Category Archives: Filesystems

SSOT of Files

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

[ This is part two of “Where are your files living now?”. You can read Part One here ]

“Data locality, Data mobility“. It was a term I like to use a lot when describing about data consolidation, leading to my mention about files and folders, and where they live in my previous blog. The thinking of where the files and folders are now as in everywhere as they can be in a plethora of premises stretches the premise of SSOT (Single Source of Truth). And this expatriation of files with minimal checks and balances disturbs me.

A year ago, just before I joined iXsystems, I was given Google® embargoed news, probably a week before they announced BigQuery Omni. Then I was interviewed by Enterprise IT News, a local Malaysian technology news portal to provide an opinion quote. This was what I quoted:

“’The data warehouse in the cloud’ managed services of Big Query is underpinned by Google® Anthos, its hybrid cloud infra and service management platform based on GKE (Google® Kubernetes Engine). The containerised applications, both on-prem and in the multi-clouds, would allow Anthos to secure and orchestrate infra, services and policy management under one roof.”

I further quoted ” The data repositories remain in each cloud is good to address data sovereignty, data security concerns but it did not mention how it addresses “single source of truth” across multi-clouds.”

Single Source of Truth – regardless of repositories

Continue reading →

Where are your files living now?

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

[ This is Part One of a longer conversation ]

EMC2 (before the Dell® acquisition) in the 2000s had a tagline called “Where Information Lives™“**. This was before the time of cloud storage. The tagline was an adage of enterprise data storage, proper and contemporaneous to the persistent narrative at the time – Data Consolidation. Within the data consolidation stories, thousands of files and folders moved about the networks of the organizations, from servers to clients, clients to servers. NAS (Network Attached Storage) was, and still is the work horse of many, many organizations.

[ **Side story ] There was an internal anti-EMC joke within NetApp® called “Information has a new address”.

EMC tagline “Where Information Lives”

This was a time where there were almost no concerns about Shadow IT; ransomware were less known; and most importantly, almost everyone knew where their files and folders were, more or less (except in Oil & Gas upstream – to be told in later in this blog). That was because there were concerted attempts to consolidate data, and inadvertently files and folders, in the organization.

Even when these organizations were spread across the world, there were distributed file technologies at the time that could deliver files and folders in an acceptable manner. Definitely not as good as what we have today in a cloudy world, but acceptable. I personally worked a project setting up Andrew File Systems for Intel® in Penang in the mid-90s, almost joined Tacit Networks in the mid-2000s, dabbled on Microsoft® Distributed File System with NetApp® and Windows File Servers while fixing the mountains of issues in deploying the worldwide GUSto (Global Unified Storage) Project in Shell 2006. Somewhere in my chronological listings, Acopia Networks (acquired by F5) and of course, EMC2 Rainfinity and NetApp® NuView OEM, Virtual File Manager.

The point I am trying to make here is most IT organizations had a good grip of where the files and folders were. I do not think this is very true anymore. Do you know where your files and folders are living today? 

Continue reading →

RAIDZ expansion and dRAID excellent OpenZFS adventure

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments

RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) is the foundation of almost every enterprise storage array in existence. Thus a technology change to a RAID implementation is a big deal. In recent weeks, we have witnessed not one, but two seismic development updates to the volume management RAID subsystem of the OpenZFS open source storage platform.

OpenZFS logo

For the uninformed, ZFS is one of the rarities in the storage industry which combines the volume manager and the file system as one. Unlike traditional volume management, ZFS merges both the physical data storage representations (eg. Hard Disk Drives, Solid State Drives) and the logical data structures (eg. RAID stripe, mirror, Z1, Z2, Z3) together with a highly reliable file system that scales. For a storage practitioner like me, working with ZFS is that there is always a “I get it!” moment every time, because the beauty is there are both elegances of power and simplicity rolled into one.

Continue reading →

Storage IO straight to GPU

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

The parallel processing power of the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) cannot be denied. One year ago, nVidia® overtook Intel® in market capitalization. And today, they have doubled their market cap lead over Intel®,  [as of July 2, 2021] USD$510.53 billion vs USD$229.19 billion.

Thus it is not surprising that storage architectures are changing from the CPU-centric paradigm to take advantage of the burgeoning prowess of the GPU. And 2 announcements in the storage news in recent weeks have caught my attention – Windows 11 DirectStorage API and nVidia® Magnum IO GPUDirect® Storage.

nVidia GPU

Exciting the gamers

The Windows DirectStorage API feature is only available in Windows 11. It was announced as part of the Xbox® Velocity Architecture last year to take advantage of the high I/O capability of modern day NVMe SSDs. DirectStorage-enabled applications and games have several technologies such as D3D Direct3D decompression/compression algorithm designed for the GPU, and SFS Sampler Feedback Streaming that uses the previous rendered frame results to decide which higher resolution texture frames to be loaded into memory of the GPU and rendered for the real-time gaming experience.

Continue reading →

First looks into Interplanetary File System

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

The cryptocurrency craze has elevated another strong candidate in recent months. Filecoin, is leading the voice of a decentralized Internet, the next generation Web 3.0. In this blog, I am not going to write much about the Filecoin frenzy but the underlying distributed file system that powers this phenomenon – The Interplanetary File System.

[ Note: This is still a very new area for me, and the rest of the content of this blog is still nascent and developing ]

Interplanetary File System

Tremulous Client-Server web architecture

The entire Internet architecture is almost client and server. Your clients like browsers, apps, connect to Web services served from a collection of servers. As Web 3.0 approaches (some say it is already here), the client-server model is no longer perceived as the Internet architecture of choice. Billions, and billions of users, applications, devices relying solely on a centralized service would lead to many impactful consequences, and the reasons for decentralization, away from the client-server architecture models of the Internet are cogent.

Continue reading →

Rethinking File Security Fundamentals

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

I took a week off blogging last week but the lazy days were inundated by bad news. A few more devastating ransomware attacks. This time, Colonial Pipeline in the US was hacked and its networks were shutdown by ransomware. These ransomware threats are never ending, and they are getting more damaging than ever. It is like trying to plug a leaking boat with your hands, and more leaks appear as you plug them.

More ransomware news hitting healthcare around the world last week:

We are forever chasing for a solution, forever losing because almost all technology defenses to protect the data against ransomware are reactive. Why is ransomware still such a big threat then?  Time to rethink file security fundamentals.

Data everywhere

Continue reading →

Plotting the Crypto Coin Storage Farm

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

The recent craze of the Chia cryptocurrency got me excited. Mostly because it uses storage as the determinant for the Proof-of-Work consensus algorithm in a blockchain network. Yes, I am always about storage. 😉

I am not a Bitcoin miner nor am I a Chia coin farmer, and my knowledge and experience in both are very shallow. But I recently became interested in the 2 main activities of Chia – plotting and farming, because they both involved storage. I am writing this blog to find out more and document about my learning experience.

[ NB: This blog does not help you make money. It is just informational from a storage technology perspective. ]

Chia Cryptocurrency

Proof of Space and Time

Bitcoin is based on Proof-of-Work (PoW). In a nutshell, there is a complex mathematical puzzle to be solved. Bitcoin miners compete to solve this puzzle and the process uses high computational processing to solve it. Once solved, the miners are rewarded for their work.

Newer entrants like Filecoin and Chia coin (XCH) use an alternate method which is Proof-of-Space (PoS) to validate and verify the transactions. Instead of miners, Chia coin farmers have to prove to have a legitimate amount of disk and/or memory space to solve a mathematical puzzle, conceptually similar to the one in Bitcoin mining. In the beginning, this was great for folks who have unused disk space that can be “rented” out to store the crypto stuff (Note: I am not familiar with the terminology yet, and I did not want to use the word “crypto tokens” incorrectly). Storj was one of the early vendors that I remember in this space touting this method but I have not followed them for a while. Their business model might have changed.

Continue reading →

Before we say good bye to AFP

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

The Apple Filing Protocol (AFP) file sharing service in the MacOS Server is gone. The AFP file server capability was dropped in MacOS version 11, aka Big Sur back in December last year. The AFP client is the last remaining piece in MacOS and may see its days numbered as well as the world of file services evolved from the simple local networks and workgroup collaboration of the 80s and 90s, to something more complex and demanding. The AFP’s decline was also probably aided by the premium prices of Apple hardware, and many past users have switched to Windows for frugality and prudence reasons. SMB/CIFS is the network file sharing services for Windows, and AFP is not offered in Windows natively.

MacOS supports 3 of the file sharing protocols natively – AFP, NFS and SMB/CIFS – as a client. Therefore, it has the capability to collaborate well in many media and content development environments, and sharing and exchanging files easily, assuming that the access control and permissions and files/folders ownerships are worked out properly. The large scale Apple-only network environment is no longer feasible and many studios that continue to use Macs for media and content development have only a handful of machines and users.

NAS vendors that continue to support AFP file server services are not that many too, or at least those who advertise their support for AFP. iXsystems™ TrueNAS® is one of the few. This blog shows the steps to setup the AFP file services for MacOS clients.

Continue reading →

Is Software Defined right for Storage?

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

George Herbert Leigh Mallory, mountaineer extraordinaire, was once asked “Why did you want to climb Mount Everest?“, in which he replied “Because it’s there“. That retort demonstrated the indomitable human spirit and probably exemplified best the relationship between the human being’s desire to conquer the physical limits of nature. The software of humanity versus the hardware of the planet Earth.

Juxtaposing, similarities can be said between software and hardware in computer systems, in storage technology per se. In it, there are a few schools of thoughts when it comes to delivering storage services with the notable ones being the storage appliance model and the software-defined storage model.

There are arguments, of course. Some are genuinely partisan but many a times, these arguments come in the form of the flavour of the moment. I have experienced in my past companies touting the storage appliance model very strongly in the beginning, and only to be switching to a “software company” chorus years after that. That was what I meant about the “flavour of the moment”.

Software Defined Storage

Continue reading →

A FreeNAS Compression Tale

By | | , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

David vs Goliath Credit: Miguel Robledo of https://www.artstation.com/miguel_robledo

David vs Goliath

It was an underdog tale worthy of the biblical book of Samuel. When I first caught wind of how FreeNAS™ compression prowess was going against NetApp® compression and deduplication in one use case, I had to find out more. And the results in this use case was quite impressive considering that FreeNAS™ (now known as TrueNAS® CORE) is the free, open source storage operating system and NetApp® Data ONTAP, is the industry leading, enterprise, “king of the hill” storage data management software.

Certainly a David vs Goliath story.

Compression in FreeNAS

Ah, Compression! That technology that is often hidden, hardly seen and often forgotten.

Compression is a feature within FreeNAS™ that seldom gets the attention. It works, and certainly is a mature form of data footprint reduction (DFR) technology, along with data deduplication. It is switched on by default, and is the setting when creating a dataset, as shown below:

Dataset creation with Compression (lz4) turned on

The default compression algorithm is lz4 which is fast but poor in compression ratio compared to gzip and bzip2. However, lz4 uses less CPU cycles to perform its compression and decompression processing, and thus the impact on FreeNAS™ and TrueNAS® is very low.

NetApp® ONTAP, if I am not wrong, uses lzopro as default – a commercial and optimized version of the open source LZO compression library. In addition, NetApp also has their data deduplication technology as well, something OpenZFS has to improve upon in the future.

The DFR report

This brings us to the use case at one of iXsystems™ customers in Taiwan. The data to be reduced are mostly log files at the end user, and the version of FreeNAS™ is 11.2u7. There are, of course, many factors that affect the data reduction ratio, but in this case of 4 scenarios,  the end user has been running this in production for over 2 months. The results:

FreeNAS vs NetApp Data Footprint Reduction

In 2 of the 4 scenarios, FreeNAS™ performed admirably with just the default lz4 compression alone, compared to NetApp® which was running both their inline compression and deduplication.

The intention to post this report is not to show that FreeNAS™ is better in every case. It won’t be, and there are superior data footprint reduction tech out there which can outperform it. But I would expect potential and existing end users to leverage on the compression capability of FreeNAS™ which is getting better all the time.

A better compression algorithm

Followers of OpenZFS are aware of the changing of times with OpenZFS version 2.0. One exciting update is the introduction of the zstd compression algorithm into OpenZFS late last year, and is already in TrueNAS® CORE and Enterprise version 12.x.

What is zstd? zstd is a fast compression algorithm that aims to be as efficient (or better) than gzip, but with better speed closer to lz4, relatively. For a long time, the gzip compression algorithm, from levels 1-9, has been serving very good compression ratio compared to many compression algorithms, lz4 included.

However, the efficiency came at a higher processing price and thus took a longer time. At the other end, lz4 is fast and lightweight, but its reduction ratio efficiency is very poor. zstd intends to be the in-between of gzip and lz4. In the latest results published by Facebook’s github page,

zstd performance benchmark against other compression algorithms

For comparison, zstd (level -1) performed very well against zlib, the data compression library in gzip. It was made known there are 22 levels of compression in zstd but I do not know how many levels are accepted in the OpenZFS development.

At the same time, compression takes advantage of multi-core processing, and actually can speed up disk I/O response because the original dataset to be processed is smaller after the compression reduction.

While TrueNAS® still defaults lz4 compression as of now, you can probably change the default compression with a command

# zfs set compression=zstd-6 pool/dataset

Your choice

TrueNAS® and FreeNAS™ support multiple compression algorithms. lz4, gzip and now zstd. That gives the administrator a choice to assign the right compression algorithm based on processing power, storage savings, and time to get the best out of the data stored in the datasets.

As far as the David vs Goliath tale goes, this real life use case was indeed a good one to share.