Infortrend ESVA Cluster File System Competitor Analysis

Transcription

1 Infortrend ESVA Cluster File System Competitor Analysis Date: July, 2011 Infortrend Technology, Inc.

2 Disclaimer This presentation is for information purpose only. The information contained in this presentation should not be interpreted to be a commitment of Infortrend. Infortrend assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any information presented in this presentation, and undertakes no obligations toupdate, or correct any inaccuracy. INFORTREND MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION. ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY SUCH INFORMATION IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED. Infortrend may have patents, patent applications, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights covering subject matter in this presentation. Except as expressly provided in any written license agreement from Infortrend, the furnishing of this information does not give you any license to these patents,trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property Infortrend Technology. All rights reserved.

3 Notes This slide only focuses on comparison with the competitors we may encounter in the target media and entertainment market. Competitors who take different solution approaches from us are compared only in general architecture, not in details Please issue special comparison requests if sales have specific competitor lists for projects and find this slide inadequate

4 Agenda SAN Cluster file system + SAN StorNext Xsan SAN management software + SAN MetaSAN FibreJet NAS Scale-out NAS Non scale-out NAS

5 SAN Cluster File System + SAN Competitors Cluster file system - Quantum StorNext - MAC Xsan SAN storage (mid-range) - EMC CX4 - HDS AMS HP EVA - IBM DS Promise VTrak(Xsan officially-qualified storage) Highlights Based on proprietary file system - Quantum StorNext: SNFS - MAC XSAN : XSAN 2.2 Dedicated metadata server Allow multiple clients to read/write at the same time Consolidate multiple storage in a single pool

6 StorNext Architecture SAN Clients HA Metadata Server LAN Clients

7 StorNextDisadvantages Cost (tier 2 price) Expensive license and maintenance fees - License $7K for HA metadata sever software, $7K for each Windows SAN client, $5K for each Linux SAN client, $25K for 10 Windows LAN clients, $20K for 10 Linux LAN clients - Maintenance $1.5K/year for HA metadata sever software, $1.5K/year for each Windows SAN clients, $1K/year for each Linux SAN client Performance 30-50% inferior to ESVA Cluster File System Integration StorNextmetadata server and LAN gateway server software needs to be installed on the servers users prepared themselves. Not delivered as an end-to-end solution, StorNextmay cause compatibility issues.

8 Xsan Architecture HA Metadata Server SAN Clients LAN Clients

9 XsanDisadvantages Management To support Windows and Linux clients in Xsaninfrastructure, users need to install additional StorNextsoftware. This means additional management and configuration overhead. Storage connectivity Only support 4G FC storage Performance 40% Inferior To ESVA Cluster System (1R + 1J) - 750MB/s Read using Xsan2 + Promise VTrakE-class Configuration Ever since Apple phased out Xserverackmountservers on 2011/1/1, XSAN can only be installed on Mac Pro desktop servers. This configuration is difficult to fit in traditional datacenters.

10 SAN Management Software + SAN Competitors SAN sharing software - Tiger Technology metasan - Commandsoft Fibrejet SAN storage (mid-range) - EMC CX4 - HDS AMS HP EVA - IBM DS5000 Highlights Following client OS file system, such as NTFS or HFS+ Metadata server can be one of the clients Some products allow a single volume to be written by only one client at a time

11 metasanarchitecture SD Clients (agent) Ethernet.. HD Clients (agent) Metadata controller (optional) Gateway server Access control by metadata controller LAN sharing by gateway server SAN Storage No scale-out capability

12 metasan Disadvantages Cost and availability Using metasanwith scale-up storage, users need to replace the old storage with a new one so that the performance can be upgraded. This always causes wasted investment and downtime Using metasanwith ESVA, the most ideal scale-out storage*, users need to pay for additional scale-out licenses so that performance can be linearly scaled as RAID storage added. Integration metasanmetadata server and metalangateway server software needs to be installed on the servers users prepared themselves. Not delivered as an end-to-end solution, they may cause compatibility issues. Note: To justify ESVA as the most ideal scale-out storage, you can refer to ESVA Competitor Analysis.

13 FibrejetArchitecture SD Clients Ethernet.. HD Clients (agent) Access control and LAN file sharing ability built in each client SAN No need for metadata controller or gateway server Storage Pool

14 Fibrejet Disadvantages Performance A single volume can only be written by one client at a time, so the write performance is limited; not suitable for large-scale editing environment Metadata communication among clients cause performance overhead Integration Fibrejetsoftware needs to be installed on the servers users prepared themselves. Not delivered as an end-to-end solution, it may cause compatibility issues.

15 NAS (Network-Attached Storage) Competitors Non Scale-out NAS - NetApp FAS3200/ FAS6200 Scale-out NAS - EMC Isilon - HP X9000 Network Storage - IBM SONAS Highlights Do not need agent or metadata server Non scale-out NAS has performance bottleneck Scale-out NAS is very expensive

16 Non Scale-out NAS Approach Architecture HD Clients SD Clients.. 1G or 10G Ethernet Access control and data storage in a single box NAS

17 Non Scale-out NAS Approach Disadvantages Cost To upgrade performance, users can only replace the old NAS with a new one, which causes wasted investment Performance A single NAS system can not achieve such high performance as ESVA Cluster File system

18 Scale-out NAS Approach Architecture HD Clients SD Clients.. 1G or 10G Ethernet Randomly access one of the nodes and re-direct access via interconnection when necessary Global Namespace

19 Scale-out NAS Approach Disadvantages Performance Access re-directing effort causes performance overhead Cost Scale-out NAS systems are all highly-priced. For example, 1 x isilon SATA-based system costs $100K In need of more capacity, Isilonallows users to scale only by adding additional nodes and not expansion enclosures

20 Thank you Date: July, 2011 Infortrend Technology, Inc.