Feeds

EMC's ViPR: Is it really that venomous?

It's automation, but not as we know it, Jim

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

Storagebod There’s a lot of discussion about what EMC's ViPR is and what it isn’t. How much of this confusion is deliberate and how much is simply the normal of fog of war which pervades the storage industry?

Firstly, it's a messy announcement; there’s a hotch-potch of products here, utilising IP from acquisitions and from internal EMC initiatives. There’s also an attempt to build a new narrative which doesn’t seem to work. Perhaps it worked better when put into the context of an EMC World event, but not so well from the outside.

And quite simply, I don’t see anything breathtaking or awe-inspiring. Perhaps I’m just hard to impress these days?

But I think there are some good ideas here.

ViPR is a tool to improve storage management and turning storage management into something that can be completely automated is a pretty good idea. But we've had the ability to script much of this for many years. The problem has always been that every vendor has a different way of doing it. Syntax and tools usually differ between vendors, and often they're not consistent between themselves.

Building pools of capability and service and calling it a virtual array? It's a good idea but nothing special. If ViPR could have virtual arrays which federate and span multiple arrays, moving workloads around within the virtual array, maintaining consistency groups and the like across arrays from different vendors ... now that’d be something special. But that would almost certainly put you into the data-path and you end up building a more traditional storage virtualisation device.

Taking an approach where the management of arrays is abstracted and presented in a consistent manner? That isn't storage virtualisation. Perhaps it is storage management virtualisation?

EMC have made a big deal about the API being open and that anyone will be able to implement plug-ins for it - any vendor should be able to produce a plug-in which will allow ViPR to “manage” their array.

I really like the idea that this also presents a consistent API to the end-user, allowing them to not care about who the vendor is at the other end - they just ask for disk from a particular pool and off it goes. This should be able to be done from an application, a web front-end or anything else which interacts with an API.

So ViPR becomes basically a translation layer.

Now, I wonder how EMC will react to someone producing their own clean-room implementation of the ViPR API? If someone does a Eucalyptus to them? Will they welcome it? Will they start messing around with the API? I am not talking about plug-ins here, I am talking about a ViPR-compatible service-broker.

On more practical things, I am also interested on how ViPR will be licensed. Will be it be a capacity-based model? A service based model? Or maybe based on number of devices?

What I don't see from ViPR is something which looks especially evil. People are talking about lock-in. Okay, if you write a lot of ViPR based automation and provisioning, you are going to be sort of locked in, yes. I don’t see anything that stops your arrays working, though, if you take ViPR out. As far as I can see, you could still administer your arrays in the normal fashion after removing ViPR.

But that in itself could be a problem. How does ViPR keep itself up to date with the current state of a storage estate? What if your storage guys try to manage through ViPR and also through the more traditional array management tools at the same time?

Do we again end up with the horrible situation where the actual state of an environment is not reflected in the centralised tool?

I know EMC will not thank me for trying to categorise ViPR as just another storage management tool headache and I am sure there is more to it. Doubtless someone will be along to brief me soon.

And I am pretty positive about what they are trying to do. I think the vitriol and FUD being thrown at it is out of all proportion but then again, so was the announcement.

Yes, I know have ignored the Object on File or File on Object part of the EMC announcement. I’ll get onto that in a later post. ®

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
Just don't blame Bono! Apple iTunes music sales PLUMMET
Cupertino revenue hit by cheapo downloads, says report
The DRUGSTORES DON'T WORK, CVS makes IT WORSE ... for Apple Pay
Goog Wallet apparently also spurned in NFC lockdown
Cray-cray Met Office spaffs £97m on VERY AVERAGE HPC box
Only 250th most powerful in the world? Bring back Michael Fish
Microsoft brings the CLOUD that GOES ON FOREVER
Sky's the limit with unrestricted space in the cloud
'ANYTHING BUT STABLE' Netflix suffers BIG Europe-wide outage
Friday night LIVE? Nope. The only thing streaming are tears down my face
Google roolz! Nest buys Revolv, KILLS new sales of home hub
Take my temperature, I'm feeling a little bit dizzy
Cisco and friends chase WiFi's searing speeds with new cable standard
Cat 5e and Cat 6 are bottlenecks for WLAN access points
CAGE MATCH: Microsoft, Dell open co-located bit barns in Oz
Whole new species of XaaS spawning in the antipodes
prev story

Whitepapers

Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
Getting started with customer-focused identity management
Learn why identity is a fundamental requirement to digital growth, and how without it there is no way to identify and engage customers in a meaningful way.
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.
Intelligent flash storage arrays
Tegile Intelligent Storage Arrays with IntelliFlash helps IT boost storage utilization and effciency while delivering unmatched storage savings and performance.
The next step in data security
With recent increased privacy concerns and computers becoming more powerful, the chance of hackers being able to crack smaller-sized RSA keys increases.