What does HAM look like to the open systems end user. We need to break this question up into two parts – one part for USP-V internal storage and the other part for external storage.
It appears that for internal storage first you need data replication services such as asynch or synchronous replication between the two USP-V storage subsystems. But here you still need some shared External storage used as a quorum disk. Then once all this is set up under HAM the two subsystems can automatically failover access to the replicated internal and shared external storage from one USP-V to the other.
For external storage it appears that this storage must be shared between the two USP-V systems and whenever the primary one fails the secondary one can take over (failover) data storage responsibilities for the failing USP-V frontend.
What does this do for data migration? Apparently, using automated failover with HAM one can migrate date between two different storage pools and then failover server access from one to the other non-disruptively.
Obviously all the servers accessing storage under HAM control would need to be able to access both USP-Vs in order for this to all work properly.
Continuous availability is a hard nut to crack. HDS seems to have taken a shot at doing this from a purely storage subsystem perspective. This might be very useful for data centers running heterogeneous server environments. Typically server clustering software is OS specific like MSCS. Symantec being the lone exception with VCS which supports multiple OSs. Such server clustering can handle storage outages but also depend on storage replication services to make this work.
Unclear to me which is preferable but when you add the non-disruptive data migration – it seems that HAM might make sense.
It’s unclear to me what EMC would want with Data Domain (DD) other than to lockup deduplication technology across the enterprise. EMC has Avamar for Source dedupe, has DL for target dedupe, has Celerra Dedupe and the only one’s missing are V-Max, Symm & Clariion dedupe.
My guess is that EMC sees Data Domain’s market share as the primary target. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure that once Data Domain is a part of EMC, EMC’s Disk Library (DL) offerings will move over to DD technology. Which probably leaves FalconStor/Quantum technology used in DL today as outsiders.
EMC’s $100M loan to Quantum last month probably was just insurance to keep a business partner afloat until something better came along or they could make it on their own. The DD deal would leave Quantum parntership supporting EMC with just Quantum’s tape offerings.
Quantum deduplication technology doesn’t have nearly the market share that DD has in the enterprise but they have won a number of OEM deals not the least of which is EMC and they were looking to expand. But if EMC buys DD, this OEM agreement will end soon.
I wonder if DD is worth $1.8B in cash what could Sepaton be worth. They seem to be the only pure play dedupe appliance left standing out there.
Not sure whether NetApp will up their bid but they always seem to enjoy competing with EMC. Also unclear how much of this bid is EMC wanting DD or EMC just wanting to hurt NetApp, either way DD stockholders win out in the end.
Data Domain has been a longtime partner of NetApp’s, which is probably one reason that NetApp finally decided to make them an offer. Another reason why it’s right to do this now is that in today’s economy, NetApp could get the best price.
The final reason that NetApp and Data Domain should hook up is that there are not many other major storage vendors that don’t already have a dedicated deduplication appliance or two. If Sun were still around it might make sense for them to think about buying Data Domain but they are out of the picture until Oracle figures out what to do with their storage business. EMC has bought Avamar and invested significantly in Quantum. IBM has purchased Diligent, Symantec has PureDisk. HP already has a deduplication product. The only major vendor without dedupe today is HDS.
Data Domain had a lot going for them. They practically defined the target deduplication appliance market. Diligent (now with IBM), Quantum, Sepaton, and others notwithstanding, Data Domain had the largest market share out there and was continuing to experience rapid growth. The fact that Data Domain both supported NAS as well as VTL access modes coupled with their excellent market share made them a prime acquisition on many fronts.
NetApp, of course, has their own deduplication technology which has been very successful in supporting virtual server environments primary storage and was also used to support secondary storage. No doubt over time these two technologies could conceivably merge into one. But don’t hold your breath, some companies have way more than two distinct deduplication technologies which are used for their various products and NetApp may not feel its worthwhile to combine the two technologies in the near future given there two different markets.
All in all, consolidation is necessary evil today.
At EMC World this past week, all the news was about VMware, Cisco and EMC and how they are hooking up to address the needs of the new data center user.
VMware introduced vSphere which was their latest release of their software which contained significant tweaks to improve storage performance.
Cisco was not announcing much at the show other than to say that they support vSphere with their Nexus 1000v software switch.
EMC discussed their latest V-Max hardware and PowerPath/VMware, an up and coming release of NaviSphere for VM and some other plugins that allows the VMware admin to see EMC storage views (EMC viewer).
On another note, it seems that EMC is selling out all their SSDs they can and they recently introduced their next generation SSD drive with 400GB of storage