Re: the convergence of CM and SM

Reader's note: this topic departed from the original thread titled "[CMS]
the difference between WCM,ECM,LCM,MCM"

We're now discussing the relationship between content management (or any
complex enterprise application environment for that matter) and storage
management (SM) environments. It is absolutely essential for CM users,
solution providers, and vendors to understand the impact on CM design and
implementation as well as the short and long term implications for
information management. Likewise, for the past 24 months we (my
organization) have been busy educating storage vendors, users, and solution
providers to explain the impact on their SM designs and implementations.

Other types of applications aside, content/asset management and storage
management have been on a collision course now for at least the last 4-5
years. Many of you haven't been aware of it simply because storage
technology is [typically] outside of your areas of expertise. I've been part
of the CM industry for the past ten years, and I certainly wasn't aware of
the problem until I began noticing the functional similarities between CM
and SM emerging after 2000.  CM vendors slowly added basic SM functionality
into their products, while SM vendors slowly added basic data management
features into their products. The result: two environments increasingly at
odds over control of corporate information assets.

In the last few posts I touched lightly on the relationship between CM and
SM.  Robert Koberg has a few questions about how it relates to his CM
product.  My response is below.

>Robert Koberg wrote:
> Let me address the points regarding storage management in relation to
> our CMS. I suppose these are crude, but would like your opinion.
> >

Robert, I've deleted your product specifics to shorten this post a bit.
You'll understand why in a few minutes. From your responses it is clear that
I need to explain a few things.

Let's start with storage.

Over the past 10-15 years storage technology evolved from its
direct-attached storage (DAS) roots to today's network-attached storage
(NAS) and storage area network (SAN) architectures.  What is DAS? Basically
server and storage contained in the same box.  Your PC harddrive is direct
attached storage.  The drives sitting in a Compaq Proliant ML are
direct-attached storage. A simple network might look like this:


server         server            server              server
 disks          disks              disks               tapes
    |                    |                      |                       |
    |                    |                      |                       |
    |_________|_network___|__________|


To this day DAS is the dominant storage environment not by choice, but by
legacy.  At least 60-75% of all storage in use today is still DAS. But that
is changing.  Customers are demanding better information access, greater
storage utilization and scalability, easier storage management, and more.
NAS and SAN have evolved to address these issues. And with NAS and SAN an
entire software industry emerged to support the new architectures. In the
world of NAS and SAN the idea is to separate the servers (a.k.a. the hosts)
from the storage subsystems.  One of the many benefits is the ability to
allow multiple hosts to share common storage pools.  An oversimplification
would be:

           host          host          host            the host layer
              |                  |                |
              |                  |                |
              |________|_______|
                                 |
                                 |
                          network                        the network layer
                                 |
                      _____|______
                     |            |             |
                     |            |             |
                  disks    disks    tapes           the storage layer



Now in your responses you were addressing host layer availability,
accessibility, performance, protection, and so forth. That's fine, but I've
been writing about a completely different animal.  Storage management is
about the availability, accessibility, performance, and protection of data
in the storage layer (not applications in the hosts layer).  As more and
more companies move off of DAS and onto NAS/SAN you're going to find
yourself competing on a new playing field.

Content management systems are designed to run in the host layer, while
storage management apps have been implemented all over the place. Some run
in the host layer; some run in the storage network on routers, switches and
appliances; and still others run down on the disk and tape subsystems in the
storage layer.  Storage vendors have done a decent job of making this
storage layer transparent.  Your application wouldn't know the difference
between a volume on your local PC and a virtualized volume composed of
storage devices located throughout your network.  In any case, the storage
management apps, not the content management apps, ultimately rule the data
contained in the storage layer.  In mid-to-large organizations the two
systems are usually managed by completely different IT staff, with little
knowledge of each others' activities.

When storage administrators speak of data backup, replication, migration,
and protection, names like Documentum, Stellent, and Vignette aren't part of
their vocabulary.  They're using tools from the likes of Veritas, CA,
CommVault, HDS, EMC, IBM, HP and dozens of other storage vendors. Once the
I/O leaves the host on which your CMS is located, control is out of your
hands.  They control the bits, bytes, files, and blocks of data. They
control the traffic in the storage fabric.  They can inadvertently (or
purposely) break the delicate relationship between your system and its data
in ways you've never imagined.  Customers might not feel the impact for
days, weeks, months, or even years.

> It is my opinion that large, expensive CMSes are on their way out. I
> don't know about others, but since the first of the year we have seen a
> large increase in customers -- both large and small organizations.
>

I'm not so sure they're on their way out, but they will be the primary
target of partnerships and acquisitions over the next couple of years as
storage vendors seek to fill out their so-called Information Lifecycle
Management portfolios. Price is going to take on an entirely new dimension.

I'll stop rambling now. I think this ought to be plenty for list members to
think about.

What would be extremely helpful to me is feedback from fellow CMS Forum
contributors.

Is this an interesting enough thread to continue?  Have you thought about
these issues?  Have you encountered these issues yet in your organization?
Were you even aware of the risk?

Regards,

Joe

Feel free to read related topics in my blog: www.dmgrc.com/dmg/weblog




_______________________________________________
CMS mailing list
[email protected]
Subscription controls:
http://lists.cms-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/cms
Netiquette FAQ and related CMS lists - [CMS-Forum], [CMS-Meta], [CMS-PR], [CMS-Develop]
http://www.cmsreview.com/NetiquetteFAQ.html