Red Hat bought its way into server virtualization by acquiring Qumranet and gave the world the KVM hypervisor, commercialized as Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization. Several years later, it bought its way into clustered file systems by eating Gluster and commercializing its eponymous file system as Red Hat Storage Server. And now …
How slow do you want to go?
very slow indeed, it would seem. :'(
Why do we actually still need a SAN?
"And now the company is mashing them up so they can run side-by-side on the same clusters, uniting compute and storage on commodity boxes."
"If Hadoop has taught us anything, it is that getting compute and storage on the same physical devices can substantially boost performance."
SAN is just technology theatre where one component of an IT infrastructure is being rewrapped and made more expensive and complex (exta expenses for fibre channel fabric, fibre switches, storage controllers, specialized staff, floorspace, cooling, additional maintenance contracts...). SAN does not create a 3-tiered storage strategy on it's own. SAN does not give us RAS - RAID and replication do, independent of the SAN.
The days of the SAN are counted. But don't take my word for it, have a look at IBM Flex Systems, Google and now RedHat.
Also, now that we see that OSV provides much more flexibility and feature richness, where is the future for hypervisors or hardware partitioning and those expensive network switches? Technically, all you need for a router is two NICs and IPtables. Maybe, in a few years time, when we will have 16 core commodity processors we will see the reduction if not dissappearance of expensive, specialized routers/catalysts and the lot?
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- AT&T adds 61¢ 'Mobility Administrative Fee' for users
- Updated Reports: New Xbox could DOOM second-hand games market