Big Blue is working with an undisclosed open-source group on the software and will release the code when the product is generally available in 2003, said David Pease, manager of storage software at IBM's Almaden Research Center and leader of the five-year-old Storage Tank project. In addition, IBM plans to publish the communication method fundamental to the next-generation storage project.
The collaborative approach is the most recent example of IBM trying to capitalise on the momentum of the open-source movement. The company also backs the Linux operating system, the Apache Web server software, the Globus Toolkit for supercomputing networks, and several other projects of the collaborative programming movement.
IBM has tapped into the open-source community as a way to speed the development and adoption of technologies it favours and to give itself more cachet with in-the-know programmers. The company devotes many of its own resources to open-source projects, most notably its Linux Technology Center.
Storage Tank--fleetingly code-named Golden Retriever--is a technology designed to get more use out of existing storage systems and make them easier to manage. With Storage Tank, existing systems can be linked, so vaster amounts of data can be stored.
The technology works by using a different way of keeping track of descriptive information--"metadata" such as physical locations, file sizes or access permissions--that accompanies the actual content within the files.
Where most storage systems include this metadata in the storage system itself, Storage Tank spreads the information across a group of metadata servers, lower-end dual-processor Intel servers running Linux.
The approach permits several advantages. For one thing, it can keep track of a lot of files. IBM's goal is for the system to control as many as a billion files, said Jai Menon, an IBM fellow and storage research manager at Big Blue's Almaden Research Center.
In addition, files of a certain type can be automatically moved to a particular storage "pool." For example, video and audio streaming files can be physically stored automatically on a particular storage device suited to that task, while infrequently used text files can be stored on a device with lower performance.
3%
2%
