Life is full of choices. Should you, for example, buy a big-box storage system from a single vendor or mix and match open system components? Remember, however, as your first-grade teacher annoyingly preached: "With every choice, there's a consequence."
And any choice offers pros and cons on each side of the issue. Monolithic and modular storage both take advantage of the movement toward network storage through consolidation, scalability, performance, availability and a better return on investment.
But, here's where it gets interesting: According to analysts, monolithic systems generally provide more robust failover, availability, interoperability testing and professional service. On the other hand, the little guys excel in scalability, performance, management and cost less.
Monolithic boxes usually come with the RAID controllers and disk drives in large, self-contained, one-size-fits-all enclosures. The majority of today's storage area network (SAN)-based storage is in large enterprises where mainframe class external RAID systems were established with EMC's Symmetrix and IBM/StorageTek's monolithic storage systems. Currently EMC's Symmetrix, IBM's Enterprise Storage Server (Shark), StorageTek's SVA, and Hitachi Data Systems' Lightning Series provide this large form-factor storage system capable of attaching to mainframes, as well as open systems server environments.
In contrast, modular external RAID controller-based storage systems are defined by the distinct separation of the RAID controller module(s) from the disk drive module(s). Each module is housed in industry standard racks - which may also hold other general-purposeappliance servers - and separate the scalability of performance and capacity. Modular storage systems are targeted specifically at open systems servers, and typically don't carry the large cache and myriad of connections, Enterprise Systems Connection (ESCON) and Fiber Connectivity (FICON), which are required for mainframe storage. Examples of modular storage includes Compaq's EVA, EMC's Clariion, Dell's PowerVault, HP's VA7000 series, IBM's FAStT series, LSI Logic's E-Series, StorageTek's D-Series, XIOtech's Magnitude, and others. The analysts at Gartner, Inc. in Stamford, CT, are projecting that modular storage systems will exceed the revenue of monolithic storage systems in 2003, with a continuing growth trend favoring modular.
|What's best for your environment?|
Modular storage developed in much the same vein as stereo components did: to satisfy a customer's desire for lower-cost gear and prevent vendor lock-in. For example, with modular components an iSCSI router can easily attach to lower-end servers that don't require the performance of Fibre Channel (FC).
A summary of modular storage strengths
- Cost. Gartner estimates 25% less than monolithic. The actual cost comparisons can vary drastically and must be evaluated for each configuration.
- Performance. Applications such as transactional databases, data warehousing, customer support ande-commerce place different, more complex demands on storage system performance than previous generation applications. Coupled with higher performing server technology, modular storage leads performance by supplying multiple back-end drive channels and sophisticated controllers with special read-ahead algorithms.
- Scalability and flexibility. Systems can dynamically scale capacity and performance independently. Systems can start small and grow cost effectively.
- Footprint. The latest disk drives and packaging allow for optimum capacity per square foot.
- Manageability and usability. User-friendly interfaces and management tools have been designed to allow administrators to expand capacity, create new volumes, map new servers and other tasks that often require service calls in the monolithic storage systems.
Benefits of monolithic storage
The IBM 3XX mainframe systems of the late 70s and early 80s were limited in their performance due to the availability and cost of memory technologies. Mainframe storage vendors - initially EMC and IBM/StorageTek - developed cache-focused storage systems to counteract the architectural limitations of the mainframe environments. In the mainframe environment, it proved to be more cost and performance effective to place significant cache in the storage system relative to the mainframe to accommodate its more predictable, read-oriented applications. These large cache storage systems provided significant performance advantages in the mainframe environment.
Typically one or more storage systems were connected to each mainframe system. Initially, midrange servers - running Unix, NT and NetWare - each had their separate physical storage, either internally or externally attached. Eventually these large external RAID storage systems expanded from mainframe to also attach to open systems servers using a networked storage model. The advent of consolidated, networked storage provided the ability to logically divide storage, allowing for much higher capacity utilization.
The monolithic storage systems now offered with EMC's Symmetrix, IBM's Shark, StorageTek's SVA and Hitachi's Lightning series provide the following:
- Connection. Both mainframe and open systems servers can be attached, although it's not recommended to use both on the same physical system.
- Homogenous environment. With the large installed base of these systems, it may be advantageous to keep one brand of storage system.
- Capacity in a single storage subsystem is greater than most modular storage systems.
- Robust replication and disaster recovery. The largest installed base of replication products are on these systems which are perceived to have the most robust mirroring solutions, although this gap is closing quickly.
- ISV integration. Many integrators are familiar with these established systems.
- Service and support. Extensive professional services and support teams are in place.
|RAID controller-based storage market share|
The good news is that storage technology is accelerating at a tremendous pace, bringing increased functionality and benefits. Most importantly there's more choice: There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. Monolithic systems provide external RAID storage for mainframes and also attach to open systems servers. Modular storage systems have been designed to attach to open systems environments and provide a flexible, lower-cost alternative in these environments. As noted earlier, there are benefits to each design.
Monolithic storage systems are the only alternative for mainframe attach and may be viable for open systems servers, primarily if keeping with a single brand of storage. The additional cost of these large systems may be justified because monolithic systems provide a homogenous storage environment. They offer the most proven disaster recovery and replication products and usually come with the highest levels of service and support.
Modular systems, on the other hand, are more flexible and scalable and allow a pay-as-you-grow price structure. The management interfaces are often designed for end users, and as a result it's easier to expand capacity, manage volumes, provision storage and a variety of other tasks that would likely require a service call in the monolithic world. Performance is also superior in the open systems environments, and modular systems cost significantly less than monolithic systems. In addition, today most storage innovations first appear in modular systems.
The choices that are available offer increasing value to the customer and - with a little investigation - administrators can meet their storage needs today and have an infrastructure that accommodates their future requirements.