Feeds

IBM servers and storage to use Fusion-io currency

The two sides of Big Blue's SSD coin

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

IBM is likely to introduce flash-enabled servers and a productised QuickSilver within the next six months or so.

Flash-enabled servers will use direct-attached flash solid state drives (SSD) to accelerate their operations. IBM's Project QuickSilver had 4TB of flash SSD connected to 14 clustered SAN Volume Controllers (SVC) and producing one million IOPS. The SVC sits in a Fibre Channel SAN and virtualises, thin provisions, and protects the storage arrays connected to the SAN.

The QuickSilver flash was composed of one or two 250GB Fusion-io ioDrives with PCIe interfaces in 29 host servers connected by Fibre Channel to the 13 SVCs. There were 41 ioDrives in total.

IBM is working with Fusion-io to bring out servers with ioDrive SSDs, according to IBM Distinguished Engineer Clod Barrera. The company has been shipping SATA interface SSDs with its blade servers for some time.

It appears that IBM will also bring out mini-QuickSilvers, SVCs fitted with ioDrive flash. The SVC makes that flash sharable over the network, it adds protection via replication (synch and asynch) and snapshotting, and it provides a point of management.

We might conceive of a mini-QuickSilver product being built with two SVCs, to protect against a single SVC failure. These would link via a switched SAS backplane to individual ioDrives, each fitted with a PCIe-to-SAS bridge and each connecting to both SVCs for redundancy. These ioDrives could have 250GB, 512GB, or 1TB capacities, possibly 1.28TB as Fusion aims to reach that capacity point next year.

The miniQuickSilver product could scale out at the SVC level and also at the SSD level. Although it would be a sharable SSD storage facility each QuickSilver would treat its own SSD as direct-attached storage. Because SVCs can be interconnected in a cluster using Fibre Channel links to a SAN switch then a miniQuickSilver could be included in an existing SAN as an extra and very fast tier of storage with data migration between the tiers according to policies.

None of the technology involved is leading edge. It seems unlikely that IBM would choose to place SSDs directly in its storage arrays, the tack taken by EMC and Compellent. ®

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
Docker's app containers are coming to Windows Server, says Microsoft
MS chases app deployment speeds already enjoyed by Linux devs
IBM storage revenues sink: 'We are disappointed,' says CEO
Time to put the storage biz up for sale?
'Hmm, why CAN'T I run a water pipe through that rack of media servers?'
Leaving Las Vegas for Armenia kludging and Dubai dune bashing
'Urika': Cray unveils new 1,500-core big data crunching monster
6TB of DRAM, 38TB of SSD flash and 120TB of disk storage
Facebook slurps 'paste sites' for STOLEN passwords, sprinkles on hash and salt
Zuck's ad empire DOESN'T see details in plain text. Phew!
SDI wars: WTF is software defined infrastructure?
This time we play for ALL the marbles
Windows 10: Forget Cloudobile, put Security and Privacy First
But - dammit - It would be insane to say 'don't collect, because NSA'
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.