July 2009

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2009.

This post is a follow-up from my post yesterday titled “No Such Thing as an End-to-End FCoE Solution”.

After publishing that post, I managed to get in touch with some very smart people who were willing to spend some time with me and educate me on the various intricacies involved here. In order to help you, my readers, understand the various pieces and parts, I’ll need to first provide some definitions.

Fibre Channel Forwarder (FCF): In its simplest form, this is another form for an FCoE switch. A Nexus 5000 would be an example of an FCF.

Multi-hop FCoE: There are a couple of different definitions here. One definition would be having multiple FCFs connected together (i.e., a Nexus 5000 connected to another Nexus 5000). A second definition would be having multiple Layer 2 hops between an FCoE initiator or target and an FCF. Note that the switches handling those hops must be IEEE DCB capable.

FCoE Initialization Protocol: FIP, as its more commonly known, was included in the FC-BB-5 FCoE standard that was finalized in early June.

OK, now that I have some definitions in place, I can discuss how it might be possible (eventually) to build an end-to-end FCoE solution.

Disclaimer: I don’t claim to be an FCoE expert, I’m just trying to understand it better myself and help others understand it better. If I’m misrepresenting something, let me know—courteously and professionally—in the comments, or drop me an e-mail.

The question “Can I build an end-to-end FCoE solution?” has multiple answers:

  • If you have only a single FCF and everything is plugged into that FCF, then you can build a pure FCoE solution today. The Nexus 5000 can function as the FCF, and both the CNAs and targets that are available will work. Obviously, this is not a very scalable solution.
  • If you have multiple FCFs, or if you have multiple Layer 2 hops between initiators or targets and the FCFs, then you might or might not be able to build an end-to-end FCoE solution. In this scenario, FIP-enabled initiators and targets would be able to find and communicate with each other, but non-FIP-enabled initiators and targets would not (unless they were plugged into the same FCF). At this point I am unclear about connectivity between pre-FIP initiators or targets on the same IEEE DCB-capable Layer 2 switch (not an FCF); I suspect they would not be able to communicate.

All of these statements are applicable until you bring UCS into the mix. For UCS, my earlier statement stands: with UCS, you cannot have an end-to-end FCoE solution today. That will change at some point in the future, but no one has shared any information with me regarding just how far in the future that might be.

If you have a pure Nexus 5000 environment, with FCoE-capable storage and servers with CNAs, you’d probably be able to make it work. With FIP support in that environment, you’d definitely be able to make it work. When you add UCS, though, it becomes very different. I hope to be able to discuss that in greater detail in the near future.

So, my earlier statement wasn’t entirely true; it is possible to build an end-to-end FCoE solution. Today, that solution would be very limited in size; once FIP support is baked into the initiators, the targets, and the FCFs, then the solution size will be able to scale.

As always, comments and clarifications are welcome!

Tags: , , , , ,

Update: See this follow-up post for more information.

I mentioned yesterday on Twitter that I’d had something of a revelation with regard to Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE). This is probably nothing new to the experienced storage intelligentsia, but I’m just a simple guy so this was a big deal. After a spirited discussion in the Cisco UCS class about how to best leverage “FCoE-capable” storage, I have come to this realization: there is no such thing as an end-to-end FCoE solution.

If you’re impatient and want the short story, here it is: Even if you have an FCoE-capable storage array and you have FCoE converged network adapters (CNAs), you still can’t build an end-to-end FCoE solution. Why? Because you must put a standard Fibre Channel switch into the mix in order to provide fabric services like zoning, etc., because equipment like the UCS 6100 fabric interconnects and the Nexus 5000 don’t provide those services.

Here’s the longer version. We were having a discussion in the Cisco UCS training class revisiting the northbound FCoE connectivity issue that I discussed here. It turns out that the UCS 6100 fabric interconnect runs in NPV (or end-host) mode, so you can’t hook up any sort of storage target, FC or FCoE, directly to the UCS 6100 fabric interconnect. Even if you were to enable the UCS 6100 fabric interconnect to run in switch mode—something that’s not possible today—you still can’t hook a storage target, FC or FCoE, to the fabric interconnect because the fabric interconnect doesn’t provide any fabric services. Further, even if you were to leave the UCS 6100 fabric interconnect in NPV mode and add a Nexus 5000 switch to the mix, you can’t hook the the UCS 6100 and the Nexus 5000 together because FCoE isn’t multi-hop capable (yet). If I understand correctly, the FC-BB-5 standard includes FIP, which will address this limitation. However, according to the information I’m getting here—and I’m fully open to more information from others who are “in the know”—even that won’t fully address the problem because neither the UCS 6100 nor the Nexus 5000 will offer fabric services. So, you will still need a traditional Fibre Channel switch, like a Cisco MDS 9000 series, to provide fabric services.

The end result is that, today, it’s impossible to build an end-to-end FCoE solution. You will still need a traditional Fibre Channel switch somewhere in the mix, either to connect the FCoE equipment together (for example, to link a UCS 6100 fabric interconnect to a Nexus 5000) and/or to provide fabric services.

<aside>Now, there seems to be some confusion within Cisco, as the UCS resources to which I’ve been speaking are confirming my conclusions, but others (consider this tweet by Brad Hedlund) are saying it’s not true. I don’t know who’s correct—I can only go on what I’m being given.</aside>

As a result, it seems completely futile and useless for storage vendors to offer FCoE support on their storage arrays until these issues are addressed. In my mind, this further cements FCoE as an “edge-only” solution. Adding fabric services to the Nexus 5000 and/or UCS 6100 fabric interconnects would address this problem, and perhaps that’s something that is now enabled and made possible via the FC-BB-5 standard and FIP. If so, I have yet to hear a timeline in which these limitations will be addressed.

Either way, if you’re thinking of deploying FCoE today, be sure to keep this in mind or you could find yourself in for a surprise.

Courteous comments and clarifications are welcome!

Tags: , , , ,

Last year, after attending VMworld with me for the previous two years, my wife Crystal (@crystal_lowe on Twitter) decided to organize some activities for spouses traveling to VMworld 2008. This year she’s volunteered to do it again! If you’re planning on bringing your spouse—or if you are a spouse traveling to San Francisco while your significant other will be attending VMworld 2009—you definitely want to look into joining Crystal for these activities!

Here’s a brief rundown of what’s planned so far:

  • On Tuesday, September 1, 2009, there will be an informal “Get To Know You” breakfast at Mel’s Diner on 4th and Mission. This will start at 10AM.
  • Following the “Get To Know You” breakfast, some ladies have expressed an interest in going to Korbel; others will be doing some sightseeing in San Francisco. Crystal is recommending spouses purchase the San Francisco City Pass for unlimited use of public transportation and admission to a number of area attractions.
  • On Wednesday, September 2, 2009, spouses will go tour Alcatraz together. You must purchase your Alcatraz tickets in advance (they sell out early!). After the Alcatraz tour will be shopping at Pier 39, a visit to the Aquarium by the Bay (free for City Pass holders), and possibly a 1 hour Bay Cruise (again, free for City Pass holders). That evening is the VMworld Party at 7PM; Crystal will be attending the party with me.
  • On Thursday, September 3, 2009, a group of spouses will be taking a Napa tour. She’s arranged a group tour (more information here), but must have a firm commitment to attend by no later than Thursday, July 30, 2009 (yes, in two days). We are putting up our own personal funds to secure the group tour if enough people commit to attending. If we don’t get enough firm commitments to secure that tour, spouses will need to individually purchase tickets for this tour and specify the San Francisco Marriott as the pickup hotel.
  • For spouses not interested in visiting Napa (or perhaps for spouses who have already visited Napa or will be visiting Napa with their husband/wife), some of the spouses will be doing more sightseeing in San Francisco on Thursday instead of doing the tour. Crystal will be sharing more information on available activities at the Get To Know You breakfast on Tuesday.

It’s quite an ambitious schedule that Crystal has put together this year; I think she’s outdone her schedule from last year!

If you are interested in participating in these activities, here’s what you need to do:

  • Drop Crystal an e-mail at vmworldspouses@gmail.com. This is the e-mail account from which all communications will originate.
  • If you use Twitter, follow Crystal (or me).
  • Subscribe to this blog, if you’re not already subscribed. I’ll be posting more information as VMworld 2009 draws closer. (Besides, this is a great site anyway, and you know you want to go ahead and subscribe.)
  • Purchase your Alcatraz tour tickets in advance using the URL linked above. These tickets sell out, so you won’t want to wait until the last minute.
  • If you are interested in doing the Napa tour, give Crystal a firm commitment by no later than Thursday, July 30, 2009. An e-mail is fine.

If anyone has any questions, you’re welcome to ask them in the comments to this posts, or you can just e-mail Crystal directly. Again, if you are interested in going on the Napa tour, we need a commitment by no later than Thursday, July 30, 2009.

Thanks for reading! I’m looking forward to seeing everyone in San Francisco.

Tags: , ,

Are you a VMware developer? If so, you should be looking at attending VMware Technology Exchange Developer Day. Like a few other bloggers, VMware contacted me asking for some help getting word out about this event, which is a developer-focused event tailored for application builders using VMware platforms.

This VMware blog post provides some reasons why you should attend, and a session schedule is available here.

Tags: ,

Time is running out! As most of you already know, I—along with Chad Sakac, Duncan Epping, Tom Howarth, and Rick Scherer—will be speaking at VMworld 2009 at TA2259, Ask the Experts.

One of things we wanted to do was to poll the VMware community ahead of time for questions that you wanted to include as part of the discussion, in addition to the questions raised by the audience. If you have a question you’d like to submit, time is running out! We need you to visit one of our sites and submit a question. The link for question submission on my site is here.

Don’t just sit there—click the link and go submit a question!

Tags: , ,

The first day of Cisco UCS training here in San Jose, CA, has just wrapped up. The class is providing some useful information so far, but I’m eager to delve deeper. I really hope the material deepens as the course progresses.

Aside from the northbound FCoE issue I posted about earlier today, there wasn’t anything too terribly surprising discussed so far. I was able to have a few questions answered. For example, the half-width blades don’t use Cisco’s advanced memory technologies and, therefore, will suffer from the same drop in memory transaction speed (MTS) as DIMM slots are populated—just like any other vendors’ Xeon 5500-based servers. I had kind of expected that Cisco would address that as a further point of differentiation from other vendors.

A few other points that came out of today’s discussion that might be useful to readers included:

  • Although the Cisco guys mentioned the use of Solid State Disks (SSDs) for the B-series blades, there’s no orderable option for SSDs yet.
  • Customers must buy RAM and disks for the B-series blades (and I would assume the C-series rack mount servers) from Cisco. There will be no support from TAC otherwise. I suspect this is an issue that will get squished pretty quickly; other server vendors have tried this approach and run afoul of US anti-trust regulations, at least with regard to memory. Remember Compaq telling customers they could only buy Compaq memory, or their warranty was void? I see something similar here.
  • When connecting the IO module to the fabric interconnect, you can use 1 uplink, 2 uplinks, or 4 uplinks—but you can’t use 3 uplinks. (File this under “strange limitations”.)
  • The number of virtual NICs (vNICs) or virtual HBAs (vHBAs) that can be presented from a Palo adapter is directly dependent upon the number of uplinks from the IO module in the blade chassis to the fabric interconnect. The stated maximum for Palo is 128 adapters, I believe; in order to get that many virtual adapters, you’d have to have multiple uplinks from the chassis to the fabric interconnects. I don’t have exact figures yet, but I’ll see if I can dig anything up.

I guess that’s about it for now; I’ll post more throughout the week. Thanks for reading, and keep the good comments coming!

Tags: , , , , ,

I’m about halfway through the first day of Unified Computing System (UCS) training in San Jose, CA, and I’ve learned of what I think is a fairly significant limitation. The issue centers around what Cisco refers to as “northbound” traffic and how Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) is handled with northbound traffic.

Recall that a central part of UCS is the UCS 6100 series fabric interconnect. The 6100 series fabric interconnect has connectivity in two directions:

  • Southbound connectivity is connectivity aimed back at the fabric extenders in the blade chassis themselves.
  • Northbound connectivity is connectivity headed outside the UCS to other systems and networks.

All southbound traffic is 10Gbps Ethernet with FCoE. Northbound traffic can be 10Gbps Ethernet or Fibre Channel, but not FCoE. Based on the information I’ve been given (and if I’m incorrect please let me know in the comments), you cannot directly connect an FCoE-enabled storage array to a UCS. Even if your storage array has native FCoE interfaces, you can’t plug them into the UCS 6100 series fabric interconnects because that’s considered northbound traffic and you can’t use FCoE with northbound traffic.

I have a feeling customers who have purchased storage arrays with FCoE interfaces with the intention of hooking the arrays up directly to a UCS are going to be a bit upset when this information becomes more widely known.

If I’m working from incorrect or incomplete information, please feel free to speak up in the comments.

Tags: , , , , ,

I’ll be in San Jose, CA, all week for hands-on Cisco Unified Computing System training at the old Nuova Systems location. UCS has seen a great deal of attention, but the chance this week to actually get my hands on the UCS equipment will afford me the ability to form a more concrete opinion on the product, its strengths, and its weaknesses (yes, every product has weaknesses).

Now that first customer ship (FCS) for UCS has occurred—it happened last week, if I recall correctly—I’m hoping that the majority of the material being presented in the training class is material that I’ll be able to share both here on the blog and via Twitter. I don’t know exactly how much I’ll be allowed to share, but be assured I’ll share as much as possible. All the posts will be tagged “UCS” to make it a bit easier to find them.

If anyone has any specific pieces of information they’d like me to find out about UCS, post a comment here and I’ll try to get an answer this week. Please don’t ask about pricing or discounts or the like; try to keep the questions technical in nature. Thanks!

Tags: , , ,

PHD Virtual Technologies, maker of the esXpress backup solution, are today announcing the availability of the latest version of their backup product. esXpress version 3.6 offers support for VMware vSphere 4 and, according to PHD Virtual, also offers improvements for all versions of VMware ESX since version 3.0.2.

esXpress 3.6 features a new deduplication engine that provides substantial new performance levels, based on information provided by PHD Virtual. For example:

  • File-level restores are now up to four times faster
  • Image-level restores are up to twice as fast
  • Initial backups are up to twice as fast

esXpress performs source-side deduplication at the block level to help reduce backup storage requirements and help keep WAN traffic to a minimum when backing up over a WAN.

It’s unclear to me whether esXpress leverages any new vSphere-specific features, like Changed Block Tracking, in the new release. PHD Virtual has committed to providing a review copy for me to run in the lab; once I’ve had the chance to “kick the tires,” so to speak, I’ll post more information here.

More details are available from PHD Virtual’s web site.

Tags: , , , ,

Hyper9 is releasing a new version of their flagship virtualization management product, also of the same name, today. An official announcement of the release from Hyper9 is expected next week. The new version brings numerous enhancements to further expose its functionality to new users.

Among other new features—such as a refined search results list with new graphical indicators and a series of instructional videos to showcase the functionality of Hyper9—Hyper9 has added the “My Environment” section. This section of the interface includes a set of predefined queries that are intended to help new users more effectively and more quickly harness the power of Hyper9. Rather than needing to learn or use the query builder, new users can come here to quickly run, view, and save queries and query results.

Hyper9 is also shifting more effort toward helping end users uncover and control “VM sprawl,” by including more predefined queries targeted at finding and identifying unused virtual machines that might have been used at one time but are now just taking up resources in the virtual environment. Examples of these sorts of queries include:

  • Windows VMs that have not been logged into for more than 30 days
  • VMs that are off or suspended
  • VMs with inactive disk files (have not been modified for more than 30 days)

My only complaint with Hyper9 is that the interface, which is web-based, leverages Microsoft .Net components, thus limiting it to the Windows platform. Sorry, Linux and Mac OS X users—looks like you’ll need a Windows VM to access Hyper9. (Correction: Hyper9 has clarified that Mac OS X and Linux users should not have any problems accessing the Hyper9 web interface. Thanks for the clarification!)

For more information, I encourage you to hop over to Hyper9′s web site.

Tags:

« Older entries