Post on 26-May-2015
Top Ten Technology Shifts over the Next Three YearsApril, 2007
®
2
Agenda
PC Virtualization Merged Storage Architectures Security/Audit Tools Increased Storage Density Acceleration Products Processor Clustering/Grids Management Suite Advances Wireless/Cellular Industry Competition Backup Software eSATA
3
One: PC Virtualization
Virtualization for the Desktop, but ON the desktop (unlike hosted images ON a server)
Similar to Partitioning on host-server systems
Creates an isolated ‘sand box’ operating environment for guest operating systems and/or for applications
Both software-only solutions and x86-64 hardware support
Will be used for security, performance, testing, and standardization reasons
Will be implemented by desktop management systems (e.g., remote install, remove, etc)
All virtualization techniques have licensing issues (Buyer Beware!)
4
One: PC Virtualization
Software Vendors: VMware’s ACE
Altiris’ Software Virtualization Solution (Symantec)
MSFT’s Virtual PC
GreenBorder (virtualizes apps, especially IE)
Hardware components (x86 processors) Intel’s “Vanderpool” (now “VT”)
AMD’s “Pacifica” (now “AMD-V”)
5
One: PC Virtualization
Corporations will deal only in VM’s, tailored to individual roles Corporate apps will only be accessible from certain VMs, while end-users can
have a couple of their “Personal VMs” to install individualized software too Allows fault isolation and containment (e.g. different VM’s could be coded into
different subnets and VLANs) Easy system-rebuild function! De-couples OS+Apps from underlying OS (e.g. WinVM’s run on Linux, etc);
server-based VMs allow license ‘pools’ and shared memory (i.e., lower cost) Market for pre-built VM’s and VA’s (virtual appliances) will develop, deployed
over the net… Eventually will get ‘process logging’ in which every keystroke, action, etc of a
VM is recorded in a stream, and could be re-played on another VM (think: DR, roll-back, parallel processing)
6
One: PC Virtualization
Reduce Licensing Costs:
Standard configuration PC’s can be created and stored as “Virtual PCs” on a server.
When a user needs access to an application stack, the VPC server deploys it to the users physical PC. When they are finished with the application, the VPC server retrieves it—for subsequent use to another user
This will allow us to ‘pool’ software licenses again, reducing our overall license costs for the desktop
Other labor savings exist, but they are not on ‘invoices’ typically: fewer security problems (‘sandbox’), much easier provisioning, DR much easier to implement
7
Virtualization/Thin-Client Hybrid
VMware's Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) Allows a PC/TC to run a virtualPC on a VMware server
Still uses RDP-class protocols
But provides full-PC experience (unlike traditional Citrix)
Can work with a connection broker for large shops (e.g., Propero, LeoStream, Citrix)
Used by Thin-Client vendors Wyse, HP, Neoware
Competes with Citrix’s DDI (Dynamic Desktop Initiative)
8
Two: Merged Storage Architectures
Trying to make storage management easier…
Goals: namespace aggregation, file system virtualization
Current Approaches: NAS front-ends to SAN’s [Everybody sells one now…]
NAS-only solutions (e.g., BlueArc, clustering)
NAS virtualization technologies in front of (or ‘inside of’) both of these
NAS consolidation frequently a part of this too (“NAS sprawl” reduction)
This is separate from SAN virtualization technologies, and will sit ‘in front of’ such
9
Two: Merged Storage Architectures
NAS Virtualization - Goals
Namespace aggregation make multiple local namespaces look like one global namespace
Logical device aggregation make many devices look like one
Physical-Logical device de-coupling allow changes to physical devices and file locations without requiring a
change in user/application access methods (location independence)
Allows creation of virtual NAS filers (from a single device)
Automatic/Transparent Device Management allow HA/failover, load-balancing, scale-out, MACDs, provisioning, etc to
occur without manual effort—e.g., policy and profile driven
Clustered File Systems: 3 Approaches
Storage
Cluster Cluster HostsHosts
Storage
Storage
Cluster NASCluster NASgatewaysgateways
Cluster Cluster StorageStorage
IBM GFS, SGI,Ibrix, RedHat GFS
Exanet, HP EFS, ONStor,PolyServe/HP, SGI
Isilon, Panasas, Terrascale
11
Two: Merged Storage Architectures
Top Vendors in This Area:
BlueArc
Exanet
Acopia
Attune
NeoPath/Cisco
NetApp (Spinnaker)
Polyserve/HP
Nuview/Brocade
Isilon
OnStor
Panasas
EMC (Rainfinity)
12
Three: Security and Audit Tools
Encryption
Occurring at every point and in every transmission On every device (differently)
On every write/read between devices
Software performance penalty going away: native capability becoming norm LTO4, Seagate drives, mobo’s, mainframe tapes, UDO2, etc
Biggest challenges: Key management! [Vendors: Application Security, CA, Disuk, EMC/RSA,
Entrust, Nexsan, PGP Corp, Protegrity, Spectra Logic, Symantec, WinMagic]
Outside trading partners (e.g., eSCM)
13
Three: Security and Audit Tools
USB Devices
Thumb-drives, USB drives…walk up, plug in, copy drive, walk out…
100GB USB thumb-drives, 8GB memory sticks
Threats from intrusion and from data privacy
Two out of three organizations provide no guidance on the use of USB/flashdrive media
U3 and U4 technologies will allow programs (and OS) to run from thumbUSBs; first anti-spyware for these from ParetoLogic (Canada)—scans PC for malware and stops malware from being installed on the U3 drive; Avast also available for these
But these are also starting to be used as second-factor identification (like a token), with required signon to the USBstick (e.g. SanDisk’s TrustedSignins product)—looks like the ‘key to the PC’
Vendors: PointSec, SecureWave, McAfee, Sygate, ScriptLogic, Msystems/SanDisk, SafeEnd, etc
14
Three: Security and Audit Tools
Content-Addressable Storage (CAS)
Uses digital ‘fingerprints’ (based on contents) to identify (and sometimes de-dup) data segments
Products vary at what granularity they operate (e.g. byte strings, disk blocks, attachments, etc)
This helps with access audit and with extrusion prevention (‘data leak’)
All vendors play: EMC (Centera), HP (RISS), IBM, STK/Sun (IntelliStore—from Permabit); Archivas (HDS), Avamar (EMC), Bycast, Nexxan; startup Caringo has a CIFS/NFS gateway to their CAS software
15
Three: Security and Audit Tools
End-point security: NAC (Network Admission Control) Insuring that remote systems do not infect healthy networks upon log-in; uses
802.1x and EAP over UDP Works in addition to existing perimeter defenses and ID directories Router/Switch checks the security ‘safety’ of the notebook/PDA (via Trust Agent
installed on it), before it lets it through—it may quarantine the system. First product in this category: Cisco’s Network Admission Control appliance, with
client-side software Trust Agent; Co-developed with Network Associates, Symantec, Trend Micro; now Sophos, too
Oct05: Cisco moves NAC appliance to switches, now accepts clients from Altiris, Qualys, and Symantec (instead of Cisco PC-client) ; other NAC-switches from Enterasys, Alcatel, Nortel, Fortinet
Offerings for mobile devs by iPass; Tivoli by IBM
MSFT has competitive solution: Network Access Protection (NAP) also used by start-up Lockdown Networks, Vista will support both NAC/NAP; Juniper has Infranet/UAC; Foundry has SecureIrons; Others: Nevis, ConSentry, Sophos (via acquisition of Endforce); Siemens HiPath Wireless Mgr with NAP
Many vendors will support Cisco/MSFT + heterogeneous nets (e.g. Senforce’s INAC and Lockdown Network’s iNAC); Enterasys
16
Cisco/MSFT NAC/NAC
11 22 33
4455
6677
88
Vista clientRequests
LAN accessFrom switch;
SendsStatementOf Health
SwitchRefers
RequestTo Cisco
ACS(AccessControlServer)
ACS fwds requestTo MSFT Network
Policy Server
NPSAsks
HealthAuthority
server
Accept/DenyAccept/
Deny
SwitchEither
Grants LANAccess orDenies it
Note: Step2 uses EAPoUDP or EAP-FASTNote: Step3 uses host credentials authorization protocol (HCAP)
LAN
17
Four : Increased Storage Density
The average business user creates 3GB of data per year and spends 6-9 hours per week looking for data
TheInfoPro survey (Oct06) Avg SAN capacity in F1000 tripled in 18mos Jumped from 198TB to 680TB (FC); NAS capacity averaging at 224TB “Most exciting” storage vendors (in order): EMC, Hitachi, 3PARdata, NetApp,
Cisco(!), IBM Drivers for growth: BizExpansion (50%), tighter data retention rules (38%),
server consolidation (28%) MonoSphere survey of storage professionals
% who say increased storage spending is causing financial problems for the IT budget: 62%
% who say storage costs are increasing faster than their overall IT budget: 41% % with more than 100TB of storage who say increased storage spending is
causing financial problems for the IT budget: 87%
18
Four : Increased Storage Density
Most main drives now use Perpendicular Recording
1TB drives shipping in PC’s now…
15K 2.5” drives out—run faster, use less energy
Also density improvements in tape/removable media
LTO4 is 800GB raw
UDO2 is 60GB
19
Data Storage Reduction through Data De-duplication
Data De-duplication
Reduces storage media costs by reducing data redundancy
Trades off processing power (to detect, manage, re-create data) for storage space (multipleX)
On unstructured data, reductions as high as 90% have been observed
ActiveProduction
Data
“Hot”Backup
Tape
De-duplication TechnologyCan be deployed at any point
20
Four : Increased Storage Density
Using data reduction techniques (e.g., commonality factoring) to reduce the source data footprint (and the 10:1 to 50:1 backups!), sometimes called Capacity-Optimized Storage (COS);
CAS (Content-addressable storage) also used for de-duplication
Amazing results: 12x to 30x reduction in data footprint, with trickle down to tape backup!
Products for primary on-line storage, near-line backup, archive backup, and virtual tape libraries
Vendors: IronMountain, Storactive (Atempo), Avamar (EMC), DataDomain, Asigra, Rocksoft (Quantum), Archivas (HDS), Permabit (Juniper), FalconStor, NetApp, HP’s RISS, Symantec
21
Four : Increased Storage Density
Thin Provisioning (allocating non-existent disk space)--system tells you when to buy another disk
Pools all storage into ONE space for ALL apps (i.e. no allocation to individual apps, wasting unused disk space)
Over-subscription (for ease of growth/mgt)
Offers the hosts a virtualized LUN
Sometimes uses finer granularity
Vendors: 3PARdata, LeftHand Networks, Permabit (Juniper), NetApp, Pillar, DataCore, EMC (NAS units), Compellant
22
Four: Acceleration Products
Acceleration Products attempt to Reduce Equipment and WAN costs
All the segments/elements in the data path from Data Center to Distributed Site are the targets of at least 10 ‘acceleration’ vendors
And all the segments from user-at-browser to Data Center AppServer and back are targets of at least 5 vendors
E.g. WAN traffic, NIC cards, data replication, data de-duplication, application acceleration, encryption, SSL/XML accelerators, file systems
WAFS (Wide Area File Services) have as one goal the reduction in FTE’s at the branches
Everybody plays in this space now—ask them “How?” and “Who with?”
A Round of “How much money could you save us?” meetings every 6 months would be good…
23
Five : Acceleration Products
Traffic Reduction Traffic Compression Packet Loss Mitigation Packet Combining/Coalescing Data Caching WAFS QoS Application Acceleration (e.g. CIFS, SSL)
24
Five : Acceleration Products
Wide Area File Systems (WAFS) Tries to eliminate data storage at branch offices, lowering NAS/Backup ops at
those locations 75% of a firm's data is in the branches (Taneja Group) Technology: gateways which act as caching devices, CIFS accelerators, and/or
TCP/IP optimizers—requires one on each end of the connection E.g. Actona (bought by Cisco), Tacit Networks (sold by IBM in Europe; bought
by Packeteer); BlueArc (NAS, with Tacit); Availl; Brocade with Nortel; Riverbed; DiskSites (now Expand Networks); Signiant (software only); SilverPeak Systems
Often combined with application acceleration products—Fineground(Cisco), Expand Networks, Swan Labs/Pivia (F5), NetScalar/Citrix, Redline/Jupiter/Peribit, BlueCoat
Cisco offers WAFS and ACNS modules for its Integrated Services Router (NetD has a similar approach)
25
Five : Acceleration Products
Application accelerators [Cisco’s SONA, Blue Coat’s MACH5, Redline/Juniper; Swan Labs (F5), NetScalar (Citrix)]
Ethernet adaptor acceleration: Level 5’s EtherFabric
WAN optimization (2006 leaders Packeteer, Juniper, Allot) Network-layer: Peribit/Juniper, Expand, Packeteer, Riverbed, Exinda, Swan
Labs (F5) TCP/IP layer: Peribit (Juniper), Riverbed (used by McData), Tacit (now
Packeteer), Netex File-transfer protocols: Riverbed, Tacit (Packeteer), Cisco, Peribit (Juniper),
Fineground Networks (Cisco) XML acceleration: Solace Systems, Cisco, DataPower (IBM), Sarvega (Intel)
26
Six : Processor Clustering/Grids
We must get to “easy-incremental” capacity growth… Just couple-on another resource and workload auto-shifts
Processors and systems Storage Network gear Web services & Vendor services
Auto-provisioning
Many middleware and utility solutions for this already, but our problem is at the application layer—very little parallelism exists for multi-threaded architectures (except in some multi-user apps)
Vendor pricing models for applications differ widely (and ‘often’!), related to processor usage, cores, threads, users, etc.
27
Six : Processor Clustering/Grids
Auto-Provisioning Model Resource Discovery/Acquisition Allocation to Need, pre-Need Monitor, Assess, Re-balance Reporting/Billing/Charge-back
Grid-basedResources
Off-PremiseVendor Systems(xSP model)
On-PremiseSystem w/Excess Capacity
Load Monitoring
Reporting & Billing
ProvisioningLogic
Changes
ResourceAcquisition& Release
UsageManagementIntervention
Virtualization
28
Six : Processor Clustering/Grids
Cluster software available for just about every platform Load-balancing (and failover) is a key requirement: for application,
network, CPU, and storage
Vendors: Scali (Lin), Sun Cluster (Solaris), Polyserve (shared cluster FS, Lin/Win), LeftHand (grid storage); SteelEye; Unisys (for Win); MSFT Cluster Server
Clustered File Systems getting more attention: Lustre, Ibrix, Intransa, Cluster File Systems Inc,
HP's MetroCluster and ContinentalCluster products for DR, failover…now for mid-range storage/servers (e.g., EVA)
A grid is a cluster that spans organizational boundaries and/or geographic boundaries
Grids
Query Task (from Query Task (from anyany authorized system on the Grid) authorized system on the Grid)
Q-TaskQ-TaskAA
Q-TaskQ-TaskBB
Q-TaskQ-TaskCC
Q-TaskQ-TaskDD
Software/silicon which ‘parses’ the Query Task into “asynchronous” sub-tasksSoftware/silicon which ‘parses’ the Query Task into “asynchronous” sub-tasks
Grid Directory layer knows DB resources, routes the requests, verifies Grid Directory layer knows DB resources, routes the requests, verifies completion, aggregates (if asked), and returns results [Federated Data Structure]completion, aggregates (if asked), and returns results [Federated Data Structure]
Access to:Access to:DB'sDB'sAPI'sAPI's
FileSysFileSys
30
Six : Processor Clustering/Grids
Vendor offerings from: IBM (Enterprise Workload Manager; WebSphere Grid), Sun (Grid Engine), HP (Utility Data Center), Kontiki, United Devices, Avaki Corp (now Sybase), DataSynapse, Platform Computing, Exagrid (a storage grid),Oracle, Apple, Altair, Topspin (Cisco), Tsunami's Hive software, LeftHand (storage); Digipede (a Windows grid), Acxiom (now EMC)—data grid, Bycast Storage Grid (fixed data, almost archival); Crosswalk’s iGrid (for data)
Oracle Grid Control now has a plug-in for DB2, EMC NAS, NetApp
Products range from distributed cache systems (GigaSpaces), API-addressable data fabrics (Gemfire), and data-movement products (GridFTP, GASS) to full data center ‘virtualization’ options (i.e., application provisioning ) from United Devices
31
Seven : Management Suite Advances
We are in a period of integration of various management areas:
Mobile device management with Desktop management Linux with Windows (e.g., Novell) Security with Platform management (e.g., Symantec and Altiris) Unified Threat Management (UTM) Converged communications – I (fixed and mobile) Converged communications – II (email, voice, IM, video)
Much of this occurs through M&A IBM: CIM Lab, Rembo, MRO (and 3 others) HP bought Mercury Interactive ($4.5B!) CA bought Wily Technology BMC bought Identity Software Symantec and Altiris
32
Seven : Management Suite Advances
Leading Desktop Mgt Suites:
Altiris Client Management Suite (used by Dell and Fujitsu-Siemens)
LANDesk Fujitsu Siemens (partners with Altiris now) MSFT’s SMS 2003 / MOM 2005 and System Center directions Novell ZenWorks (now with MSFT interoperability), with
automation and VM mgt (even MSFT VM’s) AttachmateWRQ NetWizard 6 All the big-center offerings: CA, Tivoli/ IBM Director All the all-software offerings: Serena, Spectrum, Novadigm (now
HP), Marimba (now BMC), Telelogic, Compuware, BMC, Aldon Computer, Elsinore Technologies, AppSense
33
Eight : Wireless/Cellular Industry Competition
Expect a marketplace battle between WiMax and 3G+ in 2008
Will have similar operating performance in overlapping space [see chart] But cost will be a BIG issue, with 3G carriers having some advantage due
to infrastructure 3G will have significant time/installed base lead over mobile WiMAX
And another battle between telecomm and cable—over wireless/VoIP traffic! Cable companies have made telephony available to most of their subscribers (Cablevision, Cox, Time Warner)
Cellular will also fight for the campus: Motorola makes a 3G indoor AP for cellular carriers to offer (versus WiFi; solves poor reception problems in some buildings); rise of picocells and femtocells
34
Wireless TechnologiesWireless Technologies
(source: UWB Forum, others)
WPANWPAN
WLANWLAN
WMANWMAN
CellularCellular
10k
100k 1M 10M 100M
1GData Rate
2G/2.5G/3G2G/2.5G/3G 4G4GUMTSUMTSHSDPAHSDPA
802.16802.16
802.11802.11
BluetoothBluetooth1 & 21 & 2ZigbeeZigbee UWBUWB
35
Nine : Backup Software Finally Recognizing Disk
Is VTL a stop-gap?
VTL is popular because it allows disk to be brought into the tape-backup procedure easily
But when these backup software packages get straight2disk capability, will the VTL function really be needed any longer?
If backup moves to disk—to solve the archiving problem at the same time—will there be a need for any emulation product (as opposed to regular ‘vanilla’ tape backups)?
Some using disk-VTL in DR sites—straight D2D replication-type architecture (with existing tape backup software)
Push your backup software vendor on this!
36
Ten: eSATA
1m1m150 MB/s150 MB/sSATA (Serial ATA)SATA (Serial ATA)
5m (x 5 hops)5m (x 5 hops)1.5 MB/s1.5 MB/sUSB 1.1USB 1.1
100m (per hop)100m (per hop)100 MB/s100 MB/sFirewire2 (IEEE1394b)Firewire2 (IEEE1394b)
5m (x 5 hops)5m (x 5 hops)60 MB/s60 MB/sUSB 2.0USB 2.0
4.5m4.5m50 MB/s50 MB/sFirewire (IEEE1394)Firewire (IEEE1394)
1m (2m)1m (2m)300 MB/s300 MB/sSATA II (eSATA 2)SATA II (eSATA 2)
18 inch18 inch133 MB/s133 MB/sATA133 (Parallel)ATA133 (Parallel)
10m (per hop)10m (per hop)300 MB/s300 MB/s
(next 600)(next 600)SASSAS
(Serial Attached SCSI)(Serial Attached SCSI)
12m (total all 12m (total all hops)hops)320 MB/s320 MB/sUltra320 SCSI (Parallel)Ultra320 SCSI (Parallel)
DistanceDistanceSpeedSpeedInterface Tech.Interface Tech.
37
Ten: eSATA
USB becoming “Universal Slow Bus”—eSATA interfaces emerged in 2006; external SATA at same speeds as internal SATA
Needed for high-speed drives (burst rates): USB has burst of 33.5MB/s Firewire 1394 has burst of 36.2MB/sec eSATA burst is 111.3MB/sec (SATA 1)
Requires eSATA adaptors on both ends Cable length is 2m; and drives are hot-swappable
Drives by LaCie, Iomega, Western Digital, and Seagate eSATA II cards available already (e.g., Silicon Image, MRI);
Iomega makes a CardBUS for eSATA2 for notebooks
Thank you!