SANs and Capacity Allocation Efficiency


Early on, many advocates of the technology dismissed the huge acquisition and deployment costs of Fibre Channel (FC) SANs as inconsequential ” especially when they were weighed against the enormous efficiencies derived from the networked storage topology. Vendors argued that an FC SAN would more than pay for itself by enabling improved capacity allocation efficiency and improved manageability.

The improved manageability of storage gathered into a FC SAN remains a myth that will be explored in greater detail later. The prospect of improved capacity allocation efficiency, however, had a strong appeal to most IT managers. To understand why, one only has to peek into any IT shop in which storage is directly attached to servers.

In virtually every IT shop, some servers have direct attached storage that tends to run out of disk space fairly often. When this happens, a "Disk Full Error" message is typically generated by the server operating system and returned to the application and/or end-user. The server administrator, who is typically responsible for performing all of the storage management and allocation in a distributed client/server setting, gets an earful from a disgruntled end- user , then spends an inordinate amount of time trying to rectify the problem by offloading files to free up space or adding more disk drives into the cabinet of the attached disk array.

Meanwhile, another server, usually located within a stone's throw of the problem server, goes merrily along about its business day in and day out without ever using more than 30 percent of its storage capacity (see Figure 3-3). The server admin looks longingly at the well-behaved server and array and wonders why there is no way to share the excess capacity on the good server's direct attached storage platform with the direct attached storage platform on the bad server, which is always running out of room.

Figure 3-3. Capacity allocation inefficiency in server attached storage.

graphics/03fig03.jpg

Contained in that notion was a description of capacity allocation efficiency: the stuff, to paraphrase the Bard, that early FC SAN dreams were made of. To a one, FC SAN vendors promised that deploying a SAN would provide organizations with the ability to allocate storage capacity more efficiently across applications. Just "network" the storage into an FC SAN and any available capacity on any storage platform could be harnessed to create dynamically scalable "virtual volumes ." Applications and end-users, and especially server administrators, would never see a "Disk Full Error" message again (see Figure 3-4).

Figure 3-4. Capacity allocation efficiency with virtual san-based volumes.

graphics/03fig04.jpg

From this value proposition of volume virtualization derived several others. For one, vendors claimed that enabling greater capacity allocation efficiency with FC SANs would save customers money. FC SANs would actually pay for themselves by enabling older storage platforms to be kept in service for a longer period of time, deferring the need for new equipment purchases.

Additionally, since networked virtual volumes could scale readily, simply by adding more available capacity to an existing virtual volume as needed by the application, FC SANs would also eliminate the costly downtime brought about by the need to rectify disk space problems. This was, depending on the environment, another potentially huge cost savings of FC SANs ”especially with estimates of downtime costs that averaged over $1 million per hour across all U.S. industries based on idle labor considerations alone. (See Figure 3-5.)

Figure 3-5. Downtime costs as a function of idle labor. ( Source: Performance Engineering & Measurement Strategies: Quantifying Performance Loss , META Group, Inc., Stamford, CT. October 2000. Copyright META Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Used with permission.)

graphics/03fig05.gif

In the final analysis, the promise of capacity allocation efficiency made a compelling case for FC SANs. Unfortunately, it was not a valid one. The reason had to do with the nature of FC SANs themselves and with approaches advanced by the industry to create a virtual storage pool from devices interconnected in a FC fabric.



The Holy Grail of Network Storage Management
The Holy Grail of Network Storage Management
ISBN: 0130284165
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2003
Pages: 96

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net