Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Open Source vs. Open Standards by Sage Weil

1,687 views

Published on

Sage Weil, Ceph Principal Architect at Red Hat discusses open source versus open standards and why open source software will be the key driver in the next revolution of storage.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Open Source vs. Open Standards by Sage Weil

  1. 1. OPEN SOURCE VS OPEN STANDARDS SAGE WEIL, Ceph Principal Architect
  2. 2. STANDARDS ARE IMPORTANT Standards like these allow interoperability and vendor-neutrality into today's data center Fibre Channel, iSCSI NFS, SMB
  3. 3. STANDARDS ARE IMPORTANT Standards like these allow interoperability and vendor-neutrality into today's data center Fibre Channel, iSCSI NFS, SMB BIG WIN FOR USERS
  4. 4. STANDARDS ARE IMPORTANT Standards like these allow interoperability and vendor-neutrality into today's data center Fibre Channel, iSCSI NFS, SMB BIG WIN FOR USERS BIG WIN FOR APPLIANCE VENDORS
  5. 5. STANDARDS ARE IMPORTANT Standards like these allow interoperability and vendor-neutrality into today's data center Fibre Channel, iSCSI NFS, SMB BIG WIN FOR USERS BIG WIN FOR APPLIANCE VENDORS BIG WIN FOR OPEN SOURCE
  6. 6. STANDARDS BODIES Should we engage directly in standards bodies? And how should we engage? There are many organizations to choose from. IETF, SNIA, INCITS (T10, T11, etc.)
  7. 7. BIG PICTURE What architectures will we be using in 5-10 years? Which ones are the most successful today?
  8. 8. BIG PICTURE What architectures will we be using in 5-10 years? Which ones are the most successful today? Google
  9. 9. BIG PICTURE What architectures will we be using in 5-10 years? Which ones are the most successful today? Google Amazon Web Services
  10. 10. BIG PICTURE What architectures will we be using in 5-10 years? Which ones are the most successful today? Google Amazon Web Services Can we make a similar leap with a standards-based approach?
  11. 11. STANDARDS VERSUS APIs Software is written to APIs, not protocols.
  12. 12. STANDARDS VERSUS APIs Software is written to APIs, not protocols.
  13. 13. STANDARDS VERSUS APIs Software is written to APIs, not protocols.
  14. 14. QEMU/KVM BLOCK DEVICES Open source virtual block devices can be built with less friction than standards-based interfaces. New problems can be solved more efficiently and the API can be evolved over time.
  15. 15. QEMU/KVM BLOCK DEVICES Open source virtual block devices can be built with less friction than standards-based interfaces. New problems can be solved more efficiently and the API can be evolved over time.
  16. 16. STANDARDS CAN RESTRICT US The use of standard protocols often makes: Simple problems harder for developers to solve. Solutions slower and more expensive.
  17. 17. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI Host-attached drive with SCSI. DEVICE VOLATILE CACHE (RAM) DURABLE STORE (PLATTER) LINK
  18. 18. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI Host-attached drive with SCSI. DEVICE VOLATILE CACHE (RAM) DURABLE STORE (PLATTER) LINK WRITE
  19. 19. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI Host-attached drive with SCSI. DEVICE VOLATILE CACHE (RAM) DURABLE STORE (PLATTER) LINK WRITE
  20. 20. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI Host-attached drive with SCSI. DEVICE VOLATILE CACHE (RAM) DURABLE STORE (PLATTER) LINK WRITE
  21. 21. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI Host-attached drive with SCSI. DEVICE VOLATILE CACHE (RAM) DURABLE STORE (PLATTER) LINK FLUSH
  22. 22. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI Network-attached drive with iSCSI or FC. DEVICE VOLATILE CACHE (RAM) DURABLE STORE (PLATTER) MULTIPATH LINKS
  23. 23. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI Network-attached drive with iSCSI or FC. DEVICE VOLATILE CACHE (RAM) DURABLE STORE (PLATTER) MULTIPATH LINKS WRITE
  24. 24. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI Network-attached drive with iSCSI or FC. DEVICE VOLATILE CACHE (RAM) DURABLE STORE (PLATTER) MULTIPATH LINKS WRITE
  25. 25. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI Network-attached drive with iSCSI or FC. DEVICE VOLATILE CACHE (RAM) DURABLE STORE (PLATTER) MULTIPATH LINKS FLUSH
  26. 26. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI The real world (where failures happen). LINK LINK NON-VOLATILE CACHENON-VOLATILE CACHE
  27. 27. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI The real world (where failures happen). LINK LINK NON-VOLATILE CACHENON-VOLATILE CACHE WRITE
  28. 28. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI The real world (where failures happen). LINK LINK NON-VOLATILE CACHENON-VOLATILE CACHE WRITE
  29. 29. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI The real world (where failures happen). LINK LINK NON-VOLATILE CACHENON-VOLATILE CACHE
  30. 30. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI The real world (where failures happen). LINK LINK NON-VOLATILE CACHEVOLATILE CACHE
  31. 31. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI The real world (where failures happen). LINK NON-VOLATILE CACHE
  32. 32. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI The real world (where failures happen). LINK NON-VOLATILE CACHE
  33. 33. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI The real world (where reliable things are expensive). LINK LINK NON-VOLATILE CACHENON-VOLATILE CACHE
  34. 34. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI A fantasy world. LINK LINK VOLATILE CACHEVOLATILE CACHE
  35. 35. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI A fantasy world. LINK LINK VOLATILE CACHEVOLATILE CACHE WRITE
  36. 36. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI A fantasy world. LINK LINK VOLATILE CACHEVOLATILE CACHE WRITE
  37. 37. EXAMPLE 1: SCSI A fantasy world. LINK LINK VOLATILE CACHEVOLATILE CACHE
  38. 38. EXAMPLE 2: NFS How to scale out file service.
  39. 39. EXAMPLE 2: NFS How NOT to scale out file service.
  40. 40. EXAMPLE 3: PANFS A modern proprietary distributed file system ● Sane client/cluster protocol ● Cache coherency ● Scale-out data and metadata ● Innovative hardware model
  41. 41. EXAMPLE 3: PANFS PanFS's Linux kernel client was impractical to maintain. ● It's hard to maintain a closed source client out of tree. ● It's hard to upstream an open source client without an open source server.
  42. 42. EXAMPLE 3: PANFS PanFS's Linux kernel client was impractical to maintain. ● It's hard to maintain a closed source client out of tree. ● It's hard to upstream an open source client without an open source server. OPEN SOURCE ARCHITECTURES AVOID THIS PROBLEM.
  43. 43. OPEN SOURCE IS AN ADVANTAGE Closed source vendors need these standards, but they can slow (or even prevent) innovation—be careful. For open platforms, clients can be freely integrated, tested, and deploy without friction, and still provide interoperability and vendor neutrality.
  44. 44. OPEN SOURCE IS AN OPPORTUNITY Open source architectures can develop at a faster pace due to lower ecosystem friction. We should focus on APIs instead of protocol standards, and how they should evolve for future environments. When open source dominates the environment, traditional vendors can play by our rules: running code, open source software, open collaboration.
  45. 45. THANK YOU

×