Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

News

2/17/2011
08:46 AM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
50%
50%

Building Storage Proof Applications

A storage system failure where more drives have failed then the RAID protection scheme will cover you from or where the storage software itself has crashed is a disaster. The amount of work required to return the system to service can be daunting and applications are likely to experience downtime, in some cases that time can be significant. We have to start working on building storage proof applications.

A storage system failure where more drives have failed then the RAID protection scheme will cover you from or where the storage software itself has crashed is a disaster. The amount of work required to return the system to service can be daunting and applications are likely to experience downtime, in some cases that time can be significant. We have to start working on building storage proof applications.While this type of storage system failure is still rare, I do believe that we are seeing a slight increase in the occurrence of this type of failure. I also feel that the impact of such a failure, application unavailability, is more significant than ever. We count on applications more so than in the past and the size of and reach of those applications is larger than ever. In short more users are impacted for a longer period of time as IT scrambles to try to return the application to service. Recovery from any type of backup device may be too slow. In either case it is important to start considering how to build storage proof applications.

As drive capacities increase the time it takes to rebuild a RAID set after a drive failure can now take days in some cases. The chances of a second or even third drive failing during that rebuild process also increases. There is also the impact on performance during the rebuild process. The more you allocate storage processing toward the rebuild effort the faster the rebuild occurs but the slower the application performs. If you allocate more processing toward the application the rebuild process slows down and you are exposed to additional drive failures for a longer period of time.

As we discuss in our recent article "What's Missing From Your Disaster Recovery Plan?" application or operating system clusters often won't help much here. Most rely on shared storage. If that storage fails there is a chance that your application cluster just failed along with it. Most operating system level clustering technologies won't detect specific application failure nor will they monitor performance conditions.

There are a few ways to protect your application from its storage. The first is a better storage system with multiple, more than two, controllers that are resilient to a storage software failure, meaning you can roll a storage software upgrade to each processor. There is also a growing number of backup applications that allow data to be served from the backup device. The third option is to use failover applications that can make sure that application data is being written to two separate storage systems at the same time. The use of software would allow the deployment of a more mid-range storage solution to support an enterprise class storage system. Most of these software solutions will work across applications and not require special versions of operating systems. Some are even application aware, so they can detect an in-application failure or performance degradation.

Armed with this level of resiliency, applications can now be kept available even if the worst case local disaster occurs, a storage system failure. Too often we focus on getting data out of the data center, when in reality the data center is fine. It's these inside the data center failures that really get you into trouble, a software based tool is something to look into to make those troubles go away.

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
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-30480
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-09
Zoom Chat through 2021-04-09 on Windows and macOS allows certain remote authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code without user interaction. An attacker must be within the same organization, or an external party who has been accepted as a contact. NOTE: this is specific to the Zoom Chat softw...
CVE-2021-21194
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-09
Use after free in screen sharing in Google Chrome prior to 89.0.4389.114 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2021-21195
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-09
Use after free in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 89.0.4389.114 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2021-21196
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-09
Heap buffer overflow in TabStrip in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 89.0.4389.114 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2021-21197
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-09
Heap buffer overflow in TabStrip in Google Chrome prior to 89.0.4389.114 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.