Slashdot Mirror


IBM Launches New Product Line

An anonymous reader notes that "IBM has launched its new product line of storage devices: the DS6000 and the DS8000. The results are quite impressive, with the DS6000 being rack mountable, 3U, and ONLY 125 pound storage device that will hold up to 67.2 TB! The DS8000 is equally impressive, with 6x performance of ESS 800 (Shark), making it the most powerful storage system to date. "

34 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Hot Damn, now I can finally ... by bushboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    download the whole internet !

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    1. Re:Hot Damn, now I can finally ... by moro_666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      if you are strong enough, get also the ds6000/8000 backpack from ibm and carry the whole internet around with you :)

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    2. Re:Hot Damn, now I can finally ... by Emugamer · · Score: 3, Funny

      download the whole internet !

      not according to your sig

    3. Re:Hot Damn, now I can finally ... by moyix · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe you mean you can download one of the "internets".

  2. DS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does that stand for *cough* DeathStar, er *cough* I mean DeskStar hard drives?

  3. Huh? by bigberk · · Score: 4, Funny
    IBM has launched its new product line of storage devices
    What's that?? I can't hear you over my screeching Deskstar 75 GXP!!
  4. To inform by a.different.perspect · · Score: 4, Informative
  5. Actually it's 4.8TB for a single rack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's 67.2 TB if you have 14 racks (224 disks)...a single rack only allows 300Gb x 16drives = 4.8 TB...quite still a lot though.

  6. Writeup is wrong by amorsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    The DS6000 supports up to to 67.2TB, but not in one enclosure. The DS6000 only fits 16 disks per enclosure, and with 400GB disks that is 6.4TB. 400GB disks seem to only be available as SATA and PATA, the largest SCSI disks I could find are 300GB. That means 4.8TB per enclosure. 16 DS6000's per 48U rack, that's 76.8TB. Remove every 8th disk for RAID-5, that's 67.2TB.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:Writeup is wrong by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      8 disk RAID-5? You have a lot more guts than I do!

      Maybe raid5+1 or maybe four 4-disk raid5s stuck together in an append or raid0. Or maybe raid6, if anyone ever releases a product that makes it easier to manage.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Writeup is wrong by keesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      IBM's standard is 6+P+S (six normal, one parity, one spare). Since the monitoring setup is damned good, and the CEs are really fast in replacing drives, it seems to work. The only reason raid 6 exists at all is because EMC accidentally shipped a bunch of duff drives once.

  7. hyperbole.slashdot.com by wombatmobile · · Score: 3, Funny

    "These are the most significant storage announcements we have made in more than a decade. IBM is focused on being the storage innovator and clear technology leader," said Dan Colby, General Manager, IBM Storage Systems. "Today, we are delivering new economics and choice by leveraging common components, breakthrough technologies from mainframes and supercomputers, and unmatched virtualization and management capabilities."

    Most significant in a decade? New economics? Wow, this is too important for Slashdot. Somebody should call Time magazine. Or Newsweek.

  8. Only 125 pounds? by mrjb · · Score: 5, Funny

    At that price I'll have one.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  9. not 67Tb in 3U by swmike · · Score: 3, Informative

    It'll grow by the modular 3U unit.

    The single 3U unit won't hold 67.2Tb, that's a bunch of them linked together.

  10. Finally enough space! by indiancowboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Phewww! finally enough space to keep all my porn in one place!

  11. Longhorn System Reqs. by jaephu · · Score: 5, Funny

    uh oh... Microsoft Windows Longhorn Minimum System Requirements: ... Hard Drive: 30TB Memory: 2 GB

  12. That's not 67TB in a single enclosure.. by jcr · · Score: 3, Informative

    You misread the spec, I believe. There's 16 drive bays, and the biggest single drive I'm aware of at the moment is 400 gig.

    What they said was: "Using modular, 3U, 16 disk drive, rack-mountable enclosures, the DS6000 series can grow along with your storage needs up to 67.2TB physical storage".

    According to the datasheet, they offer drives up to 300gig in each bay, which works out to around 4.8 Tb per enclosure.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  13. Product pricing and availability by just+someone · · Score: 5, Informative

    Product pricing and availability
    IBM's new storage offerings with enterprise class functions reset the bar with minimum configurations starting at half a terabyte and list prices starting as low as $97,000. The DS6000 series and the DS8000 series come standard with a four-year warranty on hardware and software, which is unique in the industry.


    What are they smoking? 9.7 k a terrabyte, maybe. 97k. Even EMC is not that high any more.

    1. Re:Product pricing and availability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, these prices are ridiculous.
      You can get 5.6 TB for $10k in true 3U using VTrak 15100 from Promise.
      That's $4k for VTrak plus 15 x $400 for 400GB drives.

  14. only 67Tb in 13 units? by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dunno. 67Tb in thirteen 3U 16 drive units doesn't sound all that impressive. Maybe if you could fit 100Tb in 50U of space I would be impressed. If this could even scale that high you could only fit 80Tb in that amount of space. 3U for 4.8Tb of raw storage is not a big deal. You can build your own low quality system with that kind of capacity yourself out of cheap disks. Obviously not with the same performance though.

    Although I will admit that this is a very fast product with decent redundancy. Although I generally believe dealing with redundancy at a higher level with software is much more flexible than controller level redundancy. And cheaper.

    Fibrechannel drives sound neat and all, but if someone can fit 3x as many "lower end" drives in the same amount of space that's lower cost, higher redundancy, higher capacity and higher performance. I'm sure they are good for something though, else IBM wouldn't have such a sales drive behind them. *snicker*

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  15. An open question. by Temporal · · Score: 4, Funny

    If only there were some sort of visual stimuli -- say, something which appeals to our most basic primal instincts -- which could be stored on such a device, and subsequently accessed whenever one is bored and no one is watching. Alas, I am unable to imagine anything suitable. Perhaps one of my fellow Slashdotters has an idea?

    1. Re:An open question. by zoeblade · · Score: 4, Funny

      If only there were some sort of visual stimuli -- say, something which appeals to our most basic primal instincts -- which could be stored on such a device, and subsequently accessed whenever one is bored and no one is watching. Alas, I am unable to imagine anything suitable. Perhaps one of my fellow Slashdotters has an idea?

      Pictures of yummy doughnuts?

  16. 67.2TB by TheRealStaunch · · Score: 3, Funny

    67.2TB should be enough for anyone!

    --

    -- Get
  17. Expensive logo? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, the DS8000 is marketed as expandable up to 192TB. Since it's marketed as starting at 580GB, and priced starting at $97K, that's about $167:GB. Considering that a single 160GB drive, without redundancy, integrated POWER uC and other server hardware, IBM support or management software costs about $0.50:GB, and probably less in quantities of 1200 (==192TB), are those extras worth it compared to rolling your own RAID?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Expensive logo? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      OTOH, the DS6000 takes 300GB SCSI drives. 192TB is 640 300GB drives, which cost at least $197 in EIDE, for a total of $126K. While SCSI drives cost well over $500ea at 300GB, though about $1:GB at 147GB. If a loaded DS6000 costs anywhere near $325K, IBM really has great prices at the high end. That's about 768K FLAC'ed CDs, which would cost $15.4M to buy at $20ea.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Expensive logo? by guacamole · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When I hear someone suggest to roll your own anything, I want to scream and run as they probably haven't worked a day in a real production environment. I'd like to see you roll your own, manage, and support a multiterabyte storage system and then decide by yourself whether it was worth it or not (assuming you're lucky and get a chance to do so, after not being fired because something has gone wrong and ate your data or caused downtime)

      As for this particular case, this system was obviously designed to efficiently manage vast amounts of storage. It is not worth buying if you only need a 580GB of storage. Besides, no one pays the list price in the enterprise storage market. No one also buys IBM's enterprise hardware just because they think they need the hardware alone.

  18. Re:Poll Troll Toll by Bi()hazard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To reach solid decision's, youl'l need more infermation then the slashdot writeup supplies. Like this article featured on linuxtoday.com, which are surely slightly more independent than IBMs' press release's; (click complete story under the summary) From it:

    The DS8000 is unique in the industry because it features two logical partitions too run management or utility applications such as the companies SAN Volume Controller and Tivoli Storage Manager for backup and data management.

    That sounds like a pretty interesting feature. Anybody's in the industry care to comment on the portential for these new development?

    This article on lightreading.com elaborates a little more.

    IBM's DS8000 handles virtualization different then the competition. While HDS does virtualization in the controller and EMC plans virtualization on intelligent switches IBMs' new system does virtualization at the chip level (see EMC on Virtualization: Wait for Us ). Using the Power5's IBM Virtual Engine, the DS800 can divide servers into logical partitions (LPARs). Each LPAR can run different storage systems that run separate code. ... "You can run different operating systems, even different releases of operating systems on isolated LPAR's. Rock!"

    Thats a truly impressive level of flexibility their. And of course, its great for Linux, the ability to run multiple OSe's in hardware on one box play's to Linuxes strength's and deal's a blow to Microsoft's monopoly lockin strategy. What Im really shocked about is that there slashdot writeup included only some bland "durr big numbers" product placement, while IBM is effecting an interesting Linux-related change's in the marketplace's if you look a little deeper.

    --sig: why a duck?

  19. Re:i hope these restore ibm's name by PygmySurfer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hitachi took over IBM's Desktop hard drive business.

    And I believe IBM actually had 2 lines that had issues (The 75 GXP and, to a lesser extent, the 60 GXP).

    I had 2 30 GB 75 GXP drives, I think I ended up going through 3 RMAs. Eventually, IBM replaced one with a 60 GB 120GXP (I believe it was the 120 GXP) with an 8mb cache (original drives only had 2mb cache). While the RMAs were a hassle, IBM did a pretty good job of taking care of me.

  20. Backup 4TB? by soundman32 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And how the eckle feckin do we back that baby up?

    --
    No sharp objects, I'm a programmer!
    1. Re:Backup 4TB? by cakefool · · Score: 3, Funny

      punch cards. lots and lots of punch cards...

    2. Re:Backup 4TB? by keesh · · Score: 3, Informative

      LTO2 tapes are 200GBytes each... Remember that these boxes can flashcopy (instantly do a complete copy of your data, kinda like LVM snapshot support but actually working and a hell of a lot more powerful, oh, and done in hardware), so you don't need to stop your database whilst you're waiting to write it to tape.

  21. Not the first vendor to offer this... by jtharpla · · Score: 3, Informative

    We've been getting disk arrays like the DS6000 for months now... for example:

    RocketSTOR R2221
    or
    Silicon Mechanics SM-316RX

  22. Re:insert witty pr0n comment here by Tezkah · · Score: 3, Funny

    I dunno man, after listening to William Shatner's new album, I dont feel the need for porn.

  23. Re:With all that storage... by Mjlner · · Score: 4, Funny
    If only I had the money

    RTFA! It's only 125 pounds! (Sterling, I'm sure.)

    --
    Lemon curry???