Talk:Storage virtualization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Article Improvements

OK, so I've made a stab at this, hopefully a vast improvement on what was there, but still needs a few bits filled in - and most def needs gramatical checking / wikifying!

Baz whyte 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Suggested structure

The Storage Virtualization topic is currently a stub. I'm adding this comment to outline content I'd like to see:

  • Overview
    • Definition
    • Key concepts
      • Address space remapping
      • Metadata
      • I/O redirection
    • Capabilities
      • Replication
      • Mobility
      • Pooling
      • Volume management
    • Benefits
      • Nondisruptive data migration
      • Improved utilization (pooling + migration)
      • Fewer points of management
    • Risks
      • Backing out a failed implementation
      • Interoperability/vendor support
      • Complexity
      • Metadata management
      • Performance/scaleability
  • Implementation approaches
    • Host-based
      • Logical volume manager
      • File systems (links, CIFS/NFS)
      • Automatic mounting (autofs)
    • Storage device-based
      • RAID
      • Caching
      • Array aggregation/consolidation
    • Network-based
      • Applicance-based vs. switch-based
      • In band vs. out of band
      • SAN (block) vs. NAS (file)

Notice the complete lack of vendor and product references. Some of the storage virtualization technologies are still emerging and others are waning, so it would be hard to give a fair treatment to all. If anyone wants to take that on, be my guest!

Plowden 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll happily start drafting some content as outlined above, may need some grammatical checking, but content wise not a problem (been working in Storage Virt for 5+ years) Agree that leaving vendor specifics and product references out is a good idea - also an unbiased view of implementation approach is needed, as each vendor tends to try and sell theirs as the 'correct' approach. Baz whyte 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. It looks quite good. I may also chip in sometimes. :) --soumসৌমোyasch 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)