Hardware

You are currently browsing articles tagged Hardware.

Welcome to Technology Short Take #32, the latest installment in my irregularly-published series of link collections, thoughts, rants, raves, and miscellaneous information. I try to keep the information linked to data center technologies like networking, storage, virtualization, and the like, but occasionally other items slip through. I hope you find something useful.

Networking

  • Ranga Maddipudi (@vCloudNetSec on Twitter) has put together two blog posts on vCloud Networking and Security’s App Firewall (part 1 and part 2). These two posts are detailed, hands-on, step-by-step guides to using the vCNS App firewall—good stuff if you aren’t familiar with the product or haven’t had the opportunity to really use it.
  • The sentiment behind this post isn’t unique to networking (or networking engineers), but that was the original audience so I’m including it in this section. Nick Buraglio climbs on his SDN soapbox to tell networking professionals that changes in the technology field are part of life—but then provides some specific examples of how this has happened in the past. I particularly appreciated the latter part, as it helps people relate to the fact that they have undergone notable technology transitions in the past but probably just don’t realize it. As I said, this doesn’t just apply to networking folks, but to everyone in IT. Good post, Nick.
  • Some good advice here on scaling/sizing VXLAN in VMware deployments (as well as some useful background information to help explain the advice).
  • Jason Edelman goes on a thought journey connecting some dots around network APIs, abstractions, and consumption models. I’ll let you read his post for all the details, but I do agree that it is important for the networking industry to converge on a consistent set of abstractions. Jason and I disagree that OpenStack Networking (formerly Quantum) should be the basis here; he says it shouldn’t be (not well-known in the enterprise), I say it should be (already represents work created collaboratively by multiple vendors and allows for different back-end implementations).
  • Need a reasonable introduction to OpenFlow? This post gives a good introduction to OpenFlow, and the author takes care to define OpenFlow as accurately and precisely as possible.
  • SDN, NFV—what’s the difference? This post does a reasonable job of explaining the differences (and the relationship) between SDN and NFV.

Servers/Hardware

  • Chris Wahl provides a quick overview of the HP Moonshot servers, HP’s new ARM-based offerings. I think that Chris may have accidentally overlooked the fact that these servers are not x86-based; therefore, a hypervisor such as vSphere is not supported. Linux distributions that offer ARM support, though—like Ubuntu, RHEL, and SuSE—are supported, however. The target market for this is massively parallel workloads that will benefit from having many different cores available. It will be interesting to see how the support of a “Tier 1″ hardware vendor like HP affects the adoption of ARM in the enterprise.

Security

  • Ivan Pepelnjak talks about a demonstration of an attack based on VM BPDU spoofing. In vSphere 5.1, VMware addressed this potential issue with a feature called BPDU Filter. Check out how to configure BPDU Filter here.

Cloud Computing/Cloud Management

  • Check out this post for some vCloud Director and RHEL 6.x interoperability issues.
  • Nick Hardiman has a good write-up on the anatomy of an AWS CloudFormation template.
  • If you missed the OpenStack Summit in Portland, Cody Bunch has a reasonable collection of Summit summary posts here (as well as materials for his hands-on workshops here). I was also there, and I have some session live blogs available for your pleasure.
  • We’ve probably all heard the “pets vs. cattle” argument applied to virtual machines in a cloud computing environment, but Josh McKenty of Piston Cloud Computing asks whether it is now time to apply that thinking to the physical hosts as well. Considering that the IT industry still seems to be struggling with applying this line of thinking to virtual systems, I suspect it might be a while before it applies to physical servers. However, Josh’s arguments are valid, and definitely worth considering.
  • I have to give Rob Hirschfeld some credit for—as a member of the OpenStack Board—acknowledging that, in his words, “we’ve created such a love fest for OpenStack that I fear we are drinking our own kool aide.” Open, honest, transparent dealings and self-assessments are critically important for a project like OpenStack to succeed, so kudos to Rob for posting a list of some of the challenges facing the project as adoption, visibility, and development accelerate.

Operating Systems/Applications

Nothing this time around, but I’ll stay alert for items to add next time.

Storage

  • Nigel Poulton tackles the question of whether ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit) use in storage arrays elongates the engineering cycles needed to add new features. This “double edged sword” argument is present in networking as well, but this is the first time I can recall seeing the question asked about modern storage arrays. While Nigel’s article specifically refers to the 3PAR ASIC and its relationship to “flash as cache” functionality, the broader question still stands: at what point do the drawbacks of ASICs begin to outweight the benefits?
  • Quite some time ago I pointed readers to a post about Target Driven Zoning from Erik Smith at EMC. Erik recently announced that TDZ works after a successful test run in a lab. Awesome—here’s hoping the vendors involved will push this into the market.
  • Using iSER (iSCSI Extensions for RDMA) to accelerate iSCSI traffic seems to offer some pretty promising storage improvements (see this article), but I can’t help but feel like this is a really complex solution that may not offer a great deal of value moving forward. Is it just me?

Virtualization

  • Kevin Barrass has a blog post on the VMware Community site that shows you how to create VXLAN segments and then use Wireshark to decode and view the VXLAN traffic, all using VMware Workstation.
  • Andre Leibovici explains how Horizon View Multi-VLAN works and how to configure it.
  • Looking for a good list of virtualization and cloud podcasts? Look no further.
  • Need Visio stencils for VMware? Look no further.
  • It doesn’t look like it has changed much from previous versions, but nevertheless some people might find it useful: a “how to” on virtualization with KVM on CentOS 6.4.
  • Captain KVM (cute name, a take-off of Captain Caveman for those who didn’t catch it) has a couple of posts on maximizing 10Gb Ethernet on KVM and RHEV (the KVM post is here, the RHEV post is here). I’m not sure that I agree with his description of LACP bonds (“2 10GbE links become a single 20GbE link”), since any given flow in a LACP configuration can still only use 1 link out of the bond. It’s more accurate to say that aggregate bandwidth increases, but that’s a relatively minor nit overall.
  • Ben Armstrong has a write-up on how to install Hyper-V’s integration components when the VM is offline.
  • What are the differences between QuickPrep and Sysprep? Jason Boche’s got you covered.

I suppose that’s enough information for now. As always, courteous comments are welcome, so feel free to add your thoughts in the comments below. Thanks for reading!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

IDF 2012 Day 1 Summary and Thoughts

I just completed day 1 of Intel Developer Forum (IDF) 2012 in San Francisco. I tried to blog about as much as I possibly could. Here are the links to what I was able to capture during the day:

IDF 2012 Day 1 Keynote:
http://blog.scottlowe.org/2012/09/11/idf-2012-keynote-day-1/

Next-Generation Microarchitecture, code-named “Haswell”:
http://blog.scottlowe.org/2012/09/11/spcs001-intel-next-generation-haswell-microarchitecture/

Data Plane Virtualization:
http://blog.scottlowe.org/2012/09/11/coms002-next-generation-cloud-infrastructure-with-data-plane-virtualization/

ODCA and Cloud Usage Models:
http://blog.scottlowe.org/2012/09/11/clds001-odca-and-usage-models-for-cloud-computing/

One thing that really stuck out to me was an announcement made during a data center-focused press briefing directly after lunch. While the announcements made during the keynote were nice, they were consumer-oriented. The announcements during the press briefing, on the other hand, were much more enterprise data center-focused. The one thing that really stuck out to me was Intel’s announcement of their Seacliff Trail reference platform.

The Seacliff Trail reference platform is a 1U top of rack (ToR) switch sporting 48 10 Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) ports and four 40 GbE ports. The platform supports OpenFlow (has been optimized for OpenFlow, in fact), and has hardware support for overlay encapsulations like VXLAN and NVGRE. Advanced networking technologies like TRILL, Shortest Path Bridging (SPB), Edge Virtual Bridging (EVB), and FCoE are also supported. Switching latency for cut-through switching is about 400 ns. Essentially, this is a reference platform for a pretty full-featured L2/L3 10 GbE/40 GbE ToR switch that can compete reasonably well with the “Tier 1″ networking vendors like Cisco, Juniper, Arista, and others—presumably at a far lower cost.

Why did this stick out to me? To me, the introduction of mass-produced merchant silicon and an Intel reference platform for this sort of ToR switch sounds the death knell for networking vendors who differentiate themselves through hardware. It’s the same thing that happened in the server hardware space. In the grander scheme of things, a Cisco UCS server is by and large the same as an HP ProLiant server and a Dell PowerEdge server. (Sorry, guys.) Sure, there are minor tweaks here and there from each of the major vendors, but these are mostly inconsequential. Now Intel is preparing to do the same to the 1U ToR network switch space, and it creates a lot of questions in my mind:

  • What does this mean for the hardware-differentiated network vendors of the world? How do they continue to compete in this space? Does all of the innovation shift to software? If so, who among the “top tier” vendors is best poised to take advantage of this shift in development priorities?
  • This switch has built-in support for OpenFlow. What does this mean for the adoption of the OpenFlow protocol? Who will emerge as the dominant supplier of OpenFlow controllers for all these OF-enabled ToR switches?
  • This switch has hardware support for next-generation overlay protocols like VXLAN and NVGRE. What impact will that have on the uptake of these protocols in modern data centers?

Obviously, the answers to many (if not all) of these questions will be determined by the success (or failure) of the Seacliff Trail reference platform and the OEMs/ODMs that take up the reference platform. If Seacliff Trail becomes hugely successful, it could end up having quite an impact.

There are also other discussions that result from the Seacliff Trail announcement around convergence, but I’m going to hold on those discussions for the time being until I’ve had a bit more time to research and reflect. In the meantime, feel free to speak up in the comments below with your thoughts about what Seacliff Trail and Intel’s move into the networking hardware space means to you. Please be sure to provide industry/employer affiliations where appropriate.

(My disclosure: I work for EMC, but I’m attending IDF at the request of Intel. Intel is covering my expenses and provided a pass for the show.)

Tags: , , ,

This is session SPCS001, titled “Technology Insight: Intel Next Generation Microarchitecture Code Name Haswell”. The speakers are Tom Piazza, Hong Jiang, Per Hammarlund, and Ronak Singhal, Sr.

Haswell is a “tock” as opposed to a “tick” (referring to Intel’s “tick/tock” release cycle); this means it is a significant change at the platform and microarchitecture levels. It is a 22nm platform (Ivy Bridge was also 22nm). Haswell will retain key features from the Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge platform, like Hyper-Threading, Turbo Boost, and Ring Interconnect.

A key philosophy for the Haswell microarchitecture is the use of a “converged code”; that is, a single microarchitecture that scales from tablets all the way to servers in the datacenter. That might seem odd, but the power advantages present in Haswell are just as applicable to tablets and mobile devices as they are to servers running tens (hundreds?) of cores in the data center.

Major focus areas for Haswell include performance improvements (not only for existing “legacy” code but also for new code), modularity, and power innovations.

With regard to modularity, Haswell enables a variety of permutations of core count, cache size, and other variables. This enables more flexibility by Intel’s OEMs in delivering Haswell to a variety of platforms.

In the area of power innovations, Haswell still uses the S0 and S3/4 (active and sleep, respectively) power states. Intel is working to reduce overall power usage in S0, and working to reduce power usage and resume time for S3/4. Haswell introduces S0ix, which is “active/idle” state, which provides dramatically reduced power usage and dramatically reduced resume time (from multiple seconds to hundreds of milliseconds).

As the presenters went into performance improvements, the presentation got extremely technical. While it probably made sense to a developer (the target audience at IDF), much of it did not make sense to me. I’ve included in the information below in a bulleted format for completeness.

  • Increased buffer sizes to allow for greater parallelism to be discovered in code execution
  • Enhancements in branch prediction
  • The addition of two more operations per cycle (Nehalem/Sandy Bridge could do 6 operations per cycle; Haswell can perform 8 operations per cycle)
  • Doubling of floating point operations per cycle through the addition of two Fused Multiply-Add (FMA) operations
  • Reduced virtualization latencies (no additional details provided)
  • A new gather instruction that allows the system to read multiple locations in memory in one operation
  • Introduction of AVX2 instruction set to further improve integer performance and vectorization
  • Improved performance in bit manipulation operations; this should have an impact on cipher/encryption/decryption operations
  • Introduction of TSX (Transactional Synchronization Extensions) to help with creating software that has greater parallelism

The session next transitioned into some discussions specific to improvements in graphics performance and media performance. Improved modularity in the graphics core allows for more “scale-out” performance; this is responsible for the 2x reduction in power usage for matching graphics performance when using Haswell. (This was part of Perlmutter’s keynote.) With regards to media performance, Haswell introduces hardware-based SVC (Scalable Video Coding) and several hardware codecs, including an MPEG codec. Haswell also improves the Video Quality Engine (VQE), which supports an extensive suite of video processing functions. The end result is higher video quality at lower power usage.

The remainder of the session focused on specific power improvements in the media and graphics space, then closes with a summary of the improvements in the Haswell microarchitecture.

Tags: , ,

IDF 2012 Keynote, Day 1

This is a liveblog of the day 1 keynote at Intel Developer Forum (IDF) 2012 at Moscone West in San Francisco, CA. This is my first time attending IDF, and I appreciate the invitation to attend from Intel. (Disclosure: My travel expenses are being reimbursed and I was given a pass to attend, but I am not receiving any other form of compensation.)

Prior to the start of the keynote, they show a video talking about “What misconception about engineers bothers you most?” It’s a collection of snippets talking with various people at the show (probably from last year). It’s a interesting and amusing video. According to the people on the video, the most common misconception is that engineers don’t know how to have fun.

At 9:01, David (Dadi) Perlmutter takes the stage after a short video about Intel. Admirably, Perlmutter recognizes the grave importance of today’s date (9/11), something that I have to give him credit for. I fear that many organizations would not have taken time out of their limited schedule to do so, and I commend Intel.

This year marks the 15th anniversary of IDF, which launched for the very first time in 1997. Today Perlmutter’s discussion will focus on “reinventing computing” (at least, he admits again and not for the last time). Tomorrow’s keynote will focus on security, and Thursday’s keynote is about connecting to the future.

Perlmutter states that “reinventing computing” isn’t just about Intel; it’s about working in collaboration with Intel’s partners and Intel’s developers to “shape the future.” He shows off two hardware samples: the ultra-small Medfield system-on-a-chip (SoC) and the much larger Xeon Phi high-performance computing (HPC) platform. However, it’s not just about hardware–it’s also about the software.

According to Intel and Perlmutter, “data creates opportunities”. There are opportunities for creating digital data, storing digital data, and analyzing digital data. All this leads to cloud and big data.

Perlmutter now shifts his discussion from a broad look at the driving factors in the industry to a more specific look at the data center specifically. And while Intel is involved in the data center–both directly and through a wide array of partners–Perlmutter feels the “real revolution” is in the transformation of personal computing. This, naturally, leads to a discussion of Intel’s Ultrabooks, now equipped with Intel’s 22nm 3rd generation Intel Core processors. He then shows off several different form factors from various Intel OEMs (all of them are running Windows 8). He demonstrates a tablet/slate form factor, as well as a detachable form, the traditional notebook/clamshell, and the convertible form factor.

Going back to his earlier statement about the importance of software, Perlmutter now talks about how software features like sensors, facial recognition, instant on, responsive voice, and others will help enable new experiences in the personal computing arena. This also includes new, more “natural” and “intuitive” computing that employs voice and touch interfaces.

Next up is a demonstration of some new voice interface capabilities that are being jointly developed by Intel and Nuance. The technology and software demonstrated is said to be available in beta form on Q4 of this year.

Following that demonstration, Perlmutter demonstrates some new technologies using gestures. Working with Creative and SoftKinetic, he shows off a few examples of how 3-D cameras and gesture support can enable new ways of interacting with our computers.

At 9:28 AM, Gary Flood of MasterCard joins Perlmutter on stage to discuss how Intel can make the e-commerce experience better for both users and merchants. According to Flood, e-commerce needs to be secure, non-intrusive, seamless, and fluid for both consumers and merchants. That leads to a discussion of MasterCard’s PayPass wallet services. Following that is a demonstration of NFC (Near-Field Communications) sensors on next-generation Ultrabooks. This demo incorporates Intel Identity Protection Technology (IPT) to provide even more security and to associate the user with the endpoint (an ultrabook, in this case).

The next demonstration shows a couple of different applications running on both Atom and Core CPUs; Perlmutter uses a couple of Windows 8 applications as his example.

Perlmutter now introduces “Haswell,” Intel’s 22nm 4th generation Intel Core processor, designed with mobility in mind and intended for use in devices such as tables and ultrabooks all the way up to full-size workstations. He demonstrates graphics performance between the current-generation Core CPU and the next-generation Core CPU. The graphics performance of the next-generation CPU is significantly better, as one would expect.

Perlmutter now reviews the five Intel-based smartphones that are currently available on the market, and he discusses applying the same innovations shown earlier in the mobility context to the all-in-one (AIO) form factor. Perlmutter also shows off a Coca-Cola intelligent vending machine that is powered by an Intel Core i7 CPU.

The Intel vision is: “This decade we will create and extend computing technology to connect and enrich the lives of every person on earth.” The keynote ends with a video that talks about how people use Intel technologies to help solve the problems that face humanity.

And with that, the keynote concludes.

Tags: , ,

Welcome to Technology Short Take #22! Once again, I find myself without too many articles to share with you this time around. I guess that will make things a bit easier for you, the reader, but it does make me question whether or not I’m “listening” to the right communities. If any readers have suggestions on sources of information to which I should be subscribing or I should be following, I’d love to hear your suggestions.

In any case, let’s get into the meat of it. I hope you find something useful!

Networking

Security

  • I have to agree with Tom Hollingsworth that we often create backdoors by design simply out of our own laziness. I’ve heard it said—in fact I may have used the statement myself—that no amount of security can fix stupidity. That might be a bit strong, but it does apply to the “shortcuts” that we create for ourselves or our customers in our designs.

Servers/Hardware

  • Kevin Houston (who works for Dell) posted an article about a recent test report comparing power usage between Dell blades and Cisco UCS blades. If you’re comparing these two solutions, find a comparable report from Cisco and then draw your own conclusions. (Always get multiple views on a topic like this, because every vendor—and I know because I work for a vendor, too—will spin the report in their favor.)

Virtualization

That’s it for this time around. I hope that you have found something useful here. If anyone has any suggestions for sites/forums they’ve found helpful with data center-focused topics, I’d love for you to add that information in the comments.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday I posted an article regarding SR-IOV support in the next release of Hyper-V, and I commented in that article that I hoped VMware added SR-IOV support to vSphere. A couple of readers commented about why I felt SR-IOV support was important, what the use cases might be, and what the potential impacts could be to the vSphere networking environment. Those are all excellent questions, and I wanted to take the time to discuss them in a bit more detail than simply a response to a blog comment.

First, it’s important to point out—and this was stated in John Howard’s original series of posts to which I linked; in particular, this post—that SR-IOV is a PCI standard; therefore, it could potentially be used with any PCI device that supports SR-IOV. While we often discuss this in the networking context, it’s equally applicable in other contexts, including the HBA/CNA space. Maybe it’s just because in my job at EMC I see some interesting things that might never see the light of day (sorry, can’t say any more!), but I could definitely see the use for the ability to have multiple virtual HBAs/CNAs in an ESXi host. Think about the ability to pass an HBA/CNA VF (virtual function) up to a guest operating system on a host, and what sorts of potential advantages that might give you:

  • The ability to zone on a per-VM basis
  • Per-VM (more accurate, per-initiator) visibility into storage traffic and storage trends

Of course, this sort of model is not without drawbacks: in its current incarnation, assigning PCI devices to VMs breaks vMotion. But is that limitation a byproduct of the current way it’s being done, and would SR-IOV help alleviate that potential concern or issue? It sounds like Microsoft has found a way to leverage SR-IOV for NIC assignment without sacrificing live migration support (see John’s latest SR-IOV post). I suspect that bringing SR-IOV awareness into the hypervisor—and potentially into the guest OS via each vendor’s paravirtualized device drivers, aka VMware Tools in a vSphere context—might go a long way to helping address the live migration concerns with direct device assignment. Of course, I’m not a developer or a programmer, so feel free to (courteously!) correct me in the comments.

Are there use cases beyond providing virtual HBAs/CNAs? Here are a couple questions to get you thinking:

  • Could you potentially leverage a single PCI fax board among multiple VMs (clearly you’d have to manage fax board capacity) to virtualize your fax servers?
  • Would the presentation of virtual GPUs to a guest OS eliminate the need for a paravirtualized video driver, and would the lack of a paravirtualized video driver streamline the virtualization layer even more? The same goes for virtual NICs.

I’m not saying that all these things are possible—again, I’m not a developer so I could be way off base—but it seems to me that SR-IOV at least enables us to consider these sorts of options.

Regarding networking, this is where I see a lot of potential for SR-IOV. While VMware’s networking code is highly optimized, the movement of Ethernet switching into hardware on a NIC that supports SR-IOV has got to free up some CPU cycles and virtualization overhead. It also seems to me that putting that Ethernet switching on an SR-IOV NIC and then adding 802.1Qbg (EVB/VEPA) support would be a sweet combination. Mix in a hypervisor-to-NIC control plane for dynamically provisioning SR-IOV VFs and you’ve got a solution where provisioning a VM on a host dynamically creates an SR-IOV VF, attaches it to the VM, and uses EVB to provision a new VLAN on-demand onto that NIC. Is that a “pie in the sky” dream scenario? I’m not so sure that it’s that far off.

What do you think? Please share your thoughts in the comments below. Where applicable, please provide disclosure. For example, I work for EMC, but I speak for myself.

Tags: , , , , ,

While browsing my list of RSS feeds tonight, I came across a series of articles by John Howard, a senior program manager on the Hyper-V team at Microsoft. The post was one of a series of posts describing SR-IOV support in the next version of Hyper-V, found in Windows “8″. I hadn’t heard that Microsoft was adding SR-IOV support to the next version of Hyper-V, so when I saw that I was surprised. Personally, I think SR-IOV support is a big deal (see the note at the end of this post for why).

If you’re not familiar with SR-IOV, I suggest you read this quick SR-IOV tutorial I published on this site in late 2009.

Here are the links to John’s SR-IOV in Hyper-V posts:

Everything you wanted to know about SR-IOV in Hyper-V, part 1
Everything you wanted to know about SR-IOV in Hyper-V, part 2
Everything you wanted to know about SR-IOV in Hyper-V, part 3
Everything you wanted to know about SR-IOV in Hyper-V, part 4
Everything you wanted to know about SR-IOV in Hyper-V, part 5

It’s great to see Microsoft adding SR-IOV support to Hyper-V; this brings SR-IOV out of the niche Linux market and into a broader, more mainstream market. This also applies some competitive pressure against market leader VMware, who now has to respond in some fashion—either by adding SR-IOV support to their ESXi hypervisor, or by explaining why SR-IOV support isn’t necessary. Personally, I hope that VMware does the former and not the latter.

(By the way, for those of you wondering why SR-IOV is important, there are lots of potential synergies here—in my view, at least—between hardware switching on an SR-IOV NIC and things like software-defined networking.)

Tags: , , , ,

Don’t You Just Love It?

Recently…

Facilities: “We need to do some power load testing in the lab where your equipment is housed. You need to shut down your equipment.”

Me: “OK, no problem. I’ll shut down my equipment.”

So, I go to the lab and shut down all my equipment: eight servers, four Fibre Channel switches, two Nexus 5010 switches, a fabric extender, two older (pre-CX4) CLARiiON arrays, two VPLEX clusters, and two small AX arrays.

Me to Facilities: “OK, all the equipment is shut down; you’re ready to proceed with the power load testing.”

Facilities: “Oh, never mind. We decided not to do the testing.”

Don’t you just love it?

Tags: , ,

In August 2009 I wrote about a company called Netronome and the network processor they were developing. Late last week I had another conversation with Netronome and was able to follow-up on last year’s discussion as well as get an idea of where they might be headed.

The product in question in August 2009 was the Network Flow Processor; specifically, the NFP-3200, a 40-core processor specifically designed to provide line-rate functionality like switching, load balancing, firewalling, or Quality of Service (QoS)—all embedded in hardware and handled directly by the NFP-3200. The idea, of course, is to offload all this functionality into the NFP so as to reduce the load on host CPUs. You can get a few more details about the NFP-32xx via Netronome’s product page.

At first glance, it might seem like Netronome hasn’t made a great deal of progress since last year. In August 2009, Netronome only had support for open source Xen. Unfortunately, that’s still the case today. However, Netronome’s business is a bit different. The comparison was made to Bose: you can buy a Bose radio as an OEM part from BMW, but you can also buy a Bose radio directly from Bose. In Netronome’s case, you can buy NFP functionality when it is embedded into another manufacturer’s products, or you can buy Netronome’s products directly. In the past year, Netronome has been primarily focusing on the former line of business (the OEM aspect). For example, Netronome’s NFP is used in an intrusion prevention system (IPS) produced by Sourcefire.

Based on my conversation late last week, it would now appear that Netronome is preparing to add a bit more visibility to their second line of business: selling Netronome-branded products. One of the form factors Netronome is exploring is a PCIe-based card with the NFP embedded on the card; this will be a dual-port 10GbE card that offers hardware-based, line-rate switching and QoS. VMware vSphere support is tentatively targeted for Q2/Q3 of 2011 (although, as with all roadmap dates, that might change). The idea here is that an IT end-user could install this card into their servers and gain hardware-virtualized NIC instances and hardware-based switching functionality directly on the card. In VMware environments, this means you could leverage something like VMDirectPath to bypass the hypervisor. Astute readers will, of course, immediately point out that VMDirectPath has its own challenges (like losing vMotion in its current incarnation); Netronome will need to address those challenges in order to make their product valuable to the end-user community.

Netronome’s dual-pronged business model—targeting both OEMs and end users—means that their measures of success are very different than what many readers would consider success. For Netronome to become a Tier 1 supplier of components to a major networking vendor or carrier would be a huge success, even if Netronome-branded products never take off. As for the end-user focused business, I’ll reiterate today what I said a year ago after first speaking with Netronome: the real challenge for Netronome is getting the appropriate support from major vendors, including VMware, and addressing some of the challenges of the potential use cases for their product.

In the spirit of full disclosure, Netronome did not provide any consideration or compensation for this blog post; I wrote it because the technology sounded interesting and I thought it was something about which my readers might be interested in learning more.

Tags: , ,

Some UCS Links

Nothing too terribly new or innovative here; I just had some Cisco UCS-related links I wanted to share with everyone. I hope that you find something useful here.

Cisco UCS Server Pools: Use Cases
Placement of mezzanine adapters in full width blades
Chassis Discovery Policies in UCS
Cisco UCS Server Pools: Configuration
Why Cisco UCS is my ‘A-Game’ Server Architecture
Verifying FEX Uplink Pinning in Cisco UCS
Cisco UCS Pools In Depth
Myths and Restrictions of the Cisco UCS
Correction to L2 Forwarding Rules post
UCSM 1.3(1c) Released!
Cisco UCS Enhancements in Firmware 1.3
Cisco Unified Computing System: Power and Physical Requirements

Tags: , , ,

« Older entries