Unified storage has evolved as a novel way of reducing IT complexity, improving business flexibility and reducing costs. The notion of universal storage built on the premise that the storage solution does not care what type of data, block or file, is sent to it.
A unified storage solution natively supports block based protocols (iSCSI) and file-based protocols (NFS/CIFS) in the same appliance eliminating the need for physically separate boxes for SAN and NAS storage. A very interesting consolidation option. Notice there was no mention of FC. That is because there are no solutions that offer iSCSI, FC and NFS/CIFS natively in the same appliance. For a broader discussion on this topic check out my recent professional alert.
Unified storage is a concept that should appeal to all storage users, particularly the small and medium sized users. This community has all the same data management challenges as the bigger folks but has less budget dollars, less staff and less expertise which compounds the complexity of managing disparate storage systems. Universal storage may be a light at the end of the tunnel.
#1 by paulp on July 16, 2009 - 7:44 am
Universal Storage or Unified Storage as NetApp refers to it, is to me is an essential part of consolidating storage – I mean thats the concept of SAN's (taking protocol out of the mix for a moment). No hiding what system I am a fan of.
Regarding the FC comment, how does it really matter if the protocol is supported, it can be connected to FC devices, starts and ends with FC – has FC connections internally for connecting disks etc? To suggest that a unified storage device is not real FC is like suggesting that a FC HBA is not a (real) FC device because it has lots of copper in it – In fact, in a local FC SAN infrastructure, the signals traverse copper over much greater lengths than FC!!! But we call that FC.
the most of the
#2 by paulp on July 16, 2009 - 11:44 am
Universal Storage or Unified Storage as NetApp refers to it, is to me is an essential part of consolidating storage – I mean thats the concept of SAN's (taking protocol out of the mix for a moment). No hiding what system I am a fan of.
Regarding the FC comment, how does it really matter if the protocol is supported, it can be connected to FC devices, starts and ends with FC – has FC connections internally for connecting disks etc? To suggest that a unified storage device is not real FC is like suggesting that a FC HBA is not a (real) FC device because it has lots of copper in it – In fact, in a local FC SAN infrastructure, the signals traverse copper over much greater lengths than FC!!! But we call that FC.
the most of the