Infortrend ESVA Cluster File System Competitor Analysis

Infortrend Technology, Inc.

Date: July, 2011

Infortrend ESVA Cluster File

System Competitor Analysis

Disclaimer

This presentation is for information purpose only. The information contained in this presentation should not be interpreted to be a commitment of Infortrend. Infortrend assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any information

presented in this presentation, and undertakes no obligations to update, or correct any inaccuracy.

INFORTREND MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION. ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY SUCH INFORMATION IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED.

Infortrend may have patents, patent applications, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights covering subject matter in this presentation. Except as expressly provided in any written license agreement from Infortrend, the furnishing of this information does not give you any license to these patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property.

Notes

•

This slide only focuses on comparison with the

competitors we may encounter in the target

media and entertainment market.

•

Competitors who take different solution

approaches from us are compared only in

general architecture, not in details

Please issue special comparison requests if sales have

specific competitor lists for projects and find this slide

inadequate

Agenda

•

SAN Cluster file system + SAN

StorNext

Xsan

•

SAN management software + SAN

MetaSAN

FibreJet

•

NAS

Scale-out NAS

SAN Cluster File System + SAN

•

Competitors

Cluster file system - Quantum StorNext

- MAC Xsan

SAN storage (mid-range) - EMC CX4

- HDS AMS 2000

- HP EVA

- IBM DS5000

- Promise VTrak (Xsan officially-qualified storage)

•

Highlights

Based on proprietary file system - Quantum StorNext : SNFS

- MAC XSAN : XSAN 2.2

Dedicated metadata server

Allow multiple clients to read/write at the same time

StorNext Architecture

StorNext Disadvantages

•

Cost (tier 2 price)

Expensive license and maintenance fees - License

。$7K for HA metadata sever software, $7K for each Windows SAN client, $5K for each Linux SAN client, $25K for 10 Windows LAN clients, $20K for 10 Linux LAN clients

- Maintenance

。$1.5K/year for HA metadata sever software, $1.5K/year for each Windows SAN clients, $1K/year for each Linux SAN client

•

Performance

30-50% inferior to ESVA Cluster File System

•

Integration

StorNext metadata server and LAN gateway server software needs to be installed on the servers users prepared themselves. Not delivered as an end-to-end solution, StorNext may cause compatibility issues.

Xsan Architecture

Xsan Disadvantages

•

Management

To support Windows and Linux clients in Xsan infrastructure, users need to install additional StorNext software. This means additional management and configuration overhead.

•

Storage connectivity

Only support 4G FC storage

•

Performance

40% Inferior To ESVA Cluster System (1R + 1J)

- 750MB/s Read using Xsan 2 + Promise VTrak E-class

•

Configuration

Ever since Apple phased out Xserve rackmount servers on

2011/1/1, XSAN can only be installed on Mac Pro desktop servers. This configuration is difficult to fit in traditional datacenters.

SAN Management Software + SAN

•

Competitors

SAN sharing software

- Tiger Technology metaSAN

- Commandsoft Fibrejet

SAN storage (mid-range)

- EMC CX4

- HDS AMS 2000

- HP EVA

- IBM DS5000

•

Highlights

Following client OS file system, such as NTFS or HFS+

Metadata server can be one of the clients

Some products allow a single volume to be written by only one client at a time

metaSAN Architecture

metaSAN Disadvantages

•

Cost and availability

Using metaSAN with scale-up storage, users need to replace the old storage with a new one so that the performance can be

upgraded. This always causes wasted investment and downtime

Using metaSAN with ESVA, the most ideal scale-out storage*, users need to pay for additional scale-out licenses so that performance can be linearly scaled as RAID storage added.

•

Integration

metaSAN metadata server and metaLAN gateway server software needs to be installed on the servers users prepared themselves. Not delivered as an end-to-end solution, they may cause

compatibility issues.

Note: To justify ESVA as the most ideal scale-out storage, you can refer to ESVA Competitor Analysis.

Fibrejet Architecture

Access control and LAN file sharing ability

built in each client

No need for metadata controller or gateway server

Fibrejet Disadvantages

•

Performance

A single volume can only be written by one client at a time, so the write performance is limited; not suitable for large-scale editing environment

Metadata communication among clients cause performance overhead

•

Integration

Fibrejet software needs to be installed on the servers users

prepared themselves. Not delivered as an end-to-end solution, it may cause compatibility issues.

NAS (Network-Attached Storage)

•

Competitors

Non Scale-out NAS

- NetApp FAS3200/ FAS6200

Scale-out NAS

- EMC Isilon

- HP X9000 Network Storage

- IBM SONAS

•

Highlights

Do not need agent or metadata server

Non scale-out NAS has performance bottleneck

Non Scale-out NAS Approach Architecture

Access control and data storage in a single box

Non Scale-out NAS Approach Disadvantages

•

Cost

To upgrade performance, users can only replace the

old NAS with a new one, which causes wasted

investment

•

Performance

A single NAS system can not achieve such high

performance as ESVA Cluster File system

Scale-out NAS Approach Architecture

HD Clients SD Clients

… _{…………..}

Global Namespace

1G or 10G Ethernet

Randomly access one of the nodes and re-direct access via

Scale-out NAS Approach Disadvantages

•

Performance

Access re-directing effort causes performance

overhead

•

Cost

Scale-out NAS systems are all highly-priced. For

example, 1 x isilon SATA-based system costs $100K

In need of more capacity, Isilon allows users to scale

only by adding additional nodes and not expansion

enclosures

Infortrend Technology, Inc.

Date: July, 2011