| By Dave Graham | Article Rating: |
|
| January 20, 2009 05:30 AM EST | Reads: |
9,958 |
Dave Graham's Blog
In Part One of this Cloud Optimized Storage Solutions (COSS) series, we took a look at the content being stored on COSS and in Part Two at how it is stored.
Storage within the cloud is meaningless without a measurable level of performance that it can be compared against. Since there are no established benchmarks that determine performance of storage within a cloud infrastructure, it is reasonable to apply tiering metrics to storage based on content valuation and service level agreements (SLAs) and utilize this as an overarching methodology to judge COSS storage capabilities based on application set.
Within the concept of Information Lifecycle Management (ILM), there exists the idea that storage can be “tiered” based on criticality of need, application storage performance, or other derived metrics that couple relative responsiveness and bandwidth to serviceability. Layered over the top of this metric is the concept of aggrandized Service Level Agreements that cover compliance, data protection, and data access (to name a few). To bring things into more direct focus, there are 4 direct “Tiers” that are recognized (or promoted) within the storage community: Tier 0, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3. While it is worthwhile to note that these Tiers are arbitrary in nature, they do provide a baseline framework upon which to build a more robust data service model.
The Data Tier Models
Tier 0 & 1: Performance & Availability Guaranteed Storage
Tier 0 is a relatively recent addition to the ILM tiering schema and is based solely on the emergence of Solid State Devices (Fusion I/O, EMC/STEC EFDs, et al.). These storage devices feature sub-millisecond access times coupled with extremely high bandwidth to the storage subsystems, thus driving a higher level of storage access and bandwidth metrics for applications such as Online Transaction Processing (OLTP) and Data Warehousing. The criticality of response to these applications is of a higher priority than Tier 1.
Tier 1 was originally established to service high availability, high bandwidth, low response time application and storage needs that tied directly to OLTP/OLAP, DSS, Data warehousing, etc. type workloads. Typically applications in this Tier have a sub-20ms response time requirement (or best practice) and are more sensitive to latency issues than, perhaps, Tier 2 workloads.
Tier 2: Availability Guaranteed Storage
Tier 2 is commonly referred to a transitional data tier, namely due to the nature of data that lives within it. Common data placement within Tier 2 centers on file systems or data that has a change rate that is based on occasional access within a fixed window of time (e.g. 30-60-90 days). It has a decided focus and tuning towards making sure that data is “online” and accessible without stringent latency or performance criteria.
Tier 3: Accessibility Guaranteed Storage
The last noted Tiering level for data is Tier 3. Tier 3 can best be described as an archive level for stagnant or “stale” data that has infrequent access. Historically, Tier 3 has been policy driven, that is, the recipient for some sort of data migration movements versus being a primary storage Tier for end-user access. Within the COSS environment, however, Tier 3 becomes as crucial of a storage target as Tier 1 or 2 simply due to the large preponderance of unstructured data within the cloud space.
Expectations of Data Tiering
The somewhat open-ended definitions to these data tiering levels are purposeful. In defining the principles of a COSS, there is an inherent need to keep them somewhat fluid especially as content continues to change and develop more complexity. Additionally, while the cloud currently has a majority stakeholder in unstructured data, there is no reason why structured data (and associated programmatic hooks and layers) cannot regain ground. As stated previously, these data tiers, while arbitrary, still provide an essential top-down view of how data can be categorized when planning for a COSS implementation. As an extension of data tiering, it’s also important to understand how global and particular Service Level Agreements (SLAs) can and will affect the data stored on COSS.
Author's Notes:
- ILM, to the best of my knowledge, is not an EMC-designed concept. Whether or not storage tiers existed before EMC popularized the term is indisputable and inherently inconsequential to this discussion.
- Disclaimer - The opinions expressed here are my personal opinions. Content published here is not read or approved in advance by EMC and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of EM
Published January 20, 2009 Reads 9,958
Copyright © 2009 SYS-CON Media, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.
More Stories By Dave Graham
Dave Graham is a Technical Consultant with EMC Corporation where he focused on designing/architecting private cloud solutions for commercial customers.
- Acquia Announces Two New Board Members
- CollabNet Adds Board Member and Senior Executives to Fuel Continued Growth in Agile ALM and Enterprise Cloud Development
- Learn Open Source Database Tools from Stanford for Free
- Research and Markets: Global Mobile Device Management Enterprise Software Market 2010-2014 Includes a Discussion of the Key Vendors Operating in This Market
- Alternative Search Engines for the Contemporary User
- FORTUNE Magazine Names Rackspace Among “100 Best Companies to Work For”
- New York City : Blueprint for Cloud-enabled economic transformation
- EnterpriseDB Announces Availability of Postgres Plus Cloud Database
- Connectria Hosting Achieves "Off the Chart" Operational Efficiency With Cloud-Based Storage Solution From Nexsan and CommVault
- ICOS and Joyent Announce Strategic Partnership to Deliver Joyent's Cloud Infrastructure Solution to Channel Partners and Service Providers
- eXo Platform 3.5 Now Available: First Cloud-Ready Enterprise Portal and User Experience Platform-as-a-Service (UXPaaS)
- Research and Markets: WordPress 24-Hour Trainer, 2nd Edition
- Five Years Waiting for JRE 7: Is It Justified? (Part 1)
- Book Review: The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java
- Acquia Announces Two New Board Members
- CollabNet Adds Board Member and Senior Executives to Fuel Continued Growth in Agile ALM and Enterprise Cloud Development
- Learn Open Source Database Tools from Stanford for Free
- China suppliers of mobile phones expand range with more smartphone and 3G models
- Research and Markets: Global Mobile Device Management Enterprise Software Market 2010-2014 Includes a Discussion of the Key Vendors Operating in This Market
- Government Big Data Solutions Award Nominee: Wayne Wheeles (Sherpa Surfing)
- Alternative Search Engines for the Contemporary User
- FORTUNE Magazine Names Rackspace Among “100 Best Companies to Work For”
- New York City : Blueprint for Cloud-enabled economic transformation
- EnterpriseDB Announces Availability of Postgres Plus Cloud Database
- Java Developer's Journal Exclusive: 2006 "JDJ Editors' Choice" Awards
- The i-Technology Right Stuff
- Creating Web Applications with the Eclipse Web Tools Project
- Eclipse Special: Remote Debugging Tomcat & JBoss Apps with Eclipse
- The Next Programming Models, RIAs and Composite Applications
- Where Are RIA Technologies Headed in 2008?
- SYS-CON Webcast: Eclipse IDE for Students, Useful Eclipse Tips & Tricks
- How to Bring Eclipse 3.1, J2SE 5.0, and Tomcat 5.0 Together
- Eclipse: The Story of Web Tools Platform 0.7
- "Eclipse 3.0 is a Great Leap Forward," Says JDJ's Dudney
- The Top 250 Players in the Cloud Computing Ecosystem
- Developing an Eclipse BIRT Report Item Extension




















