similar to each other, released by different studios within months or weeks of each other? My sister used to review film scripts for a living, she would read ten of them and have to pick her top three favorites, and tells me that scripts for nearly identical concepts came all the time. Here are a few of my favorite examples:

  • 1994: [Wyatt Earp] and [Tombstone] were Westerns recounting the famed gunfight at the O.K. Corral. Tombstone, Arizona is near Tucson, and the gunfight is recreated fairly often for tourists.
  • 1998: [Armageddon] and [Deep Impact] were a pair of disaster movies dealing with a large rock heading to destroy all life on earth. I was in Mazatlan, Mexico to see the latter, dubbed in Spanish as "Impacto Profundo".
  • 1998: [A Bug's Life] and [Antz] were computer-animated tales of the struggle of one individual ant in an ant colony.
  • 2000: [Mission to Mars] and [Red Planet] were sci-fi pics exploring what a manned mission to our neighboring planet might entail.
  • 2009: [Paul Blart: Mall Cop] and [Observe and Report] were comedies dealing with challenges of security at a shopping mall.
(I think I made my point with just a few examples. A more complete list can be found on [Sam Greenspan's 11 Points website].)

This is different than copy-cat movies that are re-made or re-imagined many years later based on the previous successes of an original. Ever since my blog post [VPLEX: EMC's Latest Wheel is Round] in 2010 comparing EMC's copy-cat product that came our seven years after IBM's SAN Volume Controller (SVC), I've noticed EMC doesn't talk about VPLEX that much anymore.

This week, IBM announced [XIV Gen3 Solid-State Drive support] and our friends over at EMC announced [VFCache SSD-based PCIe cards]. Neither of these should be a surprise to anyone who follows the IT industry, as IBM had announced its XIV Gen3 as "SSD-Ready" last year specifically for this purpose, and EMC has been touting its "Project Lightning" since last May.

Fellow blogger Chris Mellor from The Register has a series of articles to cover this, including [EMC crashes the server flash party], [NetApp slaps down Lightning with multi-card Flash flush], [HP may be going the server flash route], and [Now HDS joins the server flash party].

Fellow blogger Chuck Hollis from EMC has a blog post [VFCache means Very Fast Cache indeed] that provides additional detail. Chuck claims the VFCache is faster than popular [Fusion-IO PCIe cards] available for IBM servers. I haven't seen the performance spec sheets, but typically SSD is four to five times slower than the DRAM cache used in the XIV Gen3. The VFCache's SSD is probably similar in performance to the SSD supported in the IBM XIV Gen3, DS8000, DS5000, SVC, N series, and Storwize V7000 disk systems.

Nonetheless, I've been asked my opinions on the comparison between these two announcements, as they both deal with improving application performance through the use of Solid-State Drives as an added layer of read cache.

(FTC Disclosure: I am both a full-time employee and stockholder of the IBM Corporation. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission may consider this blog post as a paid celebrity endorsement of IBM servers and storage systems. This blog post is based on my interpretation and opinions of publicly-available information, as I have no hands-on access to any of these third-party PCIe cards. I have no financial interest in EMC, Fusion-IO, Texas Memory Systems, or any other third party vendor of PCIe cards designed to fit inside IBM servers, and I have not been paid by anyone to mention their name, brands or products on this blog post.)

The solutions are different in that IBM XIV Gen3 the SSD is "storage-side" in the external storage device, and EMC VFCache is "server-side" as a PCI Express [PCIe] card. Aside from that, both implement SSD as an additional read cache layer in front of spinning disk to boost performance. Neither is an industry first, as IBM has offered server-side SSD since 2007, and IBM and EMC have offered storage-side SSD in many of their other external storage devices. The use of SSD as read cache has already been available in IBM N series using [Performance Accelerator Module (PAM)] cards.

IBM has offered cooperative caching synergy between its servers and its storage arrays for some time now. The predecessor to today's POWER7-based were the iSeries i5 servers that used PCI-X IOP cards with cache to connect i5/OS applications to IBM's external disk and tape systems. To compete in this space, EMC created their own PCI-X cards to attach their own disk systems. In 2006, IBM did the right thing for our clients and fostered competition by entering in a [Landmark agreement] with EMC to [license the i5 interfaces]. Today, VIOS on IBM POWER systems allows a much broader choice of disk options for IBM i clients, including the IBM SVC, Storwize V7000 and XIV storage systems.

EMC is not the first to manufacture an SSD-based PCIe card. Last summer, my friends at Texas Memory Systems [TMS] gave away a [RAMsan-70 PCIe card] at an after-party on [Day 2 of the IBM System Storage University].

Can a little SSD really help performance? Yes! An IBM client running a [DB2 Universal Database] cluster across eight System x servers was able to replace an 800-drive EMC Symmetrix by putting eight SSD Fusion-IO cards in each server, for a total of 64 Solid-State drives, saving money and improving performance. DB2 has the Data Partitioning Feature that has multi-system DB2 configurations using a Grid-like architecture similar to how XIV is designed. Most IBM System x and BladeCenter servers support internal SSD storage options, and many offer PCIe slots for third-party SSD cards. Sadly, you can't do this with a VFCache card, since you can have only one VFCache card in each server, the data is unprotected, and only for ephemeral data like transaction logs or other temporary data. With multiple Fusion-IO cards in an IBM server, you can configure a RAID rank across the SSD, and use it for persistent storage like DB2 databases.

Here then is my side-by-side comparison:

CategoryEMC VFCacheIBM XIV Gen3 SSD Caching
Servers supportedSelected x86-based models of Cisco UCS, Dell PowerEdge, HP ProLiant DL, and IBM xSeries and System x serversAll of these, plus any other blade or rack-optimized server currently supported by XIV Gen3, including Oracle SPARC, HP Titanium, IBM POWER systems, and even IBM System z mainframes running Linux
Operating System supportLinux RHEL 5.6 and 5.7, VMware vSphere 4.1 and 5.0, and Windows 2008 x64 and R2.All of these, plus all the other operating systems supported by XIV Gen3, including AIX, IBM i, Solaris, HP-UX, and Mac OS X
Protocol supportFCPFCP and iSCSI
Vendor-supplied driver required on the serverYes, the VFCache driver must be installed to use this feature.No, IBM XIV Gen3 uses native OS-based multi-pathing drivers.
External disk storage systems requiredNone, it appears the VFCache has no direct interaction with the back-end disk array, so in theory the benefits are the same whether you use this VFCache card in front of EMC storage or IBM storageXIV Gen3 is required, as the SSD slots are not available on older models of IBM XIV.
Shared disk supportNo, VFCache has to be disabled and removed for vMotion to take place.Yes! XIV Gen3 SSD caching shared disk supports VMware vMotion and Live Partition Mobility.
Support for multiple serversNoAn advantage of the XIV Gen3 SSD caching approach is that the cache can be dynamically allocated to the busiest data from any server or servers.
Support for active/active server clustersNoYes!
Aware of changes made to back-end diskNo, it appears the VFCache has no direct interaction with the back-end disk array, so any changes to the data on the box itself are not communicated back to the VFCache card itself to invalidate the cache contents.Yes!
Sequential-access detectionNone identified. However, VFCache only caches blocks 64KB or smaller, so any sequential processing with larger blocks will bypass the VFCache.Yes! XIV algorithms detect sequential access and avoid polluting the SSD with these blocks of data.
Number of SSD supportedOne, which seems odd as IBM supports multiple Fusion-IO cards for its servers. However, this is not really a single point of failure (SPOF) as an application experiencing a VFCache failure merely drops down to external disk array speed, no data is lost since it is only read cache.6 to 15 (one per XIV module) for high availability.
Pin data in SSD cacheYes, using split-card mode, you can designate a portion of the 300GB to serve as Direct-attached storage (DAS). All data written to the DAS portion will be kept in SSD. However, since only one card is supported per server and the data is unprotected, this should only be used for ephemeral data like logs and temp files.No, there is no option to designate an XIV Gen3 volume to be SSD-only. Consider using Fusion-IO PCIe card as a DAS alternative, or another IBM storage system for that requirement.
Hot-pluggable/Hot-swappableNot identifiedYes!
Pre-sales Estimating toolsNone identifiedYes! CDF and Disk Magic tools are available to help cost-justify the purchase of SSD based on workload performance analysis.

IBM has the advantage that it designs and manufactures both servers and storage, and can design optimal solutions for our clients in that regard.

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

6 comments
6 views

Permalink

Comments

Thu March 08, 2012 06:10 AM

Originally posted by: Ravo1503


I mixed up ausstorageguy and ChuckC being a current and future loyal XIV account - my apologies for the confusion - but it does not impact my core message

Thu March 08, 2012 06:06 AM

Originally posted by: Ravo1503


I find this article embarrassing and IBM unworthy, especially when a current and future loyal XIV account (ausstorageguy) points to the FUD, misleading and misinformation that your article represents. As your answer indicates, you probably never will admit the true essence of this article, feel free not to reply on my post. ausstorageguy's observations are spot on, and you article and answers/feedback gives the Big Blue brand not the credibility it deserves

Wed February 22, 2012 04:55 PM

Originally posted by: TonyPearson


AusStorageGuy, thanks for the comments! You cover a lot of issues, so let's take each point one at a time. (1) Did I need to do this? No, but the XIV team asked me nicely to write about this, pretty please, with sugar on top, so I did. (2) This is FUD. No argument there. For those who can't find the FUD sprinkled throughout my post, it is the list of factual disappointments in the VFCache announcement, including, but not limited to, (a) that it only works on select server models and operating systems, (b) that it only works with FCP protocol, (c) that customers are limited to only one card per server, and (d) that EMC does not recommend anything other than ephemeral data to be placed on the card in split-card DAS mode, to name a few. I agree that sometimes FUD is difficult to find for some readers, but in this post I consolidated the FUD into an easy to read table, in the first column, highlighted in bright yellow. (3) IBM has sold over 5,200 XIV boxes, and the majority are attached to x86-based servers. I would imagine that many of these servers have PCIe slots. Therefore, for those customers that have both x86 servers and XIV storage, they have two new choices to reduce read IOPS latency. The first option is to install an EMC VFCache card inside the servers that need better performance, and the second option would be to install SSD into each XIV module to benefit all attached servers. Both cost money and provide desired benefits, and as such we can compare these two on that basis. (4) I am not sure what waters you felt I muddied. (5) The comparisons you suggest, between EMC FASTCache vs. XIV Gen3 SSD Caching, or between EMC VFCache and Fusion-IO would also make excellent blog posts. (6) Ride someone else's wave? Ha! We have been planning the XIV Gen3 SSD Caching announcement for months. It was a delightful coincidence that EMC put out a similar announcement the same week. (6) Disinformation? My facts and comparisons were thoroughly researched and reviewed by a team of IBMers. Likewise, if I had anything wrong on the EMC side, I would have heard from them or their lawyers by now. Trust me, I know from past experience. However, if you can point out any disinformation, false or misleading statements that they all missed, I will gladly update the post accordingly. -- Tony

Tue February 21, 2012 07:22 PM

Originally posted by: ausstorageguy


Come on Tony, this is a bit of a stretch isn't it? XIV is an excellent product of its own standing; did you really need to do this? You say this is to help an admin investigating SSD, but if one were to not know and were to read this post, it would just be confusing and cause distrust; this is just FUD. http://ausstorageguy.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/what-is-fud/ VFCache vs. Gen3 Cache has no relevance what's so ever as VFCache is about solving latency which no in-array magic can solve - that which is external to the array (cables, switches, Et cetera). It's like comparing corn chips to toast, both go in your gob but serve completely different purposes. I think EMC are being pretty forthright with the purpose of VFCache and not muddying up the waters. To give an alternate would be like comparing EMC Avamar to an XIV and saying "Well, XIV doesn't do dedupe and we've got variable length dedupe...." pretty dumb right, two different purposes? You could have easily written a decent post comparing EMC FASTCache vs. XIV Gen3 Caching. Or even VFCache vs. Fusion IO which IBM Resells: http://www-304.ibm.com/shop/americas/content/home/store_IBMPublicUSA/en_US/ibmfusionio.html But really what I think you're doing is trying to ride EMC's release for your own marketing, did you really need to? XIV is an excellent array; adding SSD Cache to the Gen3 takes it further, Moshe would be fuming (which I think is a good thing), can you just stick to that and not ride someone else's wave? Or for that matter, not resort to disinformation, it serves no-one. Aus Storage Guy (Of no vendor allegiance)

Fri February 10, 2012 10:37 AM

Originally posted by: TonyPearson


ChuckC, I am glad to hear you are a delighted XIV customer! Yes, agree that this might seem like an apples-to-oranges comparison. However, if a storage admin is asked to investigate adding SSD to their existing environment to improve application performance, than comparing SSD in the server versus SSD in the storage device is indeed a valid comparison of performance boost per dollar spent. I too would like to see VFCache vs. Fusion-IO with appropriate software features enabled, as well as EMC FAST vs. XIV SSD Caching. XIV Gen3 has been found to be 69 percent lower Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) than EMC VMAX, so a comparison of performance boost per dollar spent over the course of three years would need to take that into account. --Tony

Thu February 09, 2012 09:57 PM

Originally posted by: ChuckC


We own multiple Gen2 XIV systems and will likely be purchasing a Gen3 soon, so I was glad to see this feature announcement. However, this seems like a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. It would seem more appropriate (and I'd be interested in your take) to compare: - VFCache vs. the Fusion-IO cards with the directCache or ioTurbine software options - EMC FAST Cache vs. XIV SSD Caching