Includes Storage Arrays, NAS, File Systems, Clustered and Distributed File Systems, FC Switches/Directors, HBA, CNA, Routers, Components, Semiconductors, Server Blades.
Taneja Group analysts cover all form and manner of storage arrays, modular and monolithic, enterprise or SMB, large and small, general purpose or specialized. All components that make up the SAN, FC-based or iSCSI-based, and all forms of file servers, including NAS systems based on clustered or distributed file systems, are covered soup to nuts. Our analysts have deep backgrounds in file systems area in particular. Components such as Storage Network Processors, SAS Expanders, FC Controllers are covered here as well. Server Blades coverage straddles this section as well as the Infrastructure Management section above.
The IT industry is in the middle of a massive transition toward simplification and efficiency around managing on-premise infrastructure at today’s enterprise data centers. In the past few years there has been a rampant onset of technology clearly focused at simplifying and radically changing the economics of traditional enterprise infrastructure. These technologies include Public/Private Clouds, Converged Infrastructure, and Integrated Systems to name a few. All of these technologies are geared to provide more efficiency of resources, take less time to administer, all at a reduced TCO. However, these technologies all rely on efficiency and simplicity of the underlying technologies of Compute, Network, and Storage. Often times the overall solution is only as good as the weakest link in the chain. The storage tier of the traditional infrastructure stack is often considered the most complex to manage.
This technology validation focuses on measuring the efficiency and management simplicity by comparing two industry leading mid-range external storage arrays configured in the use case of unified storage. Unified storage has been a popular approach to storage subsystems that consolidates both file access and block access within a single external array thus being able to share the same precious drive capacity resources across both protocols simultaneously. Businesses value the ability to send server workloads down a high performance low latency block protocol while still taking advantage of simplicity and ease of sharing file protocols to various clients. In the past businesses would have either setup a separate file server in front of their block array or buy completely separate NAS devices, thus possibly over buying storage resource and adding complexity. Unified storage takes care of this by providing ease of managing one storage device for all business workload needs. In this study we compared the attributes of storage efficiency and ease of managing and monitoring an EMC VNX unified array versus an HP 3PAR StoreServ unified array. The approach we used was to setup two arrays side-by-side and recorded the actual complexity of managing each array for file and block access, per the documents and guides provided for each product. We also went through the exercise of sizing various arrays via publicly available configuration guides to see what the expected storage density efficiency would be for some typically configured systems.
Our conclusion was nothing short of astonishment. In the case of the EMC VNX2 technology, the approach to unification more closely resembles a hardware packaging and management veneer approach than what would have been expected for a second generation unified storage system. HP 3PAR StoreServ on the other hand, in its second generation of unified storage has transitioned the file protocol services from external controllers to completely converged block and file services within the common array controllers. In addition, all the data path and control plumbing is completely internal as well with no need to wire loop back cables between controllers. HP has also made the investment to create a totally new management paradigm based on the HP OneView management architecture, which radically simplifies the administrative approach to managing infrastructure. After performing this technology validation we can state with confidence that HP 3PAR StoreServ 7400c is 2X easier to provision, 2X easier to monitor, and up to 2X more data density efficient than a similarly configured EMC VNX 5600.
With the advent of server virtualization, many adopters erroneously think that disaster recovery (DR) is a problem of the past. They cite the ability of the hypervisors to replace the two most common yet imperfect DR choices: 1) infrastructure replication to a secondary replica site – fast to restore but very expensive, or 2) economical tape backup with off-site long-term storage – economical but slow to recover from.
The reality is that while server virtualization has certainly helped the industry get closer to simpler and less expensive DR products, DR still remains one of the major challenges for IT. This is especially true for applications that fall somewhere between the most mission critical where RTOs and RPOs of a few seconds is needed (and cost is often no object) and those that find RTOs and RPOs of a day or two to be adequate. Today, DR products available for these “intermediate” applications are few and far between, especially when overall cost of DR is considered.
The missing piece so far has been a cost-effective DR solution with excellent RTO and RPO for the majority of business applications -- without requiring a secondary site. OneCloud steps into the gap by replacing that expensive site with the hyper-scale public cloud. This Profile will discuss how OneCloud works to extend the primary data center onto the cloud, and how this impacts the ease and speed of VM recovery.
Every large IT shop has a long shelf of performance management solutions ranging from big platform bundles bought from legacy vendors, through general purpose log aggregators and event consoles, to a host of device-specific element managers. Despite the invested costs of acquiring, installing, supporting, and learning these often complex tools, only a few of them are in active daily use. Most are used only reactively and many just gather dust for a number of reasons. But, if only because of the ongoing costs of keeping management tools current, it’s only the solutions that get used that are worth having.
When it comes to picking which tool to use day-to-day, it’s not the theory of what it could do, it’s the actual value of what it does for the busy admin trying to focus on the tasks at-hand. And among the myriad of things an admin is responsible for, assuring performance requires the most management solution support. Performance related tasks include checking on the health of resources that the admin is responsible for, improving utilization, finding lurking or trending issues to attend to in order to head off disastrous problems later, working with other IT folks to diagnose and isolate service impacting issues, planning new activities, and communicating relevant insight to others – in IT, the broader business, and even to external stakeholders.
Admins responsible for infrastructure, when faced with these tasks, have huge challenges in large, heterogeneous, complex environments. While vendor-specific device and element managers drill into each piece of equipment, they help mostly with easily identifiable component failure. Both daily operational status and difficult infrastructure challenges involve looking across so-called IT domains (i.e. servers and storage) for thorny performance impacting trends or problems. The issue with larger platform tools is that they require a significant amount of installation, training, ongoing tool support, and data management that all detract from the time an admin can actually spend on primary responsibilities.
There is room for a new style of system management that is agile, insightful and empowering, and we think Galileo presents just such a compelling new approach. In this report we’ll explore some of the IT admin’s common performance challenges and then examine how Galileo Performance Explorer with its cloud-hosted collection and analysis helps conquer them. We’ll look at how Performance Explorer crosses IT domains to increase insight, easily implements and scales, fosters communication, and focuses on and enables the infrastructure admin to achieve daily operational excellence. We’ll also present a couple of real customer interviews in which, despite sunk costs in other solutions, adding Galileo to the data center quickly improved IT utilization, capacity planning, and the service levels delivered back to the business.
This Field Report was created by Taneja Group for Nutanix. The Taneja Group analyzed the experiences of seven Nutanix Virtual Computing Platform customers and seven Virtual Computing Environment (VCE) Vblock customers. We did not ‘cherry-pick’ customers for dissatisfaction, delight, or specific use case; we were interested in typical customers’ honest reactions.
As we talked in detail to these customers, we kept seeing the same patterns: 1) VCE users were interested in converged systems; and 2) they chose VCE because VCE partners Cisco, EMC, and/or VMware were embedded in their IT relationships and sales. The VCE process had the advantage of vendor familiarity, but it came at a price: high capital expense, infrastructure and management complexity, expensive support contracts, and concerns over the long-term viability of the VCE partnership. VCE customers typically did not research other options for converged infrastructure prior to deploying the VCE Vblock solution.
In contrast, Nutanix users researched several convergence and hyperconvergence vendors to determine the best possible fit. Nutanix’ advanced web-scale framework gave them simplified architecture and management, reasonable acquisition and operating costs, and considerably faster time to value.
Our conclusion, based on the amount of time and effort spent by the teams responsible for managing converged infrastructure, is that VCE Vblock deployments represent an improvement over traditional architectures, but Nutanix hyperconvergence – especially with its web-scale architecture – is an big improvement over VCE.
This Field Report will compare customer experiences with Nutanix hyperconverged, web-scale infrastructure to VCE Vblock in real-world environments.
The era of IT infrastructure convergence is upon us. Over the past few years Integrated Computing systems – the integration of compute, networking, and storage - have burst onto the scene and have been readily adopted by large enterprise users. The success of these systems has been built by taking well-known IT workloads and combining it with purpose built integrated computing systems optimized for that particular workload. Example workloads today that are being integrated to create these systems are Cloud, Big Data, Virtualization, Database, VDI or even combinations of two or more.
In the past putting these workload solutions together meant having or hiring technology experts with multiple domain knowledge expertise. Integration and validation could take months of on-premise work. Fortunately, technology vendors have matured along with their Integrated Computing systems approach, and now practically every vendor seems to be touting one integrated system or another focused on solving a particular workload problem. The promised set of business benefits delivered by these new systems fall into these key areas:
· Implementation efficiency that accelerates time to realizing value from integrated systems
· Operational efficiency through optimized workload density and an ideally right sized set of infrastructure
· Management efficiency enabled by an integrated management umbrella that ties all of the components of a solution together
· Scale and agility efficiency unlocked through a repeatedly deployable building block approach
· Support efficiency that comes with deeply integrated, pre-configured technologies, overarching support tools, and a single vendor support approach for an entire-set of infrastructure
In late 2013, HP introduced a new portfolio offering called HP ConvergedSystem – a family of systems that includes a specifically designed virtualization offering. ConvergedSystem marked a new offering, designed to tackle key customer pain points around infrastructure and software solution deployment, while leveraging HP’s expertise in large scale build-and-integration processes to herald an entirely new level of agility around speed of ordering and implementation. In this profile, we’ll examine how integrated computing systems marks a serious departure from the inefficiencies of traditional order-build-deploy customer processes, and also evaluate HP’s latest advancement of these types of systems.
Taneja Group prepared a Field Report for Nutanix on the real-world customer experience for seven Nutanix hyperconvergence and seven VCE convergence customers. We did not cherry pick customers for dissatisfaction or delight; we were interested in typical customers’ honest reactions.
The same conclusions kept emerging: VCE users see convergence as a benefit over traditional do-it-yourself infrastructure, but an expensive one. Some of the concerns include high prices, infrastructure and management complexity, expensive support contracts, and concerns over the long-term viability of the partnership between EMC, VMware and Cisco. The Nutanix users also shared valuable hyperconvergence benefits. In contrast to VCE, they also cited simplified architecture and management, reasonable acquisition and operating costs, and considerably faster time to value.
Our conclusion is that VCE convergence is an improvement over traditional architecture, but Nutanix hyperconvergence is an evolutionary improvement over VCE.