Webinar: Untethering Compute from Storage
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•988 views
Enterprise storage infrastructures are gradually sprawling across the globe and consumers of data increasingly require access to remote storage resources. Solutions for mitigating the pain associated with this growth are out there, but performance varies. This Webinar will take a look at these challenges, review available solutions, and compare tests of performance.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Webinar: Untethering Compute from Storage
Similar to Webinar: Untethering Compute from Storage (20)
More from Avere Systems
More from Avere Systems (18)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Webinar: Untethering Compute from Storage
- 1. Breaking All The Rules: Untethering Compute from Storage Bernie Behn Technical Marketing Engineer AVERE SYSTEMS, INC 5000 McKnight Road, Suite 404 Pittsburgh, PA 15237 (412) 635-7170 averesystems.com April 23, 2013
- 2. Agenda • Application challenges of data separation anxiety • Poll: Have you ever… ? • Current methods to overcome these challenges • Poll: How do you … ? • The need for an Edge-Core Architecture • Why the Edge-Core Architecture works • The SPECsfs2008 benchmark test • Avere FXT 3800 Edge filer results • Poll: What do you think … ? • Wrap-up and Q&A 2Proprietary & Confidential
- 3. Data Separation Anxiety • Waiting for I/O is bad! Any process running on a CPU that has to wait for file I/O is stalled • The further the CPU is from the data it needs, the larger the cost of waste • Historical approach has been to put the data as close to the CPU as possible, usually on local storage • NAS file sharing has created the environment where productivity can be increased by enabling parallel computing 3Proprietary & Confidential The Cost of I/O L1-cache L2-cache RAM Disk Network Cloud at 2.4GHz 3 cycles 14 cycles 250 cycles 41 000 000 cycles 120 000 000 cycles 1 200 000 000 cycles
- 4. Really? More efficient? • Sharing data leads to higher efficiency by enabling multiple processing elements to work in parallel • As access to the shared data takes longer, efficiency gains start to erode • Spinning up processing farms and/or users at remote sites requires local-like access to data to maintain efficiency 4Proprietary & Confidential HQ NAS Compute Farm HQ Users HQ New Remote Users and ComputeWAN Low Throughput High Latency
- 5. Poll #1 NAS protocols like CIFS and NFS were not designed nor intended to effectively handle high-latency/low- bandwidth paths to the fileservers. • Q: Have you ever tried to access an NFS or CIFS filesystem remotely over a Wide Area Network with high latency and low throughput? (Please respond within 30 seconds) 5Proprietary & Confidential
- 6. • Manual data replication using common tools: rsync/robocopy – Lots of management overhead to keep everything in sync • Filesystem container mirroring (SnapMirror, SyncIQ, ZFS send/recv) – Often mirroring bulk sets of data, when only subsets of data are needed • Just deal with it! It’s not that bad! – What kind of solution is that? • WAN optimization technologies at the network layer – Why optimize at the network layer when dealing with Filesystems? • Host your data in cloud-based storage – Does not solve the latency problem, actually makes it worse Solutions to this problem? 6Proprietary & Confidential
- 7. The Edge-Core NAS Architecture • Put an end to manual dataset copies and replicate-everywhere tasks • Use Core filers to centralize data storage management • Deploy Edge filers to provide efficient access to data 7Proprietary & Confidential Cloud Storage •Private NAS cloud •Amazon S3 (future) Primary HQ Datacenter Cloud Computing •Amazon, Rackspace, SuperNAP Remote Office Secondary/Partner/Colo Datacenter
- 8. Why Edge-Core solves these problems • Hybrid NAS – “Cheap and Deep” Core filers for cold and archival data – High performance to “hot dataset” delivered by the Edge filer • Edge filesystem capabilities with Local Directories – Handle all directory updates at the Edge • Clustering with linear scalability – Cluster sizes up to 50 nodes, 100+ GByte/sec read throughput • Data Management with FlashMove™ and FlashMirror™ – Handle the moving target of where to stash your at-rest data 8Proprietary & Confidential
- 9. Consolidated Management 9Proprietary & Confidential / /sales /finance /support /pipe /staff /fy2012 /cust NetApp: EMC/Isilon: HDS/BlueArc: Oracle/ZFS: Data Center (Core Filer:/export) Remote Site (Core Filer:/export) /mech /src /pipe/cust /fy2012 /staff Clients Avere FXT Edge Filer WAN Global Namespace • Simplify namespace mgmt *and* accelerate, scale perf • Single mount point for all Core filers & exports • Easy to add/remove Avere to/from NAS environment • Create junctions (e.g. /eng) for improved management /eng /hw /sw /mech /src / on Avere Single mount point FlashMove • Non-disruptively move exports (e.g. /src) between Core Filers FlashMirror • Mirror write data to two locations for disaster recovery Global Namespace /src FlashMove /cust’ FlashMirror X Logical path unchanged
- 10. Poll #2 Shuffling entire datasets, or subsets of data across the globe can be a time and resource intensive activity. It also leads to NAS sprawl and increased costs. • Q: How do you currently solve your problem of geographically dispersed access to remote filesystems? (Please respond within 30 seconds) 10Proprietary & Confidential
- 11. Performance is King! • SPECsfs2008 NAS benchmark is designed to exercise all performance and scalability traits of file servers 11Proprietary & Confidential SFS Aggregate Results for 16 Client(s), Mon Mar 18 16:44:46 2013 NFS Protocol Version 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NFS Target Actual NFS Op NFS Op NFS Mean Std Dev Std Error Pcnt Op NFS NFS Logical Physical Op Response Response of Mean, of Type Mix Mix Success Success Error Time Time 95% Conf Total Pcnt Pcnt Count Count Count Msec/Op Msec/Op +-Msec/Op Time ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- getattr 26.0% 26.0% 124201594 124201594 0 0.54 6.67 0.00 2.3% setattr 4.0% 4.0% 19108469 19108469 0 2.30 27.70 0.00 1.6% lookup 24.0% 24.0% 114650346 114650346 0 0.74 10.41 0.00 3.0% readlink 1.0% 1.0% 4775340 4775340 0 0.56 8.36 0.00 0.1% read 18.0% 18.0% 85985497 105752765 0 18.77 65.52 0.00 58.6% write 10.0% 10.0% 47765007 57779912 0 14.02 61.99 0.00 24.4% create 1.0% 1.0% 4778818 4778818 0 11.39 76.50 0.01 2.0% remove 1.0% 1.0% 4771305 4771305 0 10.78 113.56 0.01 1.9% readdir 1.0% 1.0% 4775784 4775784 0 1.92 23.34 0.00 0.3% fsstat 1.0% 1.0% 4774482 4774482 0 0.54 8.01 0.00 0.1% access 11.0% 11.0% 52556425 52556425 0 0.54 6.29 0.00 1.0% readdirplus 2.0% 2.0% 9557286 9557286 0 14.26 168.35 0.01 4.7% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- | SPEC SFS 2008 AGGREGATE RESULTS SUMMARY | --------------------------------------------- SFS NFS THROUGHPUT: 1592334 Ops/Sec AVG. RESPONSE TIME: 5.8 Msec/Op TCP PROTOCOL (IPv4) NFS MIXFILE: [ SFS default ] AGGREGATE REQUESTED LOAD: 1650000 Ops/Sec TOTAL LOGICAL NFS OPERATIONS: 477700353 TEST TIME: 300 Sec TOTAL PHYSICAL NFS OPERATIONS: 507482526 PHYSICAL NFS IO THROUGHPUT: 1691608 Ops/sec NUMBER OF SFS CLIENTS: 16 TOTAL FILE SET SIZE CREATED: 198016272.0 MB TOTAL FILE SET SIZE ACCESSED: 59408280.0 - 60472775.2 MB (100.00% to 101.79% of Base)
- 12. Comparing SFS08 MegaOp Solutions* EMC Isilon $10.7 / IOPS NetApp $5.1 / IOPS 150ms Avere $2.3 / IOPS Throughput (IOPS) Latency/ORT (ms) List Price $/IOPS Disk Quantity Rack Units Cabinets Product Config Avere FXT 3800 1,592,334 1.24 $3,637,500 $2.3 549 76 1.8 32-node cluster, cloud storage config NetApp FAS 6240 1,512,784 1.53 $7,666,000 $5.1 1728 436 12 24-node cluster EMC Isilon S200 1,112,705 2.54 $11,903,540 $10.7 3360 288 7 140-node cluster *Comparing the top SPEC SFS results for a single NFS file system/namespace (as of 08Apr2013). See www.spec.org/sfs2008 for more information.
- 13. Avere FXT 3800 Edge filer Cloud Config 13Proprietary & Confidential Load Gen Client 01 Load Gen Client 02 Load Gen Client 03 Load Gen Client 04 Load Gen Client 05 Load Gen Client 06 Load Gen Client 07 Load Gen Client 08 Load Gen Client 09 Load Gen Client 10 Load Gen Client 11 Load Gen Client 12 Load Gen Client 13 Load Gen Client 14 Load Gen Client 15 Load Gen Client 16 72-port 10 GbE Ethernet Switch Avere Edge filer 17 Avere Edge filer 18 Avere Edge filer 19 Avere Edge filer 20 Avere Edge filer 21 Avere Edge filer 22 Avere Edge filer 23 Avere Edge filer 24 Avere Edge filer 25 Avere Edge filer 26 Avere Edge filer 27 Avere Edge filer 28 Avere Edge filer 29 Avere Edge filer 30 Avere Edge filer 31 Avere Edge filer 32 Avere Edge filer 01 Avere Edge filer 02 Avere Edge filer 03 Avere Edge filer 04 Avere Edge filer 05 Avere Edge filer 06 Avere Edge filer 07 Avere Edge filer 08 Avere Edge filer 09 Avere Edge filer 10 Avere Edge filer 11 Avere Edge filer 12 Avere Edge filer 13 Avere Edge filer 14 Avere Edge filer 15 Avere Edge filer 16 ZFS Core filer + shelf 23 x 4TB SATA SAS Expansion Shelf 23 x 4TB SATA SAS Expansion Shelf 23 x 4TB SATA 10GbE Ethernet Network path of simulated latency 10GbE Core filer with 150ms latency Software WAN simulation kernel module Avere Systems 32 Node SPEC SFS 2008 Configuration 150ms RTT
- 14. Poll #3 Benchmarks are a great way to establish apples-to- apples comparisons of available solutions, however, not all workloads are alike. Truth: traditional NAS architectures are not adept to handling large distances between clients and the data they are trying to access. • Q: What do you think about 1.59 MegaOps of SFS2008 NFS, at 1.24 milliseconds ORT using less than 2 racks of gear with the Core filer 150 milliseconds away? (Please respond within 30 seconds) 14Proprietary & Confidential
- 15. Wrap-up / Q&A • If you are facing any of these challenges, do not despair, there is now an easy and efficient solution! • Contact info@averesystems.com for more information • Thank you for attending! Q&A 15Proprietary & Confidential
Editor's Notes
- Next let’s talk about the consolidated management benefit that Avere provides. An important part of this is our global namespace that allows joining many NAS systems, even ones from multiple heterogeneous vendors, into a single file system namespace. Rather than having each of your clients mount multiple different NAS systems, your clients can have a single mount point on Avere and then the Avere FXT edge filer maps all the NAS systems into a single global namespace. These core filers can be in the same data center as the Avere cluster or in a different geography connected over a WAN. There are some other GNS solutions available in the market (for example Acopia ARX) but ours is unique in that it is very easy to install in an existing NAS environment. (It’s also easy to remove if necessary.) We are also unique because we simultaneously provide both GNS and performance acceleration. Other GNS solutions have a negative impact on performance. With the GNS in place, we can provide transparent data migration. This enables moving data between core filers either for the purpose of load balancing or adding new storage or moving data to an archive. (CLICK) The data movement physical moves the data between storage systems but the data remains in the same logical location due to our GNS so the movement is non-disruptive to clients and applications. We also provide mirroring which enables implementing DR. (CLICK) In this example the /cust export is mirrored to both a primary storage system (NetApp in this case) and a secondary storage systems (EMC Isilon in this case) location in a remote DR site. FlashMirror creates a baseline copy of /cust from the primary to the secondary and then from that point forward all changes to /cust are made on both the primary and secondary.
- Avere has delivered performance acceleration and scaling to many different customers in many different industries and applications. This includes applications such as VMware, Oracle, rendering, transcoding, software build, chip design and verification, seismic processing, financial simulations, genomic sequencing, and more. This is a place in the presentation where you may want to insert a customer case study from our library that is relevant to the audience of your presentation. In the standard presentation we used the SPEC SFS benchmark since it is the most relevant workload across the broad range of customers we sell to. In the world of file systems there is a well know benchmark called SPEC SFS that is used to compare the performance of NAS systems. All the NAS vendors use the benchmark and post their results on the website shown at the bottom of this slide. SPEC does a great job of providing a detailed, apples-to-apples comparison of NAS products running in a “typical” enterprise-class NAS environment. This slides compares the three top performance results on the SPEC site. Avere is the current record holder with almost 1.6 million ops/sec achieved on a 44-node FXT cluster. Note that this is not a max cluster from Avere. We used just enough nodes to achieve the top spot. Today we can go to 50 nodes per cluster and will go beyond this in the future. In second place is NetApp with a max 24-node cluster mode system. In third place is EMC/Isilon with a max 140-node system S-Series cluster. While achieving the highest performance was an important point for Avere, our primary point was the efficiency of our solution. Just look at the sizes of the systems. We are faster than NetApp and Isilon in just a fraction of the space. 2.5 racks and 6 feet wide for us. 14 feet wide for Isilon. 24 feet wide for NetApp. If you scan across the orange row you can see the details of our performance advantage and our higher efficiency. Avere is the highest performance, the lowest latency, the lowest cost, and use the least amount of space and power.