7-Mode to Clustered ONTAP Transition

I normally deal with different aspects of storage (arguably far more exciting) but I thought I would write something to provide some common sense perspective on the current state of 7-Mode to cDOT adoption.

I will tackle the following topics:

  1. cDOT vs 7-Mode capabilities
  2. Claims that not enough customers are moving to cDOT
  3. 7-Mode to cDOT transition is seen by some as difficult and expensive
  4. Some argue it might make sense to look at competitors and move to those instead
  5. What programs and tools are offered by NetApp to make transition easy and quick
  6. Migrating from competitors to cDOT

cDOT vs 7-Mode capabilities

I don’t want to make this into a dissertation or take a trip down memory lane. Suffice it to say that while cDOT has most of the 7-Mode features, it is internally very different but also much, much more powerful than 7-Mode – cDOT is a far more capable and scalable storage OS in almost every possible way (and the roadmap is utterly insane).

For instance, cDOT is able to nondisruptively do anything, including crazy stuff like moving SMB shares around cluster nodes (moving LUNs around is much easier than dealing with the far more quirky SMB protocol). Some reasons to move stuff around the cluster could be node balancing, node evacuation and replacement… all done on the fly in cDOT, regardless of protocol.

cDOT also handles Flash much better (cDOT 8.3.x+ can be several times faster than 7-Mode for Flash on the exact same hardware). Even things like block I/O (FC and iSCSI) are completely written from the ground up in cDOT. Cloud integration. Automation. How failover is done. Or how CPU cores are used, how difficult edge conditions are handled… I could continue but then the ADD-afflicted would move on, if they haven’t already…

In a nutshell, cDOT is a more flexible, forward-looking architecture that respects the features that made 7-Mode so popular with customers, but goes incredibly further. There is no competitor with the breadth of features available in cDOT, let alone the features coming soon.

cDOT is quite simply the next logical step for a 7-Mode customer.

Not enough customers moving to cDOT?

The reality is actually pretty straightforward.

  • Most new customers simply go with cDOT, naturally. 7-Mode still has a couple of features cDOT doesn’t, and if those features are really critical to a customer, that’s when someone might go with 7-Mode today. With each cDOT release the feature delta list gets smaller and smaller. Plus, as mentioned earlier, cDOT has a plethora of features and huge enhancements that will never make it to 7-Mode, with much more coming soon.
  • The things still missing in cDOT (like WORM) aren’t even offered by the majority of storage vendors… many large customers use our WORM technology.
  • Large existing customers, especially ones running critical applications, naturally take longer to cycle technologies. The average time to switch major technologies (irrespective of vendor) is around 5 years. The big wave of cDOT transitions hasn’t even hit yet!
  • Given that cDOT 8.2 with SnapVault was the appropriate release for many of our customers and 8.3 the release for most of our customers, a huge number of systems are still within that 5-year window prior to converting to cDOT, given when those releases came out.
  • Customers with mission-critical systems will typically not convert an existing system – they will wait for the next major refresh cycle. Paranoia rules in those environments (that’s a general statement regardless of vendor). And we have many such customers.

7-Mode to cDOT transition is seen by some as difficult and expensive

This is a fun one, and a favorite FUD item for competitors and so-called “analysts”. I sometimes think we confused people by calling cDOT “ONTAP”. I bet expectations would be different if we’d called it “SuperDuper ClusterFrame OS”.

You see, cDOT is radically different in its internals versus 7-Mode – however, it’s still officially also called “ONTAP”. As such, customers are conditioned to super-easy upgrades between ONTAP releases (just load the new code and you’re done). cDOT is different enough that we can’t just do that.

I lobbied for the “ClusterFrame” name but was turned down BTW. I still think it rocks.

The fact that you can run either 7-Mode or cDOT on the same physical hardware confuses people even further. It’s a good thing to be able to reuse hardware (software-defined and all that). Some vendors like to make each new rev of the same family line (and its code) utterly incompatible with the last one… we don’t do that.

And for the startup champions: Startups haven’t been around long enough to have seen a truly major hardware and/or software change! (another thing conveniently ignored by many). Nor do they have the sheer amount of features and ancillary software ONTAP does. And of course, some vendors forget to mention what even a normal tech refresh looks like for their fancy new “built from the ground up” box with the extremely exciting name.

We truly know how to do upgrades… probably better than any vendor out there. For instance: What most people don’t know is that WAFL (ONTAP’s underlying block layout abstraction layer) has been quietly upgraded many, many times over the years. On the fly. In major ways. With a backout option. Another vendor’s product (again the one with the extremely exciting name) needed to be wiped twice by as many “upgrades” in one year in order to have its block layout changed.

Here’s the rub:

Transition complexity really depends on how complex your current deployment is, your appetite for change and tolerance of risk. But transition urgency depends on how much you need the fully nondisruptive nature of cDOT and all the other features it has vs 7-Mode.

What I mean by that:

We have some customers that lose upwards of $4m/hour of downtime. The long-term benefits of a truly nondisruptive architecture make any arguments regarding migration efforts effectively moot.

If you are using a lot of the 7-Mode features and companion software (and it has more features than almost any other storage OS), specific tools written only for 7-Mode, older OS clients only supported on 7-Mode, tons of snaps and clones going back to several years’ retention etc…

Then, in order to retain that kind of similar elaborate deployment in cDOT, the migration effort will also naturally be a bit more complex. But still doable. And we can automate most of it. Including moving over all the snapshots and archives!

On the other hand, if you are using the system like an old-fashioned device and aren’t taking advantage of all the cool stuff, then moving to anything is relatively easy. And especially if you’re close to 100% virtualized, migration can be downright trivial (though simply moving VMs around storage systems ignores any snapshot history – the big wrinkle with VM migrations).

Some argue it might make sense to look at competitors and move to those instead

Looking at options is something that makes business sense in general. It would be very disingenuous of me to say it’s foolish to look at options.

But this holds firmly true: If you want to move to a competitor platform, and use a lot of the 7-Mode features, it would arguably be impossible to do cleanly and maintain full functionality (at a bare minimum you’d lose all your snaps and clones – and some customers have several years’ worth of backup data in SnapVault – try asking them to give that up).

This is true for all competitor platforms: Someone using specific features, scripts, tools, snaps, clones etc. on any platform, will find it almost impossible to cleanly migrate to a different platform. I don’t care who makes it. Doesn’t matter. Can you cleanly move from VMware + VMware snaps to Hyper-V and retain the snaps?

Backup/clone retention is really the major challenge here – for other vendors. Do some research and see how frequently customers switch backup platforms… 🙂 We can move snaps etc. from 7-Mode to cDOT just fine 🙂

The less features you use, the easier the migration and acclimatization to new stuff becomes, but the less value you are getting out of any given product.

Call it vendor lock-in if you must, but it’s merely a side effect of using any given device to its full potential.

The reality: it is incredibly easier to move from 7-Mode to cDOT than from 7-Mode to other vendor products. Here’s why…

What programs and tools are offered by NetApp to make transition easy and quick?

Initially, migration of a complex installation was harder. But we’ve been doing this a while now, and can do the following to make things much easier:

  1. The very cool 7MTT (7-Mode Transition Tool). This is an automation tool we keep rapidly enhancing that dramatically simplifies migrations of complex environments from 7-Mode to cDOT. Any time and effort analysis that ignores how this tool works is quite simply a flawed and incomplete analysis.
  2. After migrating to a new cDOT system, you can take your old 7-Mode gear and convert it to cDOT (another thing that’s impossible with a competitor – you can’t move from, say, a VNX to a VMAX and then convert the VNX to a VMAX).
  3. As of cDOT 8.3.0: We made SnapMirror replication work for all protocols from 7-Mode to cDOT! This is the fundamental way we can easily move over not just the baseline data but also all the snaps, clones etc. Extremely important, and something that moving to a competitor would simply be impossible to carry forward.
  4. As of cDOT 8.3.2 we are allowing something pretty amazing: CFT (Copy Free Transition). Which does exactly what the name suggests: Allows not having to move any data over to cDOT! It’s a combination ONTAP and 7MTT feature, and allows disconnecting the shelves from 7-Mode controllers and re-attaching them to cDOT controllers, and thereby converting even a gigantic system in practically no time. See here for a quick guide, here for a great blog post.
And before I forget…

What about migrating from other vendors to cDOT?

It cuts both ways – anything less would be unfair. Not only is it far easier to move from 7-Mode to cDOT than to a competitor, it’s also easy to move from a competitor to cDOT! Since it’s all about growth, and that’s the only way real growth happens.

As of version 8.3.1 we have what’s called Online Foreign LUN Import (FLI). See link here. It’s all included – no special licenses needed.

With Online FLI we can migrate LUNs from other arrays and maintain maximum uptime during the migration (a cutover is needed at some point of course but that’s quick).

And all this we do without external “helper” gear or special software tools.

In the case of NAS migrations, we have the free and incredibly cool XCP software that can migrate things like high file count environments 25-100x faster than traditional methods. Check it out here.

In summary

I hardly expect to change the minds of people suffering from acute confirmation bias (I wish I could say “you know who you are”, not knowing you are afflicted is the major problem), but hopefully the more level-headed among us should recognize by now that:

  • 7-Mode to cDOT migrations are extremely straightforward in all but the most complex and custom environments
  • Those same complex environments would find it impossible to transparently migrate to anything else anyway
  • Backups/clones is one of those things that complicates migrations for any vendor – ONTAP happens to be used by a lot of customers to handle backups as part of its core value prop
  • NetApp provides extremely powerful tools to help with migrations from 7-Mode to cDOT and from competitors to cDOT (with amazing tools for both SAN and NAS!) that will also handle the backups/clones/archives!
  • The grass isn’t always greener on the other side – The transition from 7-Mode to cDOT is the first time NetApp has asked customers to do anything that major in over 20 years. Other, especially younger, vendors haven’t even seen a truly major code change yet. How will they react to such a thing? NetApp is handling it just fine 🙂


Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Beware of storage performance guarantees

Ah, nothing to bring joy to the holidays like a bit of good old-fashioned sales craziness.

Recently we started seeing weird performance “guarantees” by some storage vendors, who seem will try anything for a sale.

Probably by people that haven’t read this.

It goes a bit like this:

“Mr. Customer, we guarantee our storage will do 100,000 IOPS no matter the I/O size and workload”.

Next time a vendor pulls this, show them the following chart. It’s a simple plot of I/O size vs throughput for 100,000 IOPS:

Throughput IO Size

Notice that at a 1MB I/O size the throughput is a cool 100GB/s 🙂

Then ask that vendor again if they’re sure they still want to make that guarantee. In writing. With severe penalties if it’s not met. As in free gear UNTIL the requirement is met. At any point during the lifetime of the equipment.

Then sit back and enjoy the backpedalling. 

You can make it even more fun, especially if it’s a hybrid storage vendor (mixed spinning and flash storage for caching, with or without autotiering):

  • So you will guarantee those IOPS even if the data is not in cache?
  • For completely random reads spanning the entire pool?
  • For random overwrites? (that should be a fun one, 100GB/s of overwrite activity).
  • For non-zero or at least not crazily compressible data?
  • And what’s the latency for the guarantee? (let’s not forget the big one).
  • etc. You get the point.
Happy Holidays everyone!


Is convenience devaluing products? Does quality suffer because of it?

Kind of a long hiatus posting (far too busy working on cool stuff) and for you looking for a deep technical post this may not be it… but here goes anyway since the content may also apply to my more usual subjects.

Recently I decided to discard my Luddite membership card and join the hordes of people using network-based services for music.

The experiment is ongoing – I do like the convenience of being able to select almost any song or album for the monthly equivalent cost of less than what an album is worth.

It’s a pretty good deal if you listen to a lot of new music, and/or you don’t like listening to ads on the radio.

There’s a plethora of free offerings but if you are mobile and want to use it on your phone, there’s usually a cost involved to have the convenience of selecting the exact songs you like.

How convenience has affected me

I did notice several interesting aspects in which this newfound convenience has changed my listening habits in a positive way:

  1. I am discovering a lot more new music since it’s so incredibly easy to do so. And some old music I never gave a chance to.
  2. Sharing music with other people is easy and involves no illegal copying of data.
  3. I don’t have to worry about putting the “right” music in my portable device – I can stream what I want, from wherever I want, even on devices I don’t own, and even designate items for “offline use” – meaning they’ll be cached and playable even if I’m not connected to a network.
  4. I have easy access to most of my oldie favorites that I might normally not keep in my device due to space reasons.
  5. The quality is very good. But we won’t go into psychoacoustics here 🙂

However, there have also been some pretty negative aspects to all this convenience… for instance:

  1. I realize I now suffer from music ADD – I seldom just sit down and listen to a whole album like we all used to do in the olden days.
  2. Albums now have zero monetary value in my mind – they’re just part of the low monthly fee.
  3. If albums have a perceived zero monetary value, they become a commodity and not something to be treasured. I remember when it was a huge deal to get a new album from my favorite artists: the anticipation, the excitement, the trip to the record store, waiting in line, scarcity, the artwork in the packaging, the sheer physicality of it all. This combination of attributes ensured I would at least give that album a chance – indeed, I was likely to listen to it repeatedly, analyze it and appreciate the artistry involved. I was invested.
  4. As a result of this devaluing, amazing works of art that were extremely difficult to accomplish may now be skipped altogether because they may be a bit time-consuming or even difficult to “get into” – some concept albums you just need to be in the right frame of mind for and/or have the requisite amount of time to listen to the story unfold. Since there’s no perceived investment and no excitement, it’s less likely to spend the energy trying to get into the album, no matter how rewarding it may be in the end.
  5. For something more practical: The toll on the mobile devices’ batteries is 2-3x that of just playing music natively (even without streaming – the tracks are encrypted so you can’t just lift them from the storage, which adds CPU cycles to decrypt, plus some products use codecs more computationally intensive than mp3). Best have a device with a fast CPU.
  6. An extended unplanned network or music provider outage will mean no access to music.

How this applies to other aspects of our lives

I wonder now what other conveniences have affected our lives significantly?

And are we all looking for that quick fix, the easy way out?

Are we heading towards the world depicted in the movie Idiocracy? (very interesting flick – it’s worth watching for the premise alone).

Already, most of us in the more “civilized” parts of the globe don’t know how to hunt down and skin an animal, build a weapon, start a fire, build a shelter. That is knowledge that convenience robbed us of many years ago. You can study how to do those things, but chances are, if you’re in need to do so, you won’t have the training to be anywhere near as successful as our ancestors were in those endeavors.

Same goes for taking pictures – aside from a few people that still develop and print their own film, most of us use digital (with the same deluge of information problem described in the music section above – thousands of pictures may now be taken during a vacation, where previously no more than a hundred would, with tremendous love and care – but most of the hundred were keepers).

Many of us are getting heavier, too – convenient access to food and low levels of physical activity (since locomotion is so convenient) being the killer combination.

Does quality suffer because of convenience?

Conveniences aren’t a bad thing overall – I am not hankering for the destruction of all things convenient. However, I posit that certain aspects of quality absolutely suffer because of convenience:

  1. Consumers are more likely to pick an easier to use, throw-away and even short-sighted product over a better-engineered, longer-lasting one – shifting the engineering emphasis instead to ease-of-use and disposability.
  2. The quality of workers in many fields isn’t what it used to be.
  3. We are heading towards more generalists and less specialists.
  4. Troubleshooting is becoming a lost art.

I’m not sure how to even conclude – I’m probably part of the problem since one of the things I do is help make very advanced technology easier to consume and more forgiving.

Just don’t get too comfortable.

Toilet chair



How to decipher EMC’s new VNX pre-announcement and look behind the marketing.

It was with interest that I watched some of EMC’s announcements during EMC World. Partly due to competitor awareness, and partly due to being an irrepressible nerd, hoping for something really cool.

BTW: Thanks to Mark Kulacz for assisting with the proof points. Mark, as much as it pains me to admit so, is quite possibly an even bigger nerd than I am.

So… EMC did deliver something. A demo of the possible successor to VNX (VNX2?), unavailable as of this writing (indeed, a lot of fuss was made about it being lab only etc).

One of the things they showed was increased performance vs their current top-of-the-line VNX7500.

The aim of this article is to prove that the increases are not proportionally as much as EMC claims they are, and/or they’re not so much because of software, and, moreover, that some planned obsolescence might be coming the way of the VNX for no good reason. Aside from making EMC more money, that is.

A lot of hoopla was made about software being the key driver behind all the performance increases, and how they are now able to use all CPU cores, whereas in the past they couldn’t. Software this, software that. It was the theme of the party.

OK – I’ll buy that. Multi-core enhancements are a common thing in IT-land. Parallelization is key.

So, they showed this interesting chart (hopefully they won’t mind me posting this – it was snagged from their public video):

MCX core util arrow

I added the arrows for clarification.

Notice that the chart above left shows the current VNX using, according to EMCmaybe a total of 2.5 out of the 6 cores if you stack everything up (for instance, Core 0 is maxed out, Core 1 is 50% busy, Cores 2-4 do little, Core 5 does almost nothing). This is important and we’ll come back to it. But, currently, if true, this shows extremely poor multi-core utilization. Seems like there is a dedication of processes to cores – Core 0 does RAID only, for example. Maybe a way to lower context switches?

Then they mentioned how the new box has 16 cores per controller (the current VNX7500 has 6 cores per controller).

OK, great so far.

Then they mentioned how, By The Holy Power Of Software,  they can now utilize all cores on the upcoming 16-core box equally (chart above, right).

Then, comes the interesting part. They did an IOmeter test for the new box only.

They mentioned how the current VNX 7500 would max out at 170,000 8K random reads from SSD (this in itself a nice nugget when dealing with EMC reps claiming insane VNX7500 IOPS). And that the current model’s relative lack of performance is due to the fact its software can’t take advantage of all the cores.

Then they showed the experimental box doing over 5x that I/O. Which is impressive, indeed, even though that’s hardly a realistic way to prove performance, but I accept the fact they were trying to show how much more read-only speed they could get out of extra cores, plus it’s a cooler marketing number.

Writes are a whole separate wrinkle for arrays, of course. Then there are all the other ways VNX performance goes down dramatically.

However, all this leaves us with a few big questions:

  1. If this is really all about just optimized software for the VNX, will it also be available for the VNX7500?
  2. Why not show the new software on the VNX7500 as well? After all, it would probably increase performance by over 2x, since it would now be able to use all the cores equally. Of course, that would not make for good marketing. But if with just a software upgrade a VNX7500 could go 2x faster, wouldn’t that decisively prove EMC’s “software is king” story? Why pass up the opportunity to show this?
  3. So, if, with the new software the VNX7500 could do, say, 400,000 read IOPS in that same test, the difference between new and old isn’t as dramatic as EMC claims… right? 🙂
  4. But, if core utilization on the VNX7500 is not as bad as EMC claims in the chart (why even bother with the extra 2 cores on a VNX7500 vs a VNX5700 if that were the case), then the new speed improvements are mostly due to just a lot of extra hardware. Which, again, goes against the “software” theme!
  5. Why do EMC customers also need XtremeIO if the new VNX is that fast? What about VMAX? 🙂

Point #4 above is important. For instance, EMC has been touting multi-core enhancements for years now. The current VNX FLARE release has 50% better core efficiency than the one before, supposedly. And, before that, in 2008, multi-core was advertised as getting 2x the performance vs the software before that. However, the chart above shows extremely poor core efficiency. So which is it? 

Or is it maybe that the box demonstrated is getting most of its speed increase not so much by the magic of better software, but mostly by vastly faster hardware – the fastest Intel CPUs (more clockspeed, not just more cores, plus more efficient instruction processing), latest chipset, faster memory, faster SSDs, faster buses, etc etc. A potential 3-5x faster box by hardware alone.

It doesn’t quite add up as being a software “win” here.

However – I (or at least current VNX customers) probably care more about #1. Since it’s all about the software after all… 🙂

If the new software helps so much, will they make it available for the existing VNX? Seems like any of the current boxes would benefit since many of their cores are doing nothing according to EMC. A free performance upgrade!

However… If they don’t make it available, then the only rational explanation is that they want to force people into the new hardware – yet another forklift upgrade (CX->VNX->”new box”).

Or maybe that there’s some very specific hardware that makes the new performance levels possible. Which, as mentioned before, kinda destroys the “software magic” story.

If it’s all about “Software Defined Storage”, why is the software so locked to the hardware?

All I know is that I have an ancient NetApp FAS3070 in the lab. The box was released ages ago (2006 vintage), and yet it’s running the most current GA ONTAP code. That’s going back 3-4 generations of boxes, and it launched with software that was very, very different to what’s available today. Sometimes I think we spoil our customers.

Can a CX3-80 (the beefiest of the CX3 line, similar vintage to the NetApp FAS3070) take the latest code shown at EMC World? Can it even take the code currently GA for VNX? Can it even take the code available for CX4? Can a CX4-960 (again, the beefiest CX4 model) take the latest code for the shipping VNX? I could keep going. But all this paints a rather depressing picture of being able to stretch EMC hardware investments.

But dealing with hardware obsolescence is a very cool story for another day.



Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

So now it is OK to sell systems using “Raw IOPS”???

As the self-proclaimed storage vigilante, I will keep bringing these idiocies up as I come across them.

So, the latest “thing” now is selling systems using “Raw IOPS” numbers.

Simply put, some vendors are selling based on the aggregate IOPS the system will do based on per-disk statistics and nothing else

They are not providing realistic performance estimates for the proposed workload, with the appropriate RAID type and I/O sizes and hot vs cold data and what the storage controller overhead will be to do everything. That’s probably too much work. 

For example, if one assumes 200x IOPS per disk, and 200 such disks are in the system, this vendor is showing 40,000 “Raw IOPS”.

This is about as useful as shoes on a snake. Probably less.

The reality is that this is the ultimate “it depends” scenario, since the achievable IOPS depend on far more than how many random 4K IOPS a single disk can sustain (just doing RAID6 could result in having to divide the raw IOPS by 6 where random writes are concerned – and that’s just one thing that affects performance, there are tons more!)

Please refer to prior articles on the subject such as the IOPS/latency primer here and undersizing here. And some RAID goodness here.

If you’re a customer reading this, you have the ultimate power to keep vendors honest. Use it!


Technorati Tags: ,