Posts Tagged ‘cloud replication’

Of 3PAR, blocks and cloud storage

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

No doubt you may have heard about the bidding war for SAN storage vendor 3PAR between HP and Dell. In case you missed it, a high-end block storage vendor (3PAR) is fetching a spectacular acquisition price that has continued to climb in a bidding frenzy, perhaps culminating this week at an astronomical $2.4B.

While there is certainly more to 3PAR than block storage, all this fuss may lead you to ask what makes block storage so desirable in customer data centers. And in the same vein, does block-access make sense for cloud storage? After all, file storage can run on similarly fast networks and offers native file sharing capability. Who needs blocks, right?

Well, the reality is that thousands of customers are purchasing block storage with good reason. While the argument between block and file can sometimes be as insightful (or uninsightful) as arguing about what type of bag to package your groceries in,  I offer three of the inherent advantages of block storage that make it attractive for a variety of customer environments:

1. The ability to support any file system

Block storage supports any file system: NTFS, ZFS, Ext3, NFS, CIFS. The choice is yours for a filesystem optimized to your applications. If you are considering an on-premise gateway to cloud storage, wouldn’t you prefer to keep using the file systems  you already have? With block storage, you can do just that as no “rip and replace” is required.

2. The ability to provision raw data volumes directly to applications

Many applications such as databases benefit from raw volumes that do not have the overhead of a file system. In fact, without the additional overhead, performance naturally improves. If you are using local copies of data that are replicated to cloud, it makes sense to optimize the performance of local access. If you are using server virtualization, VMware allows raw device mappings (RDM) from SAN attached raw volumes that minimize the I/O stack to maximize performance.

3. Benefits of block level granularity

When you are replicating data, say from a local copy of data to cloud copy, it is not always efficient to copy entire files to the cloud when only a small portion of the file is modified. For larger files especially, it is more efficient to send block level updates where a block represents only a small portion of the file. Also, with technology such as deduplication, it is more efficient to identify and consolidate duplicate blocks within files than duplicate files. See our deduplication performance blog post for more about this.

In summary, when considering deploying cloud SAN solutions or cloud storage gateway solutions, you’d be wise to consider the solution that has the maximum flexibility to meet all of your application needs, both present and future.

File or block storage? Which works best for you?

Storage Cloud-o-Nomics

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

You may have read a recent blog entry by a leading industry analyst addressing cloud storage ROI: 20TB of public cloud storage as a service at Amazon’s S3 rate of $0.15/GB per month totals $3,000 per month, or a whopping $36,000 per year. Some do-it-yourselfers responded they can build 4 storage arrays for this one-year price. But can acquiring a glut of storage capacity give your business offsite data protection? Can it instill confidence that your business will be able to survive a complete loss of your primary site data?

We recently used Clarity AP to conduct a total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis of cloud storage as an offsite replicated tier of storage accessible via our cloud gateway, CloudArray. For the analysis, we assume a company with a single site for data storage and linear capacity growth over 3 years. We calculated the 3 year TCO of an in-house implemented offsite tier of replicated storage versus replicated storage to the cloud. We plotted the capacity crossover point up to which cloud storage holds a cost advantage.

While we invite everyone to look at the full report, here’s a brief summary:

Cloud storage may make sense for capacities up to 60TB for replicated data. At these capacities, cloud storage benefits from a pay as you go model that does not suffer the underutilization experienced in storage arrays. As a remote site data protection solution, cloud storage substantially reduces the need for offsite infrastructure and management.

The chart below illustrates the crossover point:

3-yr TCO for offsite replicated storage

3-yr TCO for offsite replicated storage

For the initial TB of capacity, costs for an in-house solution over a 3 year period are $233,492, compared to $79,794 for cloud storage. For 20 TB, there is a $100,000 savings when data is replicated to a cloud provider.

The report lists results, configurations and cost assumptions. The analysis purposely neglects to factor local site floor/power/cooling since some may argue these are sunk costs. It also does not address application/compute failover which is a separate analysis.

Conclusion

Based on the results of this analysis, cloud storage can be very compelling for companies replicating up to 60 TB to a public cloud. For a mid-sized company or departments within a larger organization, this represents a substantial capacity range across which cloud storage presents a strong ROI. Watch for this range to expand even higher over the course of the next 3 years with more favorable cloud pricing and tiers of service.

Can your business benefit from cloud storage? Let us know.