Sorry been really hammered recently, just spent the last two weeks in Atlanta doing a bunch of data center work(and the previous week or two planning for that trip), many nights didn't get back to the hotel until after 7AM .. But got most of it done..still have a lot more to do though from remote.
I know there has been some neat 3PAR announcements recently I plan to try to cover that soon.
In the meantime onto a new thing to me: two factor authentication. I recently went through preparations for PCI compliance and among those things we needed two factor authentication on remote access. I had never set up nor used two factor before. I am aware of the common approach of using a keyfob or mobile app or something to generate random codes etc. Seemed kind of, I don't know, not user friendly.
In advance of this I was reading a random thread on slashdot something related to two factor, and someone pointed out the company Duo Security as one option. The PCI consultants I was working with had not used it and had proposed another (self hosted) option which involved integrating our OpenLDAP with it, along with radius and mysql and a mobile app or keyfob with codes and well it just all seemed really complicated(compounded by the fact that we needed to get something deployed in about a week). I especially did not like the having to type in a code bit. I mean it wasn't too much before that I got a support request from a non technical user trying to login to our VPN - she would login and the website would prompt her to download & install the software. She would download the software (but not install it) and think it wasn't working - then try again (download and not install). I wanted something simpler.
So enter Duo Security, a SaaS platform for two factor authentication that integrates with quite a bit of back end things including lots of SSL and IPSec VPNs (and pretty much anything that speaks Radius which seems to be standard with two factor).
They tie it all up into a mobile app that runs on several different major mobile platforms both phone and tablet. The kicker for them is there are no codes. I haven't seen any other two factor systems personally that are like this (have only observed maybe a dozen or so, by no means am I an expert at this). The ease of use comes in two forms:
Inline self enrollment for our SSL VPN
Initial setup is very simple, once the user types their username and password to login to the SSL VPN (which is browser based of course), an iframe kicks in (how this magic works I do not know) and they are taken through a wizard that starts off looking something like this
No separate app, no out of band registration process.
By comparison (what prompted me to write this now) is I just went through a two factor registration process for another company (which requires it now) who uses something called Symantec Validation & ID Protection which is also a mobile app. Someone had to call me on the phone, I told them my Credential ID, and a security code, then I had to wait for the 2nd security code and told them that, and that registered my device with whatever they use. Compared to Duo this is a positively archaic solution.
Yet another service provider I interact with regularly recently launched (and is pestering me to sign up for) two factor authentication - they too use these old fashioned codes. I've been hit with more two factor related things in the past month than in the past probably 5 years or something.
By contrast the self enrollment in Duo is simple, requires no interaction on my part, users can enroll whenever they want. They can even register multiple devices on their own, and add/delete devices if they wish.
Don't have a mobile app? Duo can use those same old fashioned key codes too(by their or 3rd party keyfob or mobile app), or they can send you a SMS message, or make a voice call to you (the prompt basically says hit any button on the touch tone phone to acknowledge the 2nd factor -- of course that phone# has to be registered with them).
Simply press a button to acknowledge 2nd factor
The other easy part is there is of course no codes to have to transcribe from a device to the computer. If you are using the mobile app, upon login you get a push notification from the app (in my experience more often than not this comes in less than 2 seconds after I try to login). The app doesn't have to be running (it runs in the background even if you reboot your phone). I get a notification in Android (in my case) that looks like this:
I obscured the IP address and the company name just to try to keep this not associated with the company I work for. If you have the app running in the foreground you can see a full screen login request similar to the smaller one above. If for some reason you are not getting the push notification you can use tell the app to poll the Duo service for any pending notifications(only had to do that once so far).
The mobile app also has one of those number generator things so you can use that in the event you don't have a data connection on the phone. In the event the Duo service is off line you have the option of disabling 2nd factor automatically(default) so them being down doesn't stop you from getting access, or if you prefer ultra security you can tell the system to prevent any users from logging in if the 2nd factor is not available.
Normally I am not one for SaaS type stuff - really the only exception is if the SaaS provides something that I can't provide myself. In this case the simple two factor stuff, the self enrollment, the ability to support SMS and phone voice calls(of which about a half dozen of my users have opted to use) is not anything I could of setup in a short time frame anyway (our PCI consultants were not aware of any comparable solution - and they had not worked with Duo before).
Duo claims to be able to setup in just a few minutes - for me the reality was a little different, the instructions they had were only half what I needed for our main SSL VPN, I had to resort to instructions from our VPN appliance maker to make up the difference (and even then I was really confused, until support explained it to me. Their instructions were specifically for two factor on IOS devices though applied to my scenario as well). For us the requirement is that the VPN device talk to BOTH LDAP and Radius. LDAP stores the groups that users belong to, and those groups determine what level of network access they get. Radius is the 2nd factor(or in the case of our IPSec VPN the first factor too more on that in a moment). In the end it took me probably 2-3 hours to figure it out, about half of that was wondering why I couldn't login(because I hadn't setup the VPN->LDAP link so the authentication wasn't getting my group info so I was not getting any network permissions).
So for our main SSL VPN, I had to configure a primary and a secondary authentication, and initially with Duo I just kept it in pass through mode (only talking to them and not any other authentication source) because the SSL VPN was doing the password auth via LDAP.
When I went to hook up our IPSec VPN that was a different configuration, that did not support dual auth of both LDAP and Radius, it could do LDAP group lookups and password auth with radius though. So I put the Duo proxy in a more normal configuration which meant I needed another Radius server that was integrated with our LDAP(which runs on the same VM as the Duo proxy on a different port) that the Duo proxy could talk to(talks to localhost) in order to authenticate passwords. So the IPSec VPN would send a radius request to the Duo proxy which would then send that information to another Radius (integrated with LDAP) and to their SaaS platform, and give a single response back to allow or deny the user.
At the end of the day the SSL VPN ends up authenticating the user's password twice (once via LDAP once via RADIUS), but other than being redundant there is no harm.
Here is what the basic architecture looks like, this graphic is more ugly than my official one since I wanted to hide some of the details, you can get the gist of it though
The SSL VPN supported redundant authentication schemes, so if one Duo proxy was down it would fail back to another one, the problem was the timeout was too long, it would take upwards of 3 minutes to login(and you are in danger of the login timing out). So I setup a pair of Duo proxies and am load balancing between them with a layer 7 health check. If a failure occurs there is no delay in login and it just works better.
As the image shows I have integrated SSH logins with Duo as well in a couple of cases, there is no inline pretty self enrollment, but if you happen to not be enrolled, the two factor process with spit out a url to put into your browser upon first login to the SSH host to enroll in two factor.
I deployed the setup to roughly 120 users a few weeks ago, and within a few days roughly 50-60 users had signed up. Internal IT said there were zero - count 'em zero - help desk tickets related to the new system, it was that easy and functional to use. My biggest concern going into this whole project was tight timelines and really no time for any sort of training. Duo security made that possible (even without those timelines I still would of preferred this solution -- or at least this type of solution assuming there is something else similar on the market I am not aware of any).
My only support tickets to-date with them were two users who needed to re-register their devices(because they got new devices). Currently we are on the cheaper of the two plans which does not allow self management of devices. So I just login to the Duo admin portal, delete their phone and they can re-enroll at their leisure.
Duo's plans start as low as $1/user/month. They have a $3/user/month enterprise package which gives more features. They also have an API package for service providers and stuff which I think is $3/user/year (with a minimum number of users).
I am not affiliated with Duo in any way, not compensated by them, not bribed not given any fancy discounts.. but given I have written brief emails to the two companies that have recently deployed two factor I thought I would write this so I could point them and others to my story here to get more insight on a better way to do two factor authentication.
Well I suppose it is finally out, or at least in a "limited" way. NetApp apparently is releasing their ground-up rewrite all Flash product Flash Ray, based on a new "MARS" operating system (not related to Ontap).
When I first heard about MARS I heard some promising things, I suppose all of those things were just part of the vision, obviously not where the product is today on launch day. NetApp has been carefully walking back expectations all year. Which turned out to be a smart move, but it seems they didn't go far enough.
To me it is obvious that they felt severe market pressures and could no longer risk not going to market without their next gen platform available. It's also obvious that Ontap doesn't cut it for flash or they wouldn't of built Flash Ray to begin with.
But shipping a system that only supports a single controller I don't care if it's a controlled release or not - giving any customer such a system under any circumstance other than alpha-quality testing just seems absurd.
The "vision" they have is still a good one, on paper anyway -- I'm really curious how long it takes them to execute on that vision -- given the time it took to integrate the Spinmaker stuff into Ontap. Will it take several years?
In the meantime while your waiting for this vision to come out I wonder what NetApp will offer to get people to want to use this product vs any one of the competing solutions out there. Perhaps by the time this vision is complete this first or second generation of systems will be obsolete anyway.
Current FlashRay system seems to ship with less than 10TB of usable flash (in one system).
On a side note there was some chatter recently about a upcoming EMC XtremIO software update that apparently requires total data loss (or backup & restore) to perform. I suppose that is a sign that the platform is 1) not mature and 2) not designed right(not fully virtualized).
I told 3PAR management back at HP Discover - three years ago they could of counted me as among the people who did not believe 3PAR architecture would be able to adapt to this new era of all flash. I really didn't have confidence at that time. What they've managed to accomplish over the past two years though has just blown me away, and gives me confidence their architecture has many years of life left to it. The main bit missing still is compression - though that is coming.
My new all flash array is of course a 7450 - to start with 4 controllers and ~27TB raw flash (16x1.92TB SSDs), a pair of disk shelves so I can go to as much as ~180TB raw flash (in 8U) without adding any shelves (before compression/dedupe of course). Cost per GB is obviously low(relative to their competition), performance is high(~105k IOPS @ 90% write in RAID 10 @ sub 1ms latency - roughly 20 fold faster than our existing 3PAR F200 with 80x15k RPM in RAID 5 -- yes my workloads are over 90% write from a storage perspective), and they have the mature, battle hardened 3PAR OS (used to be named InformOS) running on it.
As a former Sprint customer for more than a decade I though this was interesting news.
My last post about Sprint was appropriately titled "Can Sprint do anything else to drive me away as a customer". I left Sprint less because I did not like them/service/etc and really more because I wanted to use the HP Pre 3 which was GSM, which meant AT&T (technically could of used T-Mobile but the Pre 3 didn't support all of T-mobile's 3G frequencies which meant degraded service coverage). So I was leaving Sprint regardless but they certainly didn't say or do anything that made me want to second guess that decision.
Anyway, today Sprint announces a big new fancy family plan that is better than the competition.
Except there is one glaring problem with this plan
[..]you’ll have to sign-up between Aug. 22 and Sept. 30, and current subscribers cannot apply.
Yeah, Sprint loves their customers.
On that note I thought this comment was quite interesting on El Reg:
[..]They combine Verizon-level arrogance with truly breath-taking incompetence into one slimy package. Their network stinks, it's the slowest of the Big Four (and not by a small margin, either), their customer service makes Comcast look good[..]
I just upgraded my Akismet plugin for the first time in a long time and this version gives me all sorts of fun stats about the spam that comes through here (they don't count my posts as SPAM but maybe they should consider that).
Anyway, the first one was somewhat startling to me, perhaps it shouldn't be but it was anyway, I had to go back and look when I told wordpress to close comments off on posts older than 90 days (that was done entirely to limit impact of spam see side bar I have a note about re-opening comments if you wish to comment on an older post for a temporary amount of time.
So fortunately my apache logs go back to December 19 2013 as when I did this. Behold the impact!
The last 5 months of 2013 generated 97,055 spam, vs the first 8 months(so far) of 2014 has generated 6,360 spam (not even as much as August 2013 alone).
Next up is the all time spam history, which just goes back to 2012, I guess they were not collecting specifics on stats before that I have been a subscriber to this service for longer than that for sure.
I've never really managed spam here, I rarely look at what is being blocked well there is so much(even now).
(here is a link to in depth analysis on the issue)
Fortunately I didn't notice any direct impact to anything I personally use. But I first got notification from one of the data center providers we use that they were having network problems they traced it down to memory errors and they frantically started planning for emergency memory upgrades across their facilities. My company does not and has never relied upon this data center for network connectivity so it never impacted us.
A short time later I noticed a new monitoring service that I am using sent out an outage email saying their service providers were having problems early this morning and they had migrated customers away from the affected data center(s).
Then I contacted one of the readers of my blog whom I met a few months ago and told him the story of my data center that is having this issue which sounded similar to a story he told me at the time about his data center provider. He replied with a link to this Reddit article which talks about how the internet routing table exceeded 512,000 routes for the first time today, and that is a hard limit in some older equipment which causes them to either fail, or to perform really slowly as some routes have to be processed in software instead of hardware.
I also came across this article (which I commented on) which mentions similar problems but no reference to BGP or routing tables (outside my comments at the bottom).
[..]as part of a widespread issue impacting major network providers including Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon.
One of my co-workers said he was just poking around and could find no references to what has been going on today other than the aforementioned Reddit article. I too am surprised if so many providers are having issues that this hasn't made more news.
(UPDATE - here is another article from zdnet)
I looked at the BGP routing capacity of some core switches I had literally a decade ago and they could scale up to 1 million unique routes of BGP4 routes in hardware, and 2 million non unique (not quite sure what the difference is anything beyond static routing has never been my thing). I recall seeing routers again many years ago that could hold probably 10 times that (I think the main distinction between a switch and a router is the CPU and memory capacity ? at least for the bigger boxes with dozens to hundreds of ports?)
So it's honestly puzzling to me how any service provider could be impacted by this today. How any equipment not capable of handling 512k routes is still in use in 2014 (I can understand for smaller orgs but not service providers). I suppose this also goes to show that there is wide spread lack of monitoring of these sorts of metrics. In the Reddit article there is mention of talks going on for months people knew this was coming -- well apparently not everyone obviously.
Someone wasn't watching the graphs.
I'm planning on writing a blog post on the aforementioned monitoring service I recently started using soon too, I've literally spent probably five thousand hours over the past 15 years doing custom monitoring stuff and this thing just makes me want to cry it's so amazingly powerful and easy to use. In fact just yesterday I had someone email me about a MRTG document I wrote 12 years ago and how it's still listed on the MRTG site even today (I asked the author to remove the link more than a year ago that was the last time someone asked me about it, that site has been offline for 10 years but is still available in the internet archive).
This post was just a quickie inspired by my co-worker who said he couldn't find any info on this topic, so hey maybe I'm among the first to write about it.
I got back from the longest road trip I've ever personally driven anyway to-date on Tuesday.
Pictures in case your interested, I managed to cut them down to roughly 600:
- Yosemite (mainly Glacier Point)
- Las Vegas (just a few pics)
- Lake Mead
- Hoover Dam
- HP Discover (just a few pics)
- Red Rock Canyon (near Vegas)
- Grand Canyon (north end)
- Sedona, AZ
- Misc AZ
I decided to take the scenic route and went through Yosemite on the way over, specifically to see Glacier Point, a place I wasn't aware of and did not visit on my last trip through Yosemite last year. I ended up leaving too late so managed to get to Glacier point and take some good pictures, though by the time I was back on the normal route it was pretty much too dark to take pictures of anything else in Yosemite. I sped over towards Tonopah, NV for my first night's stay before heading to Vegas the next day. That was a fun route, at least once I got near the Nevada border at that time of night I didn't see anyone on the road for a good 30-40 or more miles (had to slow down on some areas of the road I was getting too much air! literally!). Though I did encounter some wildlife playing in the road, fortunately managed to avoid casualties.
Las Vegas area
I took a ferry tour on Lake Mead, that was pretty neat (was going to say cool but damn was it hot as hell there my phone claimed 120 degrees from it's ambient temp sensor, car said it was 100). That ferry is the largest boat on the lake by far, and there wasn't many people on there for that particular tour on that day, maybe 40 or so out of probably 250-300 that it can hold. I was surprised given the gajillions of gallons of water right there that the surrounding area was still so dry and barren, so the pictures I took weren't as good as I thought they might of been otherwise.
I went to the Hoover dam for a few minutes at least, couldn't go inside as I had my laptop bag with me(wasn't checked into hotel yet) and they wouldn't let me in with the bag, and I wasn't going to leave it in my car!
(you can see all of my Discover related posts here)
A decent chunk of it was in Las Vegas at HP Discover where I am grateful for the wonderful folks over there which really made the time quite pleasant.
I probably wouldn't attend an event like Discover even though I know people at HP if it weren't for the more personalized experience that we got. I don't like to wander around show floors and go into fixed sessions, I have never gotten anything out of that sort of thing.
Being able to talk in a somewhat more private setting in a room on the show floor with various groups was helpful. I didn't learn too much new things, but was able to confirm several ideas I already had in my head.
I did meet David Scott, head of HP storage for the first time, and ran into him again at the big HP party and he came over and chatted with Calvin Zito and myself for a good 30 minutes. He's quite a guy I was very impressed. I thought it was funny how he poked fun at the storage startups during the 3PAR announcements. It was very interesting to hear his thoughts on some topics. Apparently he reads most/all of my blog posts and my comments on The Register too.
We also went up on the High Roller at night which was nice, though couldn't take any good pictures, was too dark and most things just ended up blurry.
All in all it was a good time, met some cool people, had some good discussions.
I was in the neighborhood, so I decided to check out Arizona again, maybe for the last time. I was there a couple of times in the past to visit a friend who lived in the Tuscon area but he moved away early this year. I did plan to visit Sedona the last time I was in AZ, but decided to skip it in favor of NFL playoffs. So I went to AZ again in part to visit Sedona which I had heard was pretty.
Part of the expected route to Sedona was closed off due to the recent fire(s), so I had to take a longer way around.
I also decided to visit the Grand Canyon (north end), and was expecting to visit the south end the same day but that food poisoning hit me pretty good right about the time I got to the north end, so I was only there about 45 minutes and I had to go straight back to the hotel (~200 miles away). I still managed to get some good pictures though. There is a little trail that goes out to the edge there, though for the most part had no hand rails, was pretty scary to me anyway being so close to a very big drop off.
Food poisoning settled down by Monday morning and I was able to get out and about after my company asked me to extend my stay to support a big launch (which turned out to be nothing fortunately) and visit more places before I headed back early Tuesday morning. I went through Vegas again and made a couple pit stops before making the long trek back home.
Was a pretty productive trip though got quite a bit accomplished I suppose. One thing I wanted to do is get a picture of my car next to a "Welcome to Sedona" sign to send to one of my former bosses. There was a "secret" project at that company to move out of a public cloud and it was so controversial that my boss gave it a code name of Sedona so we wouldn't upset people in earlier days of the project. So I sent him that pic and he liked it
One concern I had on my trip is my car has a time bomb ticking waiting for the engine to explode. I've been planning on getting that fixed the next time I am in Seattle, I think I am still safe for the time being given the mileage. The dealership closest to me is really bad (and I complained loudly about them to Nissan) so I will not go there, and the next closest is pretty far away, the operation to repair the problem is a 4-5 hour one and I don't want to stick around. Besides I really love the service department at the dealership that I bought my car at, and I'll be back in that area soon enough anyway (for a visit).
(Standard disclaimer HP covered my hotel and stuff while in Vegas etc etc...)
I should be out sight seeing but have been stuck in my hotel room here in Sedona, AZ due to the worst food poisoning I've ever had from food I ate on Friday night.
X As a service
The trend towards "as a service" as what seems to be an accounting thing more than anything else to shift dollars to another column in the books continues with HP's Facility as a service.
HP will go so far as to buy you a data center(the actual building), fill it with equipment and rent it back to you for some set fee - with entry level systems starting at 150kW (which would be as few as say 15 x high density racks). They can even manage it end to end if you want them to. I didn't realize myself the extent that their services go to. requires a 5 or 10 year commitment however (has to do with accounting again I believe). HP says they are getting a lot of positive feedback on this new service.
This is really targeted at those that must operate on premise due to regulations and cannot rely on a 3rd party data center provider (colo).
FAAS doesn't cover the actual computer equipment though, that is just the building, power, cooling etc. The equipment can either come from you or you can get it from HP using their Flexible Capacity program. This program also extends to the HP public cloud as well as a resource pool for systems.
Entry level for Flexible capacity we were told was roughly a $500k contract ($100k/year).
Thought this was a good quote
"We have designed more than 65 million square feet of data center space. We are responsible for more than two-thirds of all LEED Gold and Platinum certified data centers, and we’ve put our years of practical experience to work helping many enterprises successfully implement their data center programs. Now we can do the same for you."
Myself I had no idea that was the case, not even close.
(Standard disclaimer HP covered my hotel and stuff while in Vegas etc etc...)
I have tried to be a vocal critic of the whole software defined movement, in that much of it is hype today and has been for a while and will likely to continue to be for a while yet. My gripe is not so much about the approach, the world of "software defined" sounds pretty neat, my gripe is about the marketing behind it that tries to claim we're already there, and we are not, not even close.
I was able to vent a bit with the HP team(s) on the topic and they acknowledged that we are not there yet either. There is a vision, and there is a technology. But there aren't a lot of products yet, at least not a lot of promising products.
Software defined networking is perhaps one of the more (if not the most) mature platforms to look at. Last year I ripped pretty good into the whole idea with good points I thought, basically that technology solves a problem I do not have and have never had. I believe most organizations do not have a need for it either (outside of very large enterprises and service providers). See the link for a very in depth 4,000+ word argument on SDN.
More recently HP tried to hop on the bandwagon of Software Defined Storage, which in their view is basically the StoreVirtual VSA. A product that to me doesn't fit the scope of Software defined, it is just a brand propped up onto a product that was already pretty old and already running in a VM.
Speaking of which, HP considers this VSA along with their ConvergedSystem 300 to be "hyper converged", and least the people we spoke to do not see a reason to acquire the likes of Simplivity or Nutanix (why are those names so hard to remember the spelling..). HP says most of the deals Nutanix wins are small VDI installations and aren't seen as a threat, HP would rather go after the VCEs of the world. I believe Simplivity is significantly smaller.
I've never been a big fan of StoreVirtual myself, it seems like a decent product, but not something I get too excited about. The solutions that these new hyper converged startups offer sound compelling on paper at least for lower end of the market.
The future is software defined
The future is not here yet.
It's going to be another 3-5 years (perhaps more). In the mean time customers will get drip fed the technology in products from various vendors that can do software defined in a fairly limited way (relative to the grand vision anyway).
When hiring for a network engineer, many customers would rather opt to hire someone who has a few years of python experience than more years of networking experience because that is where they see the future in 3-5 years time.
My push back to HP on that particular quote (not quoted precisely) is that level of sophistication is very hard (and expensive) to hire for. A good comparative mark is hiring for something like Hadoop. It is very difficult to compete with the compensation packages of the largest companies offering $30-50k+ more than smaller (even billion $) companies.
So my point is the industry needs to move beyond the technology and into products. Having a requirement of knowing how to code is a sign of an immature product. Coding is great for extending functionality, but need not be a requirement for the basics.
HP seemed to agree with this, and believes we are on that track but it will take a few more years at least for the products to (fully) materialize.
(here is the quick video they showed at Discover)
I'll start off by saying I've never really seriously used any of HP's management platforms(or anyone else's for that matter). All I know is that they(in general not HP specific) seem to be continuing to proliferate and fragment.
HP Oneview 1.1 is a product that builds on this promise of software defined. In the past five years of HP pitching converged systems seeing the demo for Oneview was the first time I've ever shown just a little bit of interest in converged.
HP Oneview was released last October I believe and HP claims something along the lines of 15,000 downloads or installations. Version 1.10 was announced at Discover which offers some new integration points including:
- Automated storage provisioning and attachment to server profiles for 3PAR StoreServ Storage in traditional Fibre Channel SAN fabrics, and Direct Connect (FlatSAN) architectures.
- Automated carving of 3PAR StoreServ volumes and zoning the SAN fabric on the fly, and attaching of volumes to server profiles.
- Improved support for Flexfabric modules
- Hyper-V appliance support
- Integration with MS System Center
- Integration with VMware vCenter Ops manager
- Integration with Red Hat RHEV
- Similar APIs to HP CloudSystem
Oneview is meant to be light weight, and act as a sort of proxy into other tools, such as Brocade's SAN manager in the case of Fibre channel (myself I prefer Qlogic management but I know Qlogic is getting out of the switch business). Though for several HP products such as 3PAR and Bladesystem Oneview seems to talk to them directly.
Oneview aims to provide a view that starts at the data center level and can drill all the way down to individual servers, chassis, and network ports.
However the product is obviously still in it's early stages - it currently only supports HP's Gen8 DL systems (G7 and Gen8 BL), HP is thinking about adding support for older generations but their tone made me think they will drag their feet long enough that it's no longer demanded by customers. Myself the bulk of what I have in my environment today is G7, only recently deployed a few Gen8 systems two months ago. Also all of my SAN switches are Qlogic (and I don't use HP networking now) so Oneview functionality would be severely crippled if I were to try to use it today.
The product on the surface does show a lot of promise though, there is a 3 minute video introduction here.
HP pointed out you would not manage your cloud from this, but instead the other way around, cloud management platforms would leverage Oneview APIs to bring that functionality to the management platform higher up in the stack.
HP has renamed their Insight Control systems for vCenter and MS System Center to Oneview.
The goal of Oneview is automation that is reliable and repeatable. As with any such tools it seems like you'll have to work within it's constraints and go around it when it doesn't do the job.
"If you fancy being able to deploy an ESX cluster in 30 minutes or less on HP Proliant Gen8 systems, HP networking and 3PAR storage than this may be the tool for you." - me
The user interface seems quite modern and slick.
They expose a lot of functionality in an easy to use way but one thing that struck me watching a couple of their videos is it can still be made a lot simpler - there is a lot of jumping around to do different tasks. I suppose one way to address this might be broader wizards that cover multiple tasks in the order they should be done in or something.
(Standard disclaimer HP covered my hotel and stuff while in Vegas etc etc...)
This is a new brand for HP's cloud platform based on OpenStack. There is a commercial version and a community edition. The community edition is pure OpenStack without some of the fancier HP management interfaces on top of it.
"The easiest thing about OpenStack is setting it up - organizations spend the majority of the time simply keeping it running after it is set up."
HP admits that OpenStack has a long way to go before it is considered a mature enterprise application stack. But they do have experience running a large OpenStack public cloud and have hundreds of developers working on the product. In fact HP says that most OpenStack community projects these days are basically run by HP, while other larger contributors (even Rack Space) have pulled back on resource allocation to the project HP has gone in full steam ahead.
HP has many large customers who specifically asked HP to get involved in the project and to provide a solution for them that can be supported end to end. I must admit the prospect does sound attractive, being that you can get HP Storage, Servers, Networking all battle tested and ready to run this new cloud platform, the Openstack platform is by far the biggest weak point today.
It is not there yet though, HP does offer a professional services for the customers entire life cycle of OpenStack deployment.
One key area that has been weak in OpenStack which recently made the news, is the networking component Neutron.
"[..] once you get beyond about 50 nodes, Neutron falls apart"
So to stabilize this component HP integrated support with their SDN controller into the lower levels of Neutron. This allowed it to scale much better and maintain complete compatibility with existing APIs.
That is something HP is doing in several cases, they emphasize very strongly they are NOT building a proprietary solution, and they are NOT changing any of the APIs (they are helping change them upstream) as to break compatibility. They are however adding/moving some things around beneath the API level to improve stability.
The initial cost for the commercial $1,400/server/year which is quite reasonable, I assume that includes basic support. The commercial version is expected to become generally available in the second half of 2014.
Major updates will be released every six months, and minor updates every three months.
Very limited support cycle
One thing that took almost everyone in the room by surprise is the support cycle for this product. Normally enterprise products have support for 3-5 years, Helion has support for a maximum of 18 months. HP says 12 of those months is general support and the last six of those are specifically geared towards migration to the next version, which they say is not a trivial task.
I checked Red Hat's policy as they are another big distribution of OpenStack, and their policy is similar - they had one year of support on version three of their production and have one and a half years on version four (current version). Despite the version numbers apparently version three was the first release to the public.
So given that it should just reinforce the fact that Openstack is not a mature platform at this point and it will take some time before it is, probably another 2-3 years at least. They only recently got the feature that allowed for upgrading the system.
HP does offer a fully integrated ConvergedSystem with Helion, though despite my best efforts I am unable to find a link that specifically mentions Helion or OpenStack.
HP is supporting ESXi and KVM as the initial hypervisors in their Helion. Openstack supports a much wider variety itself but HP is electing those two to begin with anyway. Support for Hyper-V will follow shortly.
HP also offers full indemnification from legal issues as well.
This site has a nice diagram of what HP is offering, not sure if it is an HP image or not so sending you there to see it.
My own suggestion is to steer clear of Openstack for a while yet, give it time to stabilize, don't deploy it just because you can. Don't deploy it because it's today's hype.
If you really, truly need this functionality internally then it seems like HP has by far the strongest offerings from a product and support standpoint(they are willing and able to do everything from design to deployment to operationally running it). Keep in mind depending on scale of deployment you may be constantly planning for the next upgrade (or having HP plan for you).
I would argue that the vast majority of organizations do not need OpenStack (in it's current state) and would do themselves a favor by sticking to whatever they are already using until it's more stable. Your organization may have pains running whatever your running now, but your likely to just trade those pains for other pains going the OpenStack route right now.
When will it be stable? I would say a good indicator will be the support cycle, when HP (or Redhat) starts having a full 3 year support cycle on the platform (with back ported fixes etc) that means it's probably hit a good milestone.
I believe OpenStack will do well in the future, it's just not there yet today.
(Standard disclaimer HP covered my hotel and stuff while in Vegas etc etc...)
I witnessed what I'd like to say is one of the most insane unveiling of a new server in history. It was sort of mimicking the launch of an Apollo space craft. Lots of audio and video from NASA, and then when the system appeared lots of compressed air/smoke (very very loud) and dramatic music.
Here's the full video in 1080p, beware it is 230MB. I have 100Mbit of unlimited bandwidth connected to a fast backbone, will see how it goes.
Apollo is geared squarely at compute bound HPC, and is the result of a close partnership between HP, Intel and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
The challenge HP presented itself with is what would it take to drive a million teraflops of compute. They said with today's technology it would require one gigawatt of power and 30 football fields of space.
Apollo is supposed to help fix that, though the real savings are still limited by today's technology, it's not as if they were able to squeeze 10 fold improvement in performance out of the same power footprint. Intel said they were able to get I want to say 35% more performance out of the same power footprint using Apollo vs (I believe) the blades they were using before, I am assuming in both cases the CPUs were about the same and the savings came mainly from the more efficient design of power/cooling.
They build the system as a rack design, you probably haven't been reading this blog very long but four years ago I lightly criticized HP on their SL series as not being visionary enough in that they were not building for the rack. The comparison I gave was with another solution I was toying with at the time for a project from SGI called CloudRack.
Fast forward to today and HP has answered that, and then some with a very sophisticated design that is integrated as an entire rack in the water cooled Apollo 8000. They have a mini version called the Apollo 6000(If this product was available before today I had never heard of it myself though I don't follow HPC closely), of which Intel apparently already has something like 20,000 servers deployed on this platform.
Anyway one of the keys to this design is the water cooling - it's not just any water cooling though, the water in this case never gets into the server, they use heat pipes on the CPUs and GPUs and transfer the heat to what appears to be a heat sink of some kind that is on the outside of the chassis, which then "melds" with the rack's water cooling system to transfer the heat away from the servers. Power is also managed at a rack level. Don't get me wrong this is far more advanced than the SGI system of four years ago. HP is apparently not giving this platform a very premium price either.
Their claims include:
- 4 X the teraflops per square foot (vs air cooled servers)
- 4 X density per rack per dollar (not sure what the per dollar means but..)
- Deployment possible within days (instead of "years")
- More than 250 Teraflops per rack (the NREL Apollo 8000 system is 1.2 Petaflops in 18 racks ...)
- Apollo 6000 offering 160 servers per rack, and Apollo 8000 having 144
- Some fancy new integrated management platform
- Up to 80KW powering the rack (less if you want redundancy - 10kW per module)
- One cable for ILO management of all systems in the rack
- Can run on water temps as high as 86 degrees F (30 C)
The cooling system for the 8000 goes in another rack, which consumes 1/2 of a rack for a maximum of four server racks. If you need redundancy then I believe a 2nd cooling unit is required so two racks. The cooling system weighs over 2,000 pounds by itself so it appears unlikely that you'd be able to put two of them in a single cabinet.
The system takes in 480V AC and converts it into DC in up to 8x10kW redundant rectifiers in the middle of the rack.
NREL integrated the Apollo 8000 system with their building's heating system, so that the Apollo cluster contributes to heating their entire building so that heat is not wasted.
It looks as if SGI discontinued the product I was looking at four years ago (at the time for a Hadoop cluster). It supported up to 76 dual socket servers in a rack at the time supporting a max of something like 30kW(I don't believe any configuration at the time could draw more than 20kW) and had rack based power distribution as well as rack based cooling(air cooling). It seems as if it was replaced with a newer product called Infinite data cluster which can go up to 80 dual socket servers in an air cooled rack(though GPUs not supported unlike Apollo).
This new system doesn't mean a whole lot to me, I mean I don't deal with HPC so I may never use it but the tech behind it seemed pretty neat, and obviously was interested in HP finally answering my challenge to deploy a system based on an entire rack with rack based power and cooling.
The other thing that stuck out to me was the new management platform, HP said it was another unique management platform that is specific to Apollo which was sort of confusing given I sat through what I thought was a very compelling preview of what HP OneView (the latest version announced today) had to offer which is HP's new converged management interface. Seems strange to me that they would not integrate Apollo into that from the start, but I guess that's what you get from a big company with teams working in parallel.
HP tries to justify this approach by saying there are several unique things in Apollo components so they needed a custom management package. I think they just didn't have time to integrate with OneView, since there is no justification I can think of to not expose those management points via APIs that OneView can call/manage/abstract on behalf of the customer.
It sure looks pretty though(more so in person, I'm sure I'll get a better pic of it on the showroom floor in normal lighting conditions along with pics of the cooling system).
UPDATE - some pics of the compute stuff