I am strong believer of using the right tool to do the job right. I have said this before 2 years ago, in my blog “Stating the case for a Storage Appliance approach“. It was written when I was previously working for an open source storage company. And I am an advocate of the crafter versus assembler mindset, especially in the enterprise and high- performance storage technology segments.
I have joined DDN. Even with DDN that same mindset does not change a bit. I have been saying all along that the storage appliance model should always be the mindset for the businesses’ peace-of-mind.
My view of the storage appliance model began almost 25 years. I came into NAS systems world via Sun Microsystems®. Sun was famous for running NFS servers on general Sun Solaris servers. NFS services on Unix systems. Back then, I remember arguing with one of the Sun distributors about the tenets of running NFS over 100Mbit/sec Ethernet on Sun servers. I was drinking Sun’s Kool-Aid big time.
When I joined Network Appliance® (now NetApp®) in 2000, my worldview of putting software on general purpose servers changed. Network Appliance®, had one product family, the FAS700 (720, 740, 760) family. All NetApp® did was to serve NFS services in the beginning. They were the NAS filers and nothing else.
I was completed sold on the appliance way with NetApp®. Firstly, it was my very first time knowing such network storage services could be provisioned with an appliance concept. This was different from Sun. I was used to managing NFS exports on a Sun SPARCstation 20 to Unix clients in the network.
Secondly, my mindset began to shape that “you have to have the right tool to the job correctly and extremely well“. Well, the toaster toasts bread very well and nothing else. And the fridge (an analogy used by Dave Hitz, I think) does what it does very well too. That is what the appliance does. You definitely cannot grill a steak with a bread toaster, just like you can’t run an excellent, ultra-high performance storage services to serve the demanding AI and HPC applications on a general server platform. You have to have a storage appliance solution for High-Speed Storage.
That little Network Appliance® toaster award given out to exemplary employees stood vividly in my mind. The NetApp® tagline back then was “Fast, Simple, Reliable”. That solidifies my mindset for the high-speed storage in AI and HPC projects in present times.
DDN AI400X2 Turbo Appliance
Costs Benefits and Risks
I like to think about what the end users are thinking about. There are investments costs involved, and along with it, risks to the investments as well as their benefits. Let’s just simplify and lump them into Cost-Benefits-Risk analysis triangle. These variables come into play in the decision making of AI and HPC projects.
[ Preamble ] This deployment of MinIOSNMD (single node multi drive) object storage server on TrueNAS® SCALE 24.04 (codename “Dragonfish”) is experimental. I am just deploying this in my home lab for the fun of it. Do not deploy in any production environment.
I have been contemplating this for quite a while. Which MinIO deployment mode on TrueNAS® SCALE should I work on? For one, there are 3 modes – Standalone, SNMD (Single Node Multi Drives) and MNMD (Multi Node Multi Drives). Of course, the ideal lab experiment is MNMD deployment, the MinIO cluster, and I am still experimenting this on my meagre lab resources.
In the end, I decided to implement SNMD since this is, most likely, deployed on top of a TrueNAS® SCALE storage appliance instead an x-86 bare-metal or in a Kubernetes cluster on Linux systems. Incidentally, the concept of MNMD on top of TrueNAS® SCALE is “Kubernetes cluster”-like albeit a different container platform. At the same time, if this is deployed in a TrueNAS® SCALE Enterprise, a dual-controller TrueNAS® storage appliance, it will take care of the “MinIO nodes” availability in its active-passive HA architecture of the appliance. Otherwise, it can be a full MinIO cluster spread and distributed across several TrueNAS storage appliances (minimum 4 nodes in a 2+2 erasure set) in an MNMD deployment scheme.
Ideally, the MNMD deployment should look like this:
We often hear “Cyber Resilience” word thrown around these days. Every backup vendor has a cybersecurity play nowadays. Many have morphed into cyber resilience warrior vendors, and there is a great amount of validation in terms of Cyber Resilience in a data protection world. Don’t believe me?
Cyber Resilience, as well articulated in the video, is not old wine in a new bottle. The data protection landscape has changed significantly since the emergence of cyber threats and ransomware that it warrants the coining of the Cyber Resilience terminology.
But I want to talk about one very important cog in the data protection strategy, of which cyber resilience is part of. That is Immutability, because it is super important to always consider immutable backups as part of that strategy.
It is no longer 3-2-1 anymore, Toto.
When it comes to backup, I always start with 3-2-1 backup rule. 3 copies of the data; 2 different media; 1 offsite. This rule has been ingrained in me since the day I entered the industry over 3 decades ago. It is still the most important opening line for a data protection specialist or a solution architect. 3-2-1 is the table stakes.
Yet, over the years, the cybersecurity threat landscape has moved closer and closer to the data protection, backup and recovery realm. This is now a merged super-segment pangea called cyber resilience. With it, the conversation from the 3-2-1 backup rule in these last few years is now evolving into something like 3-2-1-1-0 backup rule, a modern take of the 3-2-1 backup rule. Let’s take a look at the 3-2-1-1-0 rule (simplified by me).
The 3-2-1-1-0 Backup rule (Credit: https://www.dataprise.com/services/disaster-recovery/baas/)
A few weeks ago, I decided to wipe clean my entire lab setup running Proxmox 6.2. I wanted to connect the latest version of Proxmox VE 8.0-2 using iSCSI LUNs from the TrueNAS® system I have with me. I thought it would be fun to have the configuration steps and the process documented. This is my journal on how to provision a TrueNAS® CORE iSCSI LUN to Proxmox storage. This iSCSI volume in Proxmox is where the VMs will be installed into.
Here is a simplified network diagram of my setup but it will be expanded to a Proxmox cluster in the future with the shared storage.
Proxmox and TrueNAS network setup
Preparing the iSCSI LUN provisioning
The iSCSI LUN (logical unit number) is provisioned as a logical disk volume to the Proxmox node, where the initiator-target relationship and connection are established.
This part assumes that a zvol has been created from the zpool. At the same time, the IQN (iSCSI Qualified Name) should be known to the TrueNAS® storage as it establishes the connection between Proxmox (iSCSI initiator) and TrueNAS (iSCSI target).
The IQN for Proxmox can be found by viewing the content of the /etc/iscsi/initiatorname.iscsi within the Proxmox shell as shown in the screenshot below.
Where to find the Proxmox iSCSI IQN
The green box shows the IQN number of the Proxmox node that starts with iqn.year-month.com.domain:generated-hostname. This will be used during the iSCSI target portal configuration in the TrueNAS® webGUI.
I was listening to several storage luminaries in the GestaltIT’s podcast “No one understands Storage anymore” a few of weeks ago. Around the minute of 11.09 in the podcast, Dr. J. Metz, SNIA® Chair, brought up this is powerful quote “Storage does not mean Capacity“. It struck me, not in a funny way. It is what it is, and it something I wanted to say to many who do not understand the storage solutions they are purchasing. It exemplifies what is wrong in the many organizations today in their understanding of investing in a storage infrastructure project.
This is my pet peeve. The first words uttered in most, if not all storage requirements in my line of work are, “I want this many Terabytes of storage“. There are no other details and context of what the other requirement factors are, such as availability, performance, future growth, etc. Or even the goals to achieve when purchasing a storage system and operating it. What is the improvement they are looking for?What are the problems to solve?
Where is the OKR?
It pains me to say this. For the folks who have in the IT industry for years, both end users and IT purveyors alike, most are absolutely clueless about OKR (Objectives and Key Results) for their storage infrastructure project. Many cannot frame the data challenges they are facing, and they have no idea where to go next. There is no alignment. There is no strategy. Even worse, there is no concept of how their storage infrastructure investments will improve their business and operations.
Just the other day, one company director from a renown IT integrator here in Malaysia came calling. He has been in the IT industry since 1989 (I checked his Linkedin profile), asking to for a 100TB storage quote. I asked a few questions about availability, performance, scalability; the usual questions a regular IT guy would ask. He has no idea, and instead of telling me he didn’t know, he gave me a runaround of this and that. Plenty of yada, yada nonsense.
In the end, I told him to buy a consumer grade storage appliance from Taiwan. I will just let him make a fool of himself in front of his customer since he didn’t want to take accountability of ensuring his customer get a proper enterprise storage solution in good faith. His customer is probably in the same mould as well.
Defensive Strategies as Data Foundations
A strong storage infrastructure foundation is vital for good Data Credibility. If you do the right things for your data, there is Data Value, and it will serve your business well. Both Data Credibility and Data Value create confidence. And Confidence equates Trust.
In order to create the defensive strategies let’s look at storage Availability, Protection, Accessibility, Management Security and Compliance. These are 6 of the 8 data points of the A.P.P.A.R.M.S.C. framework.
Offensive Strategies as Competitive Advantage
Once we have achieved stability of the storage infrastructure foundation, then we can turn over and drive towards storage Performance, Recovery, plus things like Scalability and Agility.
With a strong data infrastructure foundation, the organization can embark on the offensive, and begin their business transformation journey, knowing that their data is well run, protection, and performs.
Alignment with Data and Business Goals
Why are the defensive and offensive strategies requiring alignment to business goals?
The fact is simple. It is about improving the business and operations, and setting OKRs is key to measure the ROI (return of investment) of getting the storage systems and the solutions in place. It is about switching the cost-fearing (negative) mindset to a profit-conviction (positive) mindset.
For example, maybe the availability of the data to the business is poor. Maybe there is the need to have access to the data 24×7, because the business is going online. The simple measurable fact is we can move availability from 95% uptime to 99.99% uptime with an HA storage system.
Perhaps there are concerns about recoverability in the deluge of ransomware threats. Setting new RPO goals from 24 hours to 4 hours is a measurable objective to enhance data resiliency.
Or getting the storage systems to deliver higher performance from 350 IOPS to 5000 IOPS for the database.
What I am saying here is these data points are measurable, and they can serve as checkpoints for business and operational improvements. From a management perspective, these can be used as KPI (key performance index) to define continuous improvement of Data Confidence.
Furthermore, it is easy when a OKR dashboard is used to map the improvement markers when organizations use storage to move from point A to point B, where B equates to a new success milestone. The alignment sets the paths to the business targets.
Storage does not mean only Capacity
The sad part is what the OKRs and the measured goals alignments are glaringly missing in the minds of many organizations purchasing a storage infrastructure and data management solution. The people tasked to source a storage technology solution are not placing a set of goals and objectives. Capacity appears to be the only thing on their mind.
I am about to meet a procurement officer of a customer soon. She asked me this question “Why is your storage so expensive?” over email. I want to change her mindset, just like the many officers and C-levels who hold the purse strings.
Let’s frame the use storage infrastructure in the real world. Nobody buys a storage system just to keep data in there much like a puddle keeps stagnant water. Sooner or later the value of the data in the storage evaporates or the value becomes dull if the data is not used well in any ways, shape or form.
Storage systems and the interconnected pathways from on premises, to the next premises, to the edge and to the clouds serve the greater good for Data. Data is used, shared, shaped, improved, enhanced, protected, moved, and more to deliver Value to the Business.
Storage capacity is just one of the few factors to consider when investing in a storage infrastructure solution. In fact, capacity is probably the least important piece when considering a storage solution to achieve the company’s OKRs. If we think about it deeper, setting the foundation for Data in the defensive manner will help elevate value of the data to be promoted with the offensive strategies to gain the competitive advantage.
Storage infrastructure and storage solutions along with data management platforms may appear to be a cost to the annual budgets. If you know set the OKRs, define A to get to B, alignment the goals, storage infrastructure and the data management platforms and practices are investments that are worth their weight in gold. That is my guarantee.
On the flip side, ignoring and avoiding OKRs, and set the strategies without prudence will yield its comeuppance. Technical debts will prevail.
One of the best features I have been waiting for is dRAID or distributed RAID. I have written about it dRAID a couple of years back. It was announced in 2021, in OpenZFS 2.1, but we have not seen an commercial implementation of dRAID … until iXsystems™ TrueNAS® SCALE 23.10. Why am I so excited?
I have followed the technology since Isaac Huang presented dRAID at the OpenZFS Summit in 2015. Through the years ahead, I have seen Isaac presenting dRAID at the summits, and with each iteration, dRAID got closer and closer to be developed into OpenZFS. It was not until 2021, in OpenZFS 2.1 when dRAID became part of filesystem. And now, dRAID is finally in the TrueNAS® SCALE offering.
Knowing RAID resilvering
RAID rebuilding or reconstruction is a painful and potentially risky process. In OpenZFS and ZFS speak, this process is called resilvering. In simple laymen terms, when a drive (or drives) failed in a parity-based RAID volume (eg. RAID-Z1 or RAID-Z2 vdev), the data which was previously in the failed drive is recreated in the newly integrated spare drive. The structural integrity of the RAID volume (and the storage pool) is preserved but the data that was lost is painstakingly remade through the mathematical algorithm of the parity function of the RAID volume.
When hard disk drives were small in capacity like 2TB or less, the RAID resilvering process was probably faster to complete, returning the parity RAID volume to a normal, online state. But today, drives are 22TB and higher, leaving the traditional RAID resilvering process to take days and even weeks. This leads the RAID volume vulnerable to another possible drive failure, weakening the integrity of the RAID volume. Even worse, most of modern day storage arrays have many disk drives, into the thousands even. And yes, solid state drives would probably be faster in the resilvering, but the same mechanics pretty much apply in OpenZFS.
At the same time, the spare drives are assigned physically and designated to the OpenZFS storage pool, and are not part of the vdev until the resilvering process kicks in.
Yes, this is pretty much a physical process that takes time, computing resources and patience. Note the operative word of “physical” here.
dRAID resilvering
dRAID speeds up the RAID resilvering process several folds, returning the RAID volume (or vdev) much faster than traditional OpenZFS RAID resilvering process. It uses a logical (as opposed to physical) RAID layout concept and uses “logical spare drives”. Thus, there will be many spares “blocks” distributed across the entire dRAID zpool, as shown in the diagram below.
There was a Super Blue Moon a few days ago. It was a rare sky show. Friends of mine who are photo and moon gazing enthusiasts were showing off their digital captures online. One ignorant friend, who was probably a bit envious of the other people’s attention, quipped that his Oppo Reno 10 Pro Plus can take better pictures. Oppo Reno 10 Pro Plus claims 3x optical zoom and 120x digital zoom. Yes, 120 times!
Yesterday, a WIRED article came out titled “How Much Detail of the Moon Can Your Smartphone Really Capture?” It was a very technical article. I thought the author did an excellent job explaining the physics behind his notes. But I also found the article funny, flippant even, when I juxtaposed this WIRED article to what my envious friend was saying the other day about his phone’s camera.
Super Blue Moon 2023
Open Source storage expectations and outcomes
I work for iXsystems™. Open Source has been its DNA for over 30 years. Similarly, I have also worked on Open Source (decades before it was called open source) in my home labs ever since I entered the industry. I had SoftLanding Linux System 3.5″ diskette (Linux kernel 0.99), and I bought a boxed set of FreeBSD OS from Walnut Creek (photo below). My motivation was to learn as much as possible about information technology world because I was making my first steps into building my career (I was also quietly trying to prove my father wrong) in the IT industry.
FreeBSD Boxed Set (circa 1993)
Open source has democratized technology. It has placed the power of very innovative technology into the hands of the common people With Open Source, I see the IT landscape changing as well, especially for home labers like myself in the early years. Social media platforms, FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google), etc, etc, have amplified that power (to the people). But with that great power, comes great responsibility. And some users with little technology background start to have hallucinated expectations and outcomes. Just like my friend with the “powerful” Oppo phone.
Likewise, in my world, I have plenty of anecdotes of these types of open source storage users having wild expectations, but little skills to exact the reality.
I get disturbed whenever a reseller, or even an end user asks for a competitive statement about storage Brand X or storage Brand Y. Given my background of everything storage, many a times, they want me to “dish the dirty stuff” of the storage brands I am competing with. And I often resist. Here is my philosophy and my approach.
Many storage consultants love to say bad things about others. It is one of the ways to get a bright glow about the product(s) they are pitching, and dim the prospects of their competitors. I don’t like to do things this way because what I say reflect on my professional ethos. In the closely connected storage networking and technology industry, we have folks that make career moves from one company to their competitors. Heck, I have a friend who recently joined Hitachi Vantara® after almost 20 years at EMC® (now Dell EMC®). We make career choices but it does not mean we should take the moral low ground to bash which storage competitor we are facing at that moment.
Where do I start?
This blog
The motivation to write this blog came from an article from CRN where NetApp®’s CEO, George Kurian, “corrected” Pure Storage®’s CEO Charles Giancarlo about his “inaccurate” statements about “true cloud storage”. Whatever Charlie said may be innocuous, but it has certainly stung Georgie.
And in any technology-based industry, this technology bashing habit is rampant. Like it or not, marketing has played a role in creating the perception and the aura of strength with the technology it represents. Over the years, I have my fair share of beliefs cultivated through marketing, although as I wizened over the last 2 decades, I spend a lot of time diving deep into the specific storage technology. If time and resources permit, I even do technical hands-on, just to understand the technology more intimately. And that became the basis of running this StorageGaga blog in the past 12 years. To go beyond the FUDs and the fluffs, and share meaningful details and knowledge. Through my sharing, I learn from others as well.
For the uninformed, Clustered SMB brings highly available SMB file sharing services to mission critical environments. More importantly, Clustered SMB is high availability in a scale-out clustered architecture.
My view beyond HA SMB
I am not familiar with Clustered SMB in a NAS (Network Attached Storage). The world I am more familiar with is either having CIFS/SMB file services on a dual controller storage appliance or running Windows File Sharing on an Microsoft® Clustered Service (MSCS). Typically in these 2 types of HA SMB services, the scale up architecture require a shared access to a consolidated storage volume. Behind the scenes, there are many mechanisms at play to ensure that one, and only one, storage controller or HA host can have write access capabilities at one time. The most common mechanism is the SCSI-3 Persistent Reservation or sometimes known as SCSI fencing, using the SPC-3 (SCSI Primary Command) primitives. The whole objective is to prevent 2 nodes or hosts to writing to the shared storage volume at the same time and other issues like split-brain.
I find it blasphemous that with all the rhetoric of data protection and cybersecurity technologies and solutions in the market today, the ransomware threats and damages have grown proportionately larger each year. In a recent report by Kaspersky on Anti-Ransomware Day May 12th, 9 out of 10 of organizations previously attacked by ransomware are willing to pay again if attacked again. A day before my scheduled talk in Surabaya East Java 2 weeks’ back, the chatter through the grapevine was one bank in Indonesia was attacked by ransomware on that day. These news proved how virulent and dangerous the ransomware scourge is and has become.
And the question that everyone wants an answer to is … why are ransomware threats getting bigger and more harmful and there are no solutions to it?
Digital transformation and its data are very attractive targets
Today, all we hear from the data protection and storage vendors are recovery, restore that data blah, blah, blah and more blah, blah, blahs. The end point EDR (endpoint detection and response) solutions say they can stop it; the cybersecurity experts preach depth in defense; and the network security guys say use perimeter fencing. And the anti-phishing chaps say more awareness and education required. One or all have not worked effectively these few years. Ransomware’s threats and damages are getting worse. Why?
