Slashdot Mirror


Automated Tiered Storage Coming to Desktops?

roj3 writes "Tiered storage has been the scourge of administrators because the vendors tell us to hold meetings with all departments and then classify data to storage tier based on its type or relative importance. eWeek has a story about a new approach to tiered storage — sorting it all by usage patterns. Regularly used data goes on high-performance storage, idle data goes on slower/cheaper storage. Volumes and files even span several types of drives or RAID levels. Is automated tiered storage headed to desktops?"

15 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Networks, sure. by celardore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see the usefulness of this technology over a busy network with multiple users and masses of files and storage... I just can't see needing anything more than a mirror&stripe RAID array on a PC with only one user. Even that could be considered excessive.

    1. Re:Networks, sure. by dsginter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think we'll actually see the opposite:

      With multiple PCs per household, it makes sense to get rid of the hard drives at the PC level and put them in a RAID enclose that is secured into a wall.

      This, however, is a threat to Microsoft because you'll be able to PXE-boot any image of your choice (just think that perhaps your employer or bank supplies their own secure image in order to connect to their resources). Someone needs to get Windows to PXE boot at the hardware level (emulate IDE or something).

      This will be huge but we've got to squeeze Microsoft into it, first. Then, everyone will be free to try linux and see what we've all been jabbering about.

      --
      More
    2. Re:Networks, sure. by 0racle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That only makes sense if the people in the household wish to learn how to use what you've mentioned. Since current evidence points to the fact that most people look at computers as a magical box that can not be understood, the chances of them learning how to do a fraction of what you suggest is about as likely as you winning the lottery.

      The XP file sharing wizard is too much for a lot of people and you think a raid array sharing up OS images over a network via PXE makes sense?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:Networks, sure. by jwjcmw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Life is changing to the digital a bit more evey day. And just as we have cardboard boxes in our attic holding the things we dont use, file cabinets in our office alphabetized, firesafes for important documents, and Safe Deposit boxes for wills. The average home user will need to know and use the digital equivalents."

      Or, if you are like many people, you have documents on your desk and in piles on the floor that you will never use, your kids birth certificate is in a stack of papers from when you had to take it to school for registration, your file cabinets have partially labeled folders that are in chronological order...as in the order that you stuffed them in the filing cabinet, your will is in the "to be filed" folder in the bottom of said filing cabinet and you could fill the bathtub with your old phone and electric bills.

      Hopefully the digital equivalents will be better for the organizationally challenged.

  2. Great Idea by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is exactly what everyone is looking for. People defrag their hard drives in the hopes to increase performance. There is no reason why storage that is accessed more shouldn't be on the high performance drives. Or at least some sort of class rating that defines what storage may need high performance. For example, automatically installing and saving 3D Max to a RAID 0 media, and saving word documents to the lesser-performing drives.

    I try to follow this idea all the time with my system. Fast stuff goes on RAID 0, slow stuff, and backup stuff goes on the ole' 200 GB backup drive.

    1. Re:Great Idea by mollog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hewlett-Packard Company developed a product that did this automagically. It was an external RAID system that connected via one or two SCSI busses to a host. All incoming data was stored in RAID 0/1; striped and mirrored. (aka RAID 6 and RAID 10). As the storage filled up, unused data was automagically migrated to more space-efficient RAID 5. Data that had been accessed recently remained in RAID 0/1. You could add disk drives and it would automagically include the drives (but you would have to use LVM or other utilities in the OS to increase its file system.) You could mix two drive sizes, say, 18GB and 36GB, without trouble. If a drive failed, the array would rebuild reduncancy. If another drive failed, ditto. It was fast, it was fully redundant.

      But it was a lot smarter than the admins who had to use it so it wasn't very popular.

      --
      Best regards.
  3. Not so new... by Duncan3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was using systems that did this 10 years ago. Granted, back then it was disk+tape not different speed disks, but it's the exact same thing.

    Looks to me like an excuse to charge 8-10x what you should be paying for storage of that size.

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    1. Re:Not so new... by dpilot · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was called HSM, (Hierarchical Storage Management) it ran on IBM's MVS on mainframes, and it moved your less-used data to cheaper storage, in several stages. IIRC, the first stage was just compression on a different disk, the second stage was a tapes in a jukebox-type thing, and the third stage was tapes that an operator fetched and loaded. Somewhere way back there, data never used for 5 years fell off the end of the belt, but you got warned, first.

      The day after vacation, when you kept getting the message, "DFHSM is recalling dataset xyz for user jkl" as it pulled all of your storage back online was a pain, and we all thought it would be neat to get rid of, as we migrated to workstations. But in retrospect, HSM was great, never having to worry about your data quantity. That's compared with having to root through $HOME every few months to take care of quota problems.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  4. Oh....good.. by JerBear0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "idle data goes on slower/cheaper storage"

    So that special little something that you need once a year, but when you need it, you need it RIGHT NOW is tied to the foot of a pigeon fluttering around the warehouse somewhere. Frequency of use does NOT denote importance.

    --
    Bad experience is a school that only fools keep going to.
  5. IDE Neutrality? by sseaman · · Score: 5, Funny

    From its beginnings, the Hard Drive has leveled the playing field for all files. Everday files can have their content read by thousands, even millions of processes.

    The Coalition of Unused Files believes that the desktop is a crucial engine for personal and economic growth. They are working together to urge System Admins to preserve IDE Neutrality, the First Amendment for the Desktop Hard Drive that ensures that the Desktop remains open to innovation and progress.

  6. Just read TFA: by Ant+P. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $50k for a 6TB fileserver? What's that extra $40000 paying for that a normal fileserver loaded with RAM can't do just as fast?

  7. Just like my kitchen by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cheetos go in the easy-to-reach cabinet next to the fridge.

    Beer goes in the fornt on the top shelf of the fridge, milk (eventually cheese, typically) goes on the bottom shelf in the back.

    This is automated, since I simply shove things onto the shelves when I get home from the supermarket. Anything I consume and replace ends up at the front. Anything I buy because I 'should' be eating it (like fiber biscuits, or whatever) ends up pushed to the back.

    It's automated via metatag, too. Anything tagged 'ice cream' goes in the door of the freezer, anything tagged 'vegetable' gets relegated somewhere in the back, where it quickly develops an inch of ice crystals, to slowly dry out to a freezer-burnt state of suspended animation until I buy a new fridge unit.

    This costs no more than regular kitchen storage space, but if you'd like a custom design for you and your loved ones, my consulting fee is $75/hr, or a bag of chips and a six-pack.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  8. Yes, Kinda... by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 4, Informative

    Automatic tiered storage is definitely coming, but probably not in the form of multiple disks that run at different speeds or RAID levels.

    Microsoft announced a while back that Windows Vista would support three technologies designed to improve disk speed called SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, and ReadyDrive. SuperFetch is simply a way of preloading applications and data when the OS anticipates that you'll be loading those soon.

    ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive both utilize persistent memory caches to speed up access to the disk.

    ReadyBoost treats normal USB keys and flash disks like temporary caching locations for data from the disk.

    ReadyDrive is essentially the term Microsoft uses to described their support for hybrid hard drives, which are disks that have a built in flash memory module that's used as a persistent cache.

    Not only do hybrid disks dramatically increase performance, but they also result in huge power savings for mobile devices like laptops and media players.

  9. Re:No but it is correlated by cperciva · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, there are exceptional cases, like the President's access to the Nuclear Briefcase. It hasn't been used for real in a long time if ever but when he needs it it had better be close at hand.

    Oddly enough, I think most people in the world would prefer that it wasn't close at hand when Bush decides he wants it.

    A better example is fire extinguishers -- most of them will literally never be used, but there's a very good reason to ensure that they are readily available.

  10. Liars, damn liars, and statistics by Medievalist · · Score: 4, Informative
    Decades ago, we used to laugh at the mainframers and their automated hierarchical storage systems because they'd make exactly these kinds of statements.

    Frequency of use DOES denotes importance, at the very least STATISTICALLY.
    No. Absent other data, it only denotes frequency of use, period. Playboy.com gets more hits than the general ledger webapp if you unblock your company firewall, but the general ledger is more important to the company.

    Just because you want "that special little something" once a year; does not mean you can degrade the speed of information which is instantly needed.
    There is actually very little correlation between what the average user wants and what s/he needs, as is empirically obvious. If the image from the "fly-fishing.com" website that they've set to come up as their background image every morning fails to load, they can still work, but if the once-a-year corporate audit checklist gets put on slow, old storage and then gets lost in a hardware failure, the company stock price may flutter and certainly heads will roll in the corporate IS department.

    This is an obvious fact
    I don't think that word means what you think it means.