Special Coverage Series

Network Computing

Special Coverage Series

Commentary

Howard Marks
Howard Marks Network Computing Blogger

Don't Trade High Availability for Flash Performance

The rise of SSDs has also resurrected the single-controller architecture--along with its single point of failure. IT shouldn't gamble on high availability just for flash's amped-up performance.

As flash-based SSDs revolutionize the storage industry, I thought it might be worth taking a look at how some basic storage system architectures compare when the storage media changes from spinning disks to SSDs.

The most basic storage architecture is essentially a RAID controller with a SAN or NAS target. The controller, whether custom hardware or a standard server, is a single point of failure. As a result, unicontroller systems have been relegated to the very low end of the disk array market, where they're used by SMBs or to hold additional copies of data. The vast middle of the storage market is dominated by dual-controller, modular arrays that will fail over transparently if one controller goes down.

More Insights

Webcasts

More >>

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Amazingly enough, the move to SSD has resurrected the unicontroller design in the form of rackmount SSDs from the likes of IBM's Texas Memory Systems and Astute Networks' VISX, as well as more feature-rich systems like Nimbus Data's S-Class. The risk of data loss inherent in a unicontroller design might be tolerable for some applications, such as analytics or VDI with non-persistent desktops, but for the vast majority of cases I would find it hard to pay $50,000 or more for a product that doesn't offer high availability.

When asked about high availability, proponents of unicontroller systems will generally recommend a pair of appliances with synchronous replication. If the vendor has done its homework and written a fail-over mechanism into its arrays, a cluster of unicontrollers is available enough for most applications.

Basically, a typical dual controller, active/passive modular storage system is what the systems guys would call a shared disk cluster, much like a typical Windows Server cluster. A pair of unicontroller systems that replicate data is a shared nothing cluster.

In the disk era, unicontrollers were built on industry-standard servers, which offset the additional cost of a second set of disk drives. This meant that unicontroller designs, some of which provided some degree of scale-out as well, like Lefthand's iSCSI array and NexentaStor, have sold thousands of units.

The problem with unicontroller systems in the SSD era is that the flash makes up a much higher fraction of the cost of a storage system than disk drives. In fact, some all-flash unicontroller systems cost as much as competing systems that include HA.

I've even heard vendors suggest that customers buy one flash device and manage HA by using host volume managers or storage virtualization appliances.

But if you mirror in your host computer's volume manager or synchronously replicate from an all-SSD array to a disk-based system to avoid the cost of two all-SSD systems, you give up the performance advantage the all-flash system has on writes. That's because writes will only be acknowledged to your applications after they've been written to both the flash and disk-based systems. This limits application performance to the write speed of the slower disk system.

If instead you asynchronously replicate data across the mixed storage systems through host- or application-level software, you've turned a simple device failure into a full-blown disaster with associated RPOs and RTOs. By contrast, device failure on a true high-availability system would cause no data loss, and at worst a few seconds of failover delay

Users and senior management can accept some downtime, and even some performance loss, in the face of a disaster caused by an external event like a tornado or hurricane. They're a lot less understanding when they are inconvenienced by a problem within the IT department, even if it was the failure of a key piece of equipment.

The only place I can think of where a replicating pair of unicontroller systems might be an advantage would be on a college campus. At the college where I worked, we had two data centers at opposite ends of the campus connected by a loop of 128 strands of single-mode fiber. In an environment like that, a user could put one system in each data center, and get both high availability and disaster recovery with one replicating array pair taking advantage of the lower cost of unicontroller systems.

A year or two ago, speed was the only performance factor that people cared about with all-flash systems; we were so happy with the performance we didn't care about other functionality. But as the all-flash market matures, I'm less willing to sacrifice things like high availability for speed.



Related Reading



Network Computing encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, Network Computing moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. Network Computing further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

 
Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | Please read our commenting policy.
 

Editor's Choice

Research: 2014 State of Server Technology

Research: 2014 State of Server Technology

Buying power and influence are rapidly shifting to service providers. Where does that leave enterprise IT? Not at the cutting edge, thatís for sure: Only 19% are increasing both the number and capability of servers, budgets are level or down for 60% and just 12% are using new micro technology.
Get full survey results now! »

Vendor Turf Wars

Vendor Turf Wars

The enterprise tech market used to be an orderly place, where vendors had clearly defined markets. No more. Driven both by increasing complexity and Wall Street demands for growth, big vendors are duking it out for primacy -- and refusing to work together for IT's benefit. Must we now pick a side, or is neutrality an option?
Get the Digital Issue »

WEBCAST: Software Defined Networking (SDN) First Steps

WEBCAST: Software Defined Networking (SDN) First Steps


Software defined networking encompasses several emerging technologies that bring programmable interfaces to data center networks and promise to make networks more observable and automated, as well as better suited to the specific needs of large virtualized data centers. Attend this webcast to learn the overall concept of SDN and its benefits, describe the different conceptual approaches to SDN, and examine the various technologies, both proprietary and open source, that are emerging.
Register Today »

Related Content

From Our Sponsor

How Data Center Infrastructure Management Software Improves Planning and Cuts Operational Cost

How Data Center Infrastructure Management Software Improves Planning and Cuts Operational Cost

Business executives are challenging their IT staffs to convert data centers from cost centers into producers of business value. Data centers can make a significant impact to the bottom line by enabling the business to respond more quickly to market demands. This paper demonstrates, through a series of examples, how data center infrastructure management software tools can simplify operational processes, cut costs, and speed up information delivery.

Impact of Hot and Cold Aisle Containment on Data Center Temperature and Efficiency

Impact of Hot and Cold Aisle Containment on Data Center Temperature and Efficiency

Both hot-air and cold-air containment can improve the predictability and efficiency of traditional data center cooling systems. While both approaches minimize the mixing of hot and cold air, there are practical differences in implementation and operation that have significant consequences on work environment conditions, PUE, and economizer mode hours. The choice of hot-aisle containment over cold-aisle containment can save 43% in annual cooling system energy cost, corresponding to a 15% reduction in annualized PUE. This paper examines both methodologies and highlights the reasons why hot-aisle containment emerges as the preferred best practice for new data centers.

Monitoring Physical Threats in the Data Center

Monitoring Physical Threats in the Data Center

Traditional methodologies for monitoring the data center environment are no longer sufficient. With technologies such as blade servers driving up cooling demands and regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley driving up data security requirements, the physical environment in the data center must be watched more closely. While well understood protocols exist for monitoring physical devices such as UPS systems, computer room air conditioners, and fire suppression systems, there is a class of distributed monitoring points that is often ignored. This paper describes this class of threats, suggests approaches to deploying monitoring devices, and provides best practices in leveraging the collected data to reduce downtime.

Cooling Strategies for Ultra-High Density Racks and Blade Servers

Cooling Strategies for Ultra-High Density Racks and Blade Servers

Rack power of 10 kW per rack or more can result from the deployment of high density information technology equipment such as blade servers. This creates difficult cooling challenges in a data center environment where the industry average rack power consumption is under 2 kW. Five strategies for deploying ultra-high power racks are described, covering practical solutions for both new and existing data centers.

Power and Cooling Capacity Management for Data Centers

Power and Cooling Capacity Management for Data Centers

High density IT equipment stresses the power density capability of modern data centers. Installation and unmanaged proliferation of this equipment can lead to unexpected problems with power and cooling infrastructure including overheating, overloads, and loss of redundancy. The ability to measure and predict power and cooling capability at the rack enclosure level is required to ensure predictable performance and optimize use of the physical infrastructure resource. This paper describes the principles for achieving power and cooling capacity management.