Feeds

Simplest Ethernet storage validated

ESG sees shocking simplicity and incredible cost-efficiency

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

Coraid's simpler-than-iSCSI Ethernet storage protocol has been validated by ESG which found it could install and use it in less than two minutes, and get better-than Fibre Channel performance at a fifth of the cost.

Coraid's EtherDrive SAN storage uses the lightweight ATA-over-Ethernet (AoE) protocol to link servers and storage arrays using standard Ethernet switches. This protocol ensures lossless delivery of data packets without involving upper level network stack processes such as the TCP/IP ones used by iSCSI.

The ESG report (pdf) describes hands-on testing of the product in a virtualised server environment. It says "AoE is a simpler and more direct protocol than either iSCSI or Fibre Channel. AoE is not built on IP, TCP, or SCSI; packets are addressed to devices using their Ethernet MAC addresses and sent across the network with a minimum of overhead."

"Both Fibre Channel and iSCSI run SCSI over high level networking protocols on top of a physical network infrastructure, consuming additional overhead and processing compared to AoE, which connects servers and storage directly across the physical Ethernet layer."

AoE packets are non-routable and confined to an Ethernet LAN.

ESG tested the EtherDrive SAN shelves connected to quad core x86 servers running ESX with Linux and Windows guest virtual machines. It created logical units, presented them to the servers for use and configured filesystems in under two minutes and said it found this "shockingly simple".

The ESG tester found that a 12 SAS-drive EtherDrive SAN could support 4,500 Exchange 2007 users, with a 23-drive one supporting just over 9,000 users. The report says: "streaming media performance was excellent, delivering 826 MB/sec from just 6 [64GB] SSD drives and more than 1,200 MB/sec from 24 [1B] SATA drives."

Costs

ESG also looked at acquisition costs for 1PB of networked storage, including the storage network infrastructure, with the EtherDrive SAN costing about $1.25m, an iSCSI SAN around $1.5m and a Fibre Channel SAN heading towards $6.9m.

The report says the "Coraid EtherDrive SAN has the lowest cost of acquisition, by a wide margin. The relative cost of acquisition of alternative technologies ranges from roughly 1.4x for DAS [directly-attached storage] to more than 5x for FC SAN. The FC SAN solution is so much more expensive in part due to the cost of acquiring FC SAN connectivity."

ESG confirmed that each EtherDrive SRX3500 can deliver hundreds of MB/sec of throughput for bandwidth-intensive scale-out applications using cost-optimized, high capacity SAS, SATA, and SSD drives and users can scale up to a petabyte of high performance capacity in only two racks at a cost of storage and connectivity far below Fibre Channel, iSCSI, or even DAS.

Coraid and VMware

In testing with virtualised servers and Coraid's EMX Mirror appliance ESG "was able to provision storage for virtual machines without the need for a storage administrator to complete the task. Likewise, the entire virtual storage infrastructure and the mappings to Coraid storage devices were visible through the vSphere client."

It found that it could take LUNs offline while virtual machines are running and not have a server crash. You can't do this with most if not all Fibre Channel and iSCSI SANS. ESG's report states: "The Coraid EMX Mirror appliance was able to synchronously mirror a live volume and provide seamless failover with no interruption in service. The ability to move disks between chassis live and online, while under load, was an eye opener, the support implications of simply relocating disks to a hot spare chassis are profound."

ESG noted there was only a command line interface and that Coraid was aiming to introduce a GUI plus REST support this quarter. The EtherDrive does not have thin provisioning or tiered storage but ESG points out that, firstly, Coraid's storage is much cheaper than arrays with these facilities, reducing the need for them, and, secondly, they are becoming available in hypervisors and filesystems anyway.

More than a modicum of praise

ESG says that the EtherDrive SAN has rock solid reliability, impressive cost-efficiency, consistent throughput levels, through hardware faults, and shocking simplicity, making management of petabyte-level storage capacities "a reasonable task". It recommends users consider Coraid EtherDriveSAN storage as the foundation for their virtualised data centres. Praise indeed. ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Ellison: Sparc M7 is Oracle's most important silicon EVER
'Acceleration engines' key to performance, security, Larry says
Oracle SHELLSHOCKER - data titan lists unpatchables
Database kingpin lists 32 products that can't be patched (yet) as GNU fixes second vuln
Ello? ello? ello?: Facebook challenger in DDoS KNOCKOUT
Gets back up again after half an hour though
Hey, what's a STORAGE company doing working on Internet-of-Cars?
Boo - it's not a terabyte car, it's just predictive maintenance and that
Troll hunter Rackspace turns Rotatable's bizarro patent to stone
News of the Weird: Screen-rotating technology declared unpatentable
prev story

Whitepapers

A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Beginner's guide to SSL certificates
De-mystify the technology involved and give you the information you need to make the best decision when considering your online security options.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.