News
1/20/2010
11:18 AM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
50%
50%

Automated Tiering Methods

A few entries ago we opened up the subject of Automated Tiering with an explanation of why the technology is becoming so needed. As this series of entries continues we will review various storage vendors specific approach to automated tiering, but first it is helpful to understand the common methods that are employed.

A few entries ago we opened up the subject of Automated Tiering with an explanation of why the technology is becoming so needed. As this series of entries continues we will review various storage vendors specific approach to automated tiering, but first it is helpful to understand the common methods that are employed.Automated tiering is the dynamic placement of data on different classes of storage based on parameters that define how that data is being used, most often its level of activity that defines where the data goes. These classes of storage typically range from some form of memory based storage (RAM, FLASH SSD or DRAM SSD) to Fibre/SAS mechanical drives to SATA drives. Depending on the vendor they either supply all of these classes of storage or they merely provide the automated tiering intelligence and you provide the classes of storage.

Most of the focus with automated tiering is moving active data to the fastest tier possible. The idea is maximize the benefits of the most expensive and fastest class of storage. If you are paying more per GB for the memory based tier of storage then you want to make sure you buy as little as you have to and that it is almost always near full. Running memory based storage at 50% utilization is a significant waste of resources.

The first method of automated tiering is to treat this faster tier of storage as a large cache, similar to cache technologies that already exist on drives and storage systems today. The main difference is that they are significantly larger. The concept has merit. Cache technology is certainly well vetted yet vendors can still add value by customizing the approach. It can have a safer feel to it as well by using it in a read only mode, meaning that if the automated tiering device fails you have not lost data. Of course that also means in write heavy environments you would see no performance benefits.

Most of the caching systems and all of the second method of automated tiering solutions have the ability to treat this higher speed tier as something more permanent. Data will reside uniquely on a particular tier for a significant time. That time could be a few seconds, in the case of cache based systems, up to a few days on the second method, which I'll call the storage method for lack of a better term. The storage method systems also typically have a tunable setting that allows you to set how long data is uniquely on each tier of storage. While this method should lead to further performance boosts it may also lead to data loss if the automated tiering device fails or the tier which has the data fails. Typically though the storage method systems provide for some HA (highly available) functionality.

Next up we will look at the different protocols that are supported (file and block) as well as the level of granularity (block, file, LUN) that these solutions tend to offer.

Track us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/storageswiss

Subscribe to our RSS feed.

George Crump is lead analyst of Storage Switzerland, an IT analyst firm focused on the storage and virtualization segments. Find Storage Switzerland's disclosure statement here.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
10 Recommendations for Outsourcing Security
10 Recommendations for Outsourcing Security
Enterprises today have a wide range of third-party options to help improve their defenses, including MSSPs, auditing and penetration testing, and DDoS protection. But are there situations in which a service provider might actually increase risk?
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-4403
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Zen Cart 1.3.9h allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) delete a product via a delete_product_confirm action to product.php or (2) disable a product via a setflag action to categories.ph...

CVE-2012-2930
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in TinyWebGallery (TWG) before 1.8.8 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add a user via an adduser action to admin/index.php or (2) conduct static PHP code injection attacks in .htusers...

CVE-2012-2932
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in TinyWebGallery (TWG) before 1.8.8 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) selitems[] parameter in a copy, (2) chmod, or (3) arch action to admin/index.php or (4) searchitem parameter in a search action to admin/...

CVE-2012-5451
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in HttpUtils.dll in TVMOBiLi before 2.1.0.3974 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (tvMobiliService service crash) via a long string in a (1) GET or (2) HEAD request to TCP port 30888.

CVE-2015-0297
Published: 2015-04-24
Red Hat JBoss Operations Network 3.3.1 does not properly restrict access to certain APIs, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary Java methos via the (1) ServerInvokerServlet or (2) SchedulerService or (3) cause a denial of service (disk consumption) via the ContentManager.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join security and risk expert John Pironti and Dark Reading Editor-in-Chief Tim Wilson for a live online discussion of the sea-changing shift in security strategy and the many ways it is affecting IT and business.