REVEALED: IBM's new DS3000-killing Storwise storage beast
Have a peek at specs of the V3700 array
SaaS data loss: The problem you didn’t know you had
Exclusive IBM has an entry-level Storwize V3700 array coming that, we are told, effectively replaces the existing DS3500 array.
IBM's Storwize V7000 is a new array with SVC SAN virtualisation capability, an XIV-style GUI and enterprise-class features (background here.)
The DS3500 is a low-end array that is part of the DS8000-DS6000-DS5000-DS4000-DS3000 product family which has been complemented by newer products such as the XIV and Storwize arrays and had members retired. El Reg understands that the DS3500 will continue to be supplied, but the V3700 effectively signals the end of the DS3500 line.
Although IBM has not announced the V3700, you can find details about it here (PDF).
The V3700 is a 2U enclosure with dual controllers. The system can hold up to 120 disk drives. These can be 2.5-inch or 3.-5 inch disk drives (2TB, 3TB) or SSDs (200GB, 400GB). The small form factor drives can be:
- 146GB or 300GB 15,000rpm drives
- 300GB, 600GB or 900GB 10,000rpm drives
- 500GB or 1TB 7,200rpm SAS nearline drives.
A small form factor enclosure holds 24 2.5-inch drives and a large form factor one holds a dozen 3.5-inch drives. RAID levels 0, 1, 5, 6 and 10 are supported.
The array software has a Storwize V7000-style GUI and supports internal virtualisation, thin provisioning, one-way data migration and FlashCopy with up to 64 targets.
IBM states: "Storwize V3700, the most recent addition to the IBM Storwize family of disk systems, delivers efficient, entry-level configurations specifically designed to meet the needs of SMBs. Designed to provide organisations with the ability to consolidate and share data at an affordable price, Storwize V3700 offers advanced software capabilities usually found in more expensive systems."
We expect an announcement in the next few weeks. ®
COMMENTS
Re: Why do we actually still need a SAN?
"Every direct attached SAS/SATA disk beats the SAN" - Really? Any decent disk system with a cache, configured properly will drive more I/O at lower latency than your server's internal disk storage.
"A SAN is a single point of failure" - No it isn't, its often fully redundant, the disk system often is too. Your internal storage often uses a single SAS adapter.
"For me a SAN is just another example of 'cos-we've-always-done-it-this-way." - Actually we used to do it the way you want to, but then this millennium arrived.
I'm convinced you are in fact trolling.
Re: Why do we actually still need a SAN?
"..... Why do we actually still need a SAN?...." Because most storage gurus still hate sharing networks with the IP traffic. Partially it's a turf thing, as in "storage is my turf, network monkey, so I want my own switches/cables".
"....as you not only need a expensive, dedicated network infrastructure (the SAN fabric) in addition to the IP network you already have....." Well, what actually happens is your chief networking monkey assures the board that the network can do FC over IP just fine, then they actually implement it and rapidly run out of bandwidth. So you end up putting in extra networking just for the FC-IP traffic, which turns out to be just as expensive and more hassle to manage than the old SAN.
".....SAN is never fast...." Sorry, but yes it is. Seeing as it has its own dedicated network it can be very fast, and faster fibre is on its way. We already have 16Gb FC and 32Gb is coming in 2014, so the product is far from dead.
"....Every direct attached SAS/SATA disk beats the SAN....." Every direct-attach disk introduce a single point of failure for your data, and also massive inefficeincies in storage utilisation. If you don't have a SAN, when you want to share that ata with another server you have to copy it over what is probably already a swamped IP network.
".......A SAN is a single point of failure...." You don't know how to design a SAN. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Re: Why do we actually still need a SAN?
What about Disaster Recovery? We use ONE method, synchronous/asynchronous replication, which covers all applications and operating systems. Monitoring is one simple script that checks the status of all the replication groups. And this method has been tested and worked successfully for over a decade.
With DAS we would have to implement numerous replication regimes covering half a dozen operating systems and 100+ different applications. Even if it would work, which I doubt, the administration would be a nightmare.
Your view on SAN vs DAS is hobbyist at best.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
