State of Cloud Storage Providers Industry …...á Peer1 Hosting (powered by EMC ATMOS) á Rackspace Cloud It is worth noting that EMC Atmos Online originally passed performance, stability

State of Cloud Storage Providers Industry Benchmark Report: A Comparison of Performance, Stability and Scalability

Executive SummaryCloud storage is a young industry, but one that clearly has great promise for growth. Large organizations such as

1HWøL[��$PD]RQ��*RRJOH��1%&�DQG�=\QJD�DOUHDG\�GHSHQG�RQ�FORXG�VWRUDJH�WR�PDQDJH�DQG�UXQ�WKHLU�EXVLQHVVHV��

and cloud storage providers have only just begun to serve smaller enterprises. The unique architecture of the

cloud not only offers unlimited storage capacity, but also lays the groundwork for eliminating the daily grind

of data backup thanks to the cloud’s constant replication of data. As a result, this new market is populated by

many competing cloud storage providers (CSPs) offering varying degrees of performance and reliability. Since

no two CSPs are created equal, potential customers need to identify those that can deliver the appropriate

SULFH�SHUIRUPDQFH�OHYHOV�WR�PHHW�WKHLU�VSHFL÷F�EXVLQHVV�QHHGV��EXW�IHZ�SRVVHVV�WKH�WLPH��UHVRXUFHV�RU�LQ�KRXVH�

H[SHUWLVH�WR�SHUIRUP�D�WKRURXJK�DQG�SURDFWLYH�HYDOXDWLRQ��

In April 2009, Nasuni began an ongoing and unprecedented evaluation

process of CSPs based on a wide array of factors. Nasuni offers enterprise

FXVWRPHUV�DFFHVV�WR�LWV�6WRUDJH�6HUYLFHV��ZKLFK�FRPELQH�RQ�SUHPLVH�

security and snapshot technologies with the vast raw storage resources

RI�VRPH�RI�WKH�OHDGLQJ�&63V��%\�EHLQJ�&63�DJQRVWLF��1DVXQL�FDQ�VHOHFW�

IURP�DPRQJ�WKH�EHVW�SURYLGHUV�IRU�LWV�FXVWRPHUV��%XW�WR�GHWHUPLQH�ZKLFK�

SURYLGHUV�ZHUH�WKH�EHVW�÷W�WR�PHHW�VSHFL÷F�QHHGV�1DVXQL�FRPPLWWHG�WR�

completing rigorous CSP testing – a process that took more than two

years and is still ongoing. It provides an unprecedented view of the real

performance of the cloud. Indeed, these tests enabled Nasuni to

correctly predict that two CSPs would likely soon leave the market due

to poor performance.

7KLV�WHFKQLFDO�WHVW�ORRNHG�DW�KRZ�&63V�SHUIRUP�LQ�D�VSHFL÷F�XVH�FDVH��

QDPHO\��KRZ�WKH\�SHUIRUP�IRU�PLG�VL]HG�RUJDQL]DWLRQV�WKDW�ZDQW�WR�WDNH�

advantage of the cloud for primary storage, data protection and disaster

UHFRYHU\��6RPH�SURYLGHUV��IRU�H[DPSOH��KDYH�EXLOW�WKHLU�FORXGV�WR�RSWLPL]H�

WKHLU�DELOLW\�WR�GHOLYHU�YHU\�ODUJH�PHGLD�÷OHV�DFURVV�WKH�:HE��1DVXQL�GLG�

not test for every possible use case.

$V�WKH�÷UVW�RI�LWV�NLQG��WKLV�UHSRUW�UHYHDOV�WKH�÷QGLQJV�RI�WKLV�RQJRLQJ�WHVWLQJ�DQG�HYDOXDWLRQ�SURFHVV��IRFXVLQJ�RQ�

three key areas of importance for organizations that want to take advantage of cloud storage:

Page 1 / www.nasuni.com / [email protected]

2011 © Nasuni Corporation, All Rights Reserved

+1.508.433.6200 / +1.800.208.3418 International US and Canada only

$V�WKH�÷UVW�RI�LWV�NLQG��

this report reveals

WKH�÷QGLQJV�RI�WKLV�

ongoing testing and

HYDOXDWLRQ�SURFHVV��

focusing on three key

areas of importance for

organizations that want

to take advantage of

cloud storage.

http://www.nasuni.com

mailto:[email protected]

Performance

The cloud needs to respond

quickly to queries and not slow

when stressed. If performance is

poor, organizations will spend too

much time waiting on the cloud

and productivity will suffer.

Stability/Availability

If organizations are to trust

critical data to the cloud, it must

be available at all times.

Scalability

One of the primary advantages

of cloud storage is unlimited

FDSDFLW\��:LWKRXW�WKLV�SURSHUW\��

the cloud is much less valuable

to organizations.

8OWLPDWHO\��RQO\�VL[�RI��SURYLGHUV�SDVVHG�1DVXQLÚV�WHVWLQJ�

á� Amazon S3

á� AT&T Synaptic Storage as a Service (powered by EMC ATMOS)

á� Microsoft Azure

á� Nirvanix

á� Peer1 Hosting (powered by EMC ATMOS)

á� Rackspace Cloud

It is worth noting that EMC Atmos Online originally passed performance, stability and scalability testing.

However, EMC discontinued this service in 2010 and now sells EMC Atmos as a platform solution that enables

RWKHU�RUJDQL]DWLRQV�WR�KRVW�WKHLU�RZQ�FORXGV��%DVHG�RQ�DGGLWLRQDO�WHVWLQJ��WKH�TXDOLW\�RI�VHUYLFH�IURP�WKRVH�ZKR�

use ATMOS to provide CSP services varies a great deal from provider to provider.

Two CSPs emerged as top performers in the Nasuni study: Amazon S3 and Microsoft Azure, with Amazon S3

being the standout across all evaluation areas.

MethodologySince April 2009, Nasuni has conducted ongoing tests of the 16 largest CSPs. These tests are tiered so CSPs must

SDVV�WKH�÷UVW�WHVW�EHIRUH�SURFHHGLQJ�WR�WKH�QH[W�WHVW��7KH�÷YH�WHVWLQJ�VWDJHV�DUH�DV�IROORZV�

á� API Integration, to ensure that it is possible to test the service at all. Nasuni wrote a custom connector in

Python for each provider according to the documentation of the CSP’s API and available best practices. The

test itself was run through Python’s own unit testing framework to provide pass/fail results for each of the

basic APIs.

á� Unit Testing, in which larger software components are broken down into their building blocks (units) and

then tested for inputs, outputs and error cases. This enables Nasuni to determine whether each CSP can

VXFFHVVIXOO\�KDQGOH�EDVLF�IXQFWLRQV�VXFK�DV�ZULWLQJ�DQG�UHDGLQJ�GLIIHUHQW�÷OH�VL]HV��SURYLGLQJ�DFFHVV�IURP�

multiple locations simultaneously, and writing to the cloud with one connection and then reading the same

÷OH�EDFN�IURP�D�GLIIHUHQW�FRQQHFWLRQ�




Two CSPs emerged as top

SHUIRUPHUV�LQ�WKH�1DVXQL�

study: Amazon S3 and

Microsoft Azure��ZLWK�

Amazon S3 being the standout

across all evaluation areas.



á� Performance Testing, to measure response time (how quickly one can interact with the cloud), throughput

(how fast data can move back and forth to the cloud), and the impact of a higher level of stress. To do this,

Nasuni imposed a number of variables:

á� Concurrency (multiple simultaneous threads),

á� Object size (ranging from very small to very large), and

á� Workload type��UHDG�YV��ZULWH��DQG�PL[HV�

In performance testing the cloud, location can bias or affect the

provider being tested. Tests on Amazon S3 from Amazon EC2 yield

better results than Amazon S3 tests from Rackspace Cloud Servers,

IRU�H[DPSOH��7R�PLQLPL]H�ORFDWLRQ�ELDV��1DVXQL�UDQ�EHQFKPDUNV�IURP�

three different geographic areas and hosting companies using the

power of cloud computing. In addition, some cloud storage

SURYLGHUV�KDYH�RSWLPL]HG�IRU�ODUJH�÷OHV�DQG�VPDOOHU�REMHFW�FRXQWV��

ZKLOH�RWKHUV�KDYH�H[FOXVLYHO\�IRFXVHG�RQ�VPDOOHU�÷OHV��1DVXQLÚV�

REMHFW�VL]H�WHVWV�HQDEOHG�LW�WR�÷QG�WKH�UDUH�IHZ�WKDW�SHUIRUP�ZHOO�DW�

both ends of the spectrum.

á� Stability Testing,�WR�DVVHVV�WKH�ORQJ�WHUP�UHOLDELOLW\�RI�HDFK�&63��1DVXQL�SHUIRUPV�WKLV�WHVW�WKURXJK�WKH�

IROORZLQJ�SURFHVV��ZKLFK�LV�UHSHDWHG�HYHU\�÷YH�PLQXWHV�RQ�DQ�RQJRLQJ�EDVLV��

1. :ULWH�D�÷OH�WR�WKH�FORXG�

2. ,QIUHTXHQWO\�UHDG�EDFN�D�÷OH�IURP�WKH�FORXG�IURP�D�SUHYLRXV�ZULWH��QRW�WKH�PRVW�UHFHQW�RQH��DQG�

FRPSDUH�LW�DJDLQVW�H[SHFWHG�GDWD��DQG

3. 'HOHWH�DQ�ROG�÷OH�IURP�WKH�FORXG�

7KH�UHVXOWV�RI�WKLV�WHVW�UHYHDO�UHVSRQVH�WLPH�FRQVLVWHQF\�DQG�WKH�IUHTXHQF\�DQG�GXUDWLRQ�RI�&63�GRZQWLPH��

1DVXQL�PHDVXUHV�ORQJ�WHUP�UHOLDELOLW\�IURP�VHYHUDO�ORFDWLRQV�VR�WKDW�UHVXOWV�DUH�QRW�FRORUHG�E\�ORFDO�

connectivity issues.

7R�SDVV��WKH�SURYLGHU�KDG�WR�SHUIRUP�ZLWK�QR�GDWD�ORVV�DQG�KDYH�QR�VLJQL÷FDQW�XQSODQQHG�RXWDJHV��DOWKRXJK�

SODQQHG�RXWDJHV�E\�&63V�DUH�DQ�LQGXVWU\�FRQFHUQ��(QWHUSULVHV�VKRXOG�H[SHFW�&63V�WR�EH�DYDLODEOH��RI�

the time with no planned outages.

á� Scalability Testing, to understand how well each CSP handles high object counts. Different clouds have

GLIIHUHQW�GH÷QLWLRQV�RI�ÜKLJK�REMHFW�FRXQWV�Ý�,Q�DQ�LGHDO�ZRUOG��1DVXQL�ZRXOG�FRQGXFW�DQ�HQGOHVV�WHVW�WKDW�

ZULWHV�DV�PDQ\�÷OHV�RI�GLIIHUHQW�VL]HV�DV�LW�FRXOG�WR�WKH�FORXG�LQ�SHUSHWXLW\�DQG�ZRXOG�PHDVXUH�ZULWLQJ�

UHVSRQVH�WLPH�WR�GHWHUPLQH�ZKHWKHU�LW�GHJUDGHV�DV�WKH�V\VWHP�÷OOV�XS��7KH�LGHDO��RI�FRXUVH��LV�QRW�IHDVLEOH��

since most CSPs charge per operation, and testing costs would quickly become unsustainable.

7R�SDVV��WKH�VHUYLFH�FRXOG�

not break under testing.

$GGLWLRQDOO\��SURYLGHUV�

failed if they requested

WKDW�1DVXQL�FHDVH�WHVWLQJ�

because the test was

overstressing their cloud.






)RU�LWV�WHVWLQJ��1DVXQL�GH÷QHV�ÜVFDODELOLW\Ý�EDVHG�RQ�WKH�IROORZLQJ�

1. +RZ�PDQ\�REMHFWV�RQH�FDQ�SODFH�LQ�WKH�FORXG�

2. :KHWKHU�SHUIRUPDQFH�UHPDLQV�FRQVWDQW�DV�RQH�÷OOV�WKH�FORXG�RU�LI�LW�GHJUDGHV�RYHU�WLPH��and

3. The reliability of the cloud over a long period of sustained high operation rates.

)RU�WKLV�WHVW�1DVXQL�ZURWH�VPDOO�÷OHV��.%��ZLWK�PDQ\�WKUHDGV�RI�FRQFXUUHQF\�IRU�VHYHUDO�ZHHNV�RU�DW�OHDVW�

until it hit 100 million objects. As Nasuni did so, it measured and tracked error rates and performance.

To pass, the CSP had to cross the 100 million object threshold successfully without degradation.

Results

Basic Functionality: API and Unit

Nasuni’s testing began with 16 CSPs. The initial qualifying tests set out to determine:

1. Whether it is possible to build a connector for the service

(API testing); and

2. Whether the service can perform basic functions, such as

ZULWLQJ�GLIIHUHQW�÷OH�VL]HV��VLPXOWDQHRXV�DFFHVV��DQG�ZULWLQJ�WR�

WKH�FORXG�ZLWK�RQH�FRQQHFWLRQ�DQG�WKHQ�UHDGLQJ�WKH�VDPH�÷OH�

back from a different connection.

7KH�÷UVW�WZR�VWDJHV�RI�EDVLF�WHVWLQJ�×�$3,�DQG�8QLW�×�ZHHGHG�RXW�PRUH�

WKDQ�RQH�WKLUG�RI�SURYLGHUV��2QO\�RQH�IDLOHG�DW�WKH�$3,�VWDJH��WKRXJK�

VHYHUDO�RWKHUV�UHTXLUHG�PXOWLSOH�SDVVHV�DQG�H[WHQVLYH�GLVFXVVLRQV�RYHU�

several months with technical support to produce a working API.

$W�WKH�XQLW�OHYHO�WHVWLQJ�VWDJH��÷YH�RI�WKH��UHPDLQLQJ�&63V�IDLOHG��1DVXQL�HQFRXQWHUHG�PLVVLQJ��LQFRUUHFW�RU�

LQDSSURSULDWH�GRFXPHQWDWLRQ��DQG�RIWHQ�D�VLPSOH�ZULWH�UHDG�GHOHWH�RSHUDWLRQ�ZRXOG�IDLO��HVSHFLDOO\�LI�TXLFNO\�

H[HFXWHG��0RVW�IDLOXUHV�ZHUH�UHODWHG�WR�WKH�GLVWULEXWLRQ�DQG�DFFHVV�RI�FRQWHQW�ZLWKLQ�WKH�&63��,I�WKH�&63ÚV�

DUFKLWHFWXUH�ZDV�GHVLJQHG�IRU�VORZ�DFFHVV�ZLWK�OHVV�WUDQVDFWLRQDO�RSHUDWLRQV�VXFK�DV�DUFKLYLQJ�÷OHV�RU�VDYLQJ�

photos, Nasuni’s tests would severely stress the system, sometimes to the breaking point.

Performance

$W�WKH�SHUIRUPDQFH�OHYHO��1DVXQL�H[DPLQHG�KRZ�IDVW�&63V�FDQ�ZULWH�DQG�UHDG�÷OHV�LQ�D�YDULHW\�RI�VL]HV��2I�WKH�

��SURYLGHUV�WKDW�TXDOL÷HG�IRU�WKLV�VWDJH�RI�WHVWLQJ��WZR�IDLOHG�GXH�WR�SHUIRUPDQFH�OHYHOV�WKDW�ZHUH�WRR�ORZ�

WR�EH�DFFHSWDEOH�WR�WKH�YDVW�PDMRULW\�RI�HQG�XVHU�RUJDQL]DWLRQV��8QOLNH�WKH�$3,�DQG�XQLW�WHVWV��KRZHYHU��WKH�

SHUIRUPDQFH�WHVW�GRHV�QRW�JHQHUDWH�D�FOHDU�FXW�SDVV�IDLO�UHVXOW��'HSHQGLQJ�RQ�KRZ�D�FXVWRPHU�PLJKW�PDNH�XVH�RI�

the cloud, a lower performance level may be acceptable. Caching, for instance, can shield an end user from slower

SHUIRUPDQFH�WLPHV�ZKHQ�UHDGLQJ�÷OHV��

$W�WKLV�OHYHO��1DVXQL�was establishing which CSPs have the most basic capabilities required to provide services to customers.






7KH�UHVXOWV�UHSUHVHQWHG�LQ�WKH�IROORZLQJ�FKDUWV�VKRZ�WKH�SHUIRUPDQFH�RI�WKH�WRS�VL[�SURYLGHUV�ZLWK�ODUJH�÷OHV��0%��PHGLXP�VL]HG�÷OHV��.%��DQG�VPDOO�÷OHV��.%��

Charts 1a and 1b show results

from performance tests on

ODUJH�÷OHV��ZLWK�VSHHGV�VKRZQ�LQ�

megabytes per second. In terms

RI�ZULWLQJ�ODUJH�÷OHV�WR�WKH�FORXG��

Microsoft Azure had the highest

DYHUDJH�VSHHG�DW��0%�VHF��

ZLWK�1LUYDQL[�FORVH�EHKLQG�DW�

��0%�VHF��7KH�UHVW�RI�WKH�WRS�

VL[�SURYLGHUV�SRVWHG�FRPSDUDEOH�

VSHHGV�ZLWK�WKH�H[FHSWLRQ�RI�

Peer1, whose average large write

VSHHG�ZDV��0%�VHF�

)RU�UHDGLQJ�ODUJH�÷OHV��1LUYDQL[�

ZDV�IDVWHVW�DW��0%�VHF��

followed by Microsoft Azure at

��0%�VHF��$PD]RQÚV�DYHUDJH�

VSHHG�WRRN�WKLUG�ZLWK��0%�

sec and Peer1 once again fell far

EHKLQG�WKH�UHVW�ZLWK��0%�VHF��

less than a quarter the speed of

the top two.

Please note that on charts 1a and 1b,

larger bars represent faster speeds.




&KDUW��E��$YHUDJH�5HDG�6SHHG�IRU�/DUJH�)LOHV��0%�

&KDUW��D��$YHUDJH�:ULWH�6SHHG�IRU�/DUJH�)LOHV��0%�



&KDUW��D��$YHUDJH�:ULWH�6SHHG�IRU�0HGLXP�)LOHV��.%�

&KDUW��E��$YHUDJH�5HDG�6SHHG�IRU�0HGLXP�)LOHV��.%�

Charts 2a and 2b compare

KRZ�TXLFNO\�HDFK�RI�WKH�WRS�VL[�

performers could read and write

PHGLXP�VL]HG�÷OHV��.%��

)RU�ZULWLQJ�PHGLXP�VL]HG�÷OHV��

Microsoft Azure was fastest with

DQ�DYHUDJH�VSHHG�RI��0%�VHF��

followed closely by Amazon S3 at

��0%�VHF��7KH�RWKHU�SURYLGHUV�

IHOO�VLJQL÷FDQWO\�EHKLQG�WKH�WRS�

two, with most performing 28 to

41 percent slower than Microsoft

Azure, and with Peer1 performing

70 percent slower than the leader.

Concerning read speeds for

PHGLXP�÷OHV��$PD]RQ�ZDV�

the clear leader, far ahead of

HYHU\RQH�HOVH�DW��0%�VHF��,Q�

second place, Microsoft Azure

was 28 percent slower at 6.6

0%�VHF��$77��1LUYDQL[�DQG�

Rackspace posted comparable

VSHHGV�LQ�WKH��WR��0%�VHF�

range, with Peer1 again coming in

ODVW�DW��0%�VHF��OHVV�WKDQ�RQH�

quarter the speed of Amazon.








&KDUW��E��$YHUDJH�:ULWH�6SHHG�IRU�6PDOO�)LOHV��.%�

&KDUW��D��$YHUDJH�5HDG�6SHHG�IRU�6PDOO�)LOHV��.%�Charts 3a and 3b compare how quickly each of the top 3 performers could read and write VPDOO�÷OHV��.%��LQ�WHUPV�RI�WKH�number of objects per second. ,Q�UHDGLQJ�VPDOO�÷OHV��$PD]RQ�S3 far outpaced its rivals, with ��÷OHV�VHF��SHUFHQW�IDVWHU�WKDQ�LWV�FORVHVW�ULYDO��$77��3HHU��was once again the laggard at 46 ÷OHV�VHF��SHUFHQW�VORZHU�WKDQ�Amazon S3.

In terms of performance for writing objects, Microsoft Azure WRRN�WKH�WRS�VSRW�ZLWK��÷OHV�sec, closely followed by Amazon 6��DW��÷OHV�VHF��$77�FDPH�LQ�WKLUG�DW��÷OHV�VHF��ZKLOH�WKH�RWKHU�WKUHH�×�1LUYDQL[��5DFNVSDFH�and Peer1 – fell far behind with VSHHGV�RI��÷OHV�VHF��÷OHV�VHF�DQG��÷OHV�VHF�UHVSHFWLYHO\�



2YHUDOO��$PD]RQ�DQG�

0LFURVRIW�$]XUH�FRPH�

out as the strongest

providers when it comes

WR�SHUIRUPDQFH��ZLWK�IDVW�

read and write speeds

across the board. For

those end users who are

mostly concerned with

VWRULQJ�ODUJH�÷OHV��KRZHYHU��

1LUYDQL[ÚV�QHWZRUN�

SHUIRUPHG�H[WUHPHO\�ZHOO�






Stability7R�GHWHUPLQH�D�&63ÚV�VWDELOLW\��1DVXQL�FUHDWHG�MREV�WKDW�ZURWH�D�÷OH�WR�WKH�FORXG��LQIUHTXHQWO\�UHDG�WKH�÷OH�EDFN�WR�

FRPSDUH�LW�DJDLQVW�H[SHFWHG�GDWD��DQG�WKHQ�GHOHWHG�DQ�ROG�÷OH�IURP�WKH�FORXG��7KH�JRDO�ZDV�WR�GHWHUPLQH�

1. +RZ�RIWHQ�WKH�FORXG�JRHV�GRZQ�

2. +RZ�ORQJ�GRZQWLPH�ODVWV�

3. +RZ�ORQJ�LW�WDNHV�WR�H[HFXWH�WKLV�WHVW�

4. +RZ�WKH�WLPH�LW�WDNHV�WR�H[HFXWH�WKH�WHVW�FKDQJHV��DQG

5. :KHWKHU�GDWD�ZULWWHQ�FDQ�DOZD\V�EH�UHDG�EDFN�VXFFHVVIXOO\�

The purpose of this test is to determine whether CSPs can deliver the

FDOLEHU�RI�UHOLDELOLW\�UHTXLUHG�E\�WKH�PLG�VL]HG�HQWHUSULVH��7KLV�WHVW�LV�

important because, as hard as it may be to believe, there are CSPs who

intentionally take down their cloud service, sometimes for hours at a

time, to perform maintenance and install upgrades.

Of the eight providers that made it to this stage of testing, however, none failed. Amazon S3 and Microsoft Azure

ZHUH�WKH�WRS�WZR�SHUIRUPHUV�LQ�WHUPV�RI�DYHUDJH�SLQJ��EXW�GLIIHUHQFHV�DPRQJ�WKH�WRS�VL[�&63V�ZHUH�VPDOO��ZLWK�

WKH�H[FHSWLRQ�RI�1LUYDQL[��ZKRVH�DYHUDJH�SLQJ�ZDV�PRUH�WKUHH�WLPHV�WKDW�RI�WKH�IDVWHVW�&63��0LFURVRIW�$]XUH�

The purpose of this test is to determine whether CSPs can deliver the caliber of reliability required E\�WKH�PLG�VL]HG�enterprise.

Average Response Time

Please note that on this chart, shorter

bars represent faster speeds.






In terms of outages, Amazon

had the fewest with just 1.43

outages per month. However,

the duration of these outages

ZDV�QRW�VLJQL÷FDQW�DV�$PD]RQ�

had an uptime that essentially

equaled 100 percent. Availability

for Microsoft Azure, Peer1 and

Rackspace were comparable,

ZLWK�1LUYDQL[�DQG�$77�FRPLQJ�LQ�

ODVW�SODFH��1LUYDQL[��LQ�SDUWLFXODU��

H[SHULHQFHG�D�KLJK�QXPEHU�RI�

outages relative to this peer

group, though its availability was

��SHUFHQW��$77�GLG�QRW�KDYH�D�

large number of outages, but their

duration impacted its availability,

which was the lowest of the top

VL[�SURYLGHUV�DW��SHUFHQW�

Provider Availability

Scalability)RU�WKLV�WHVW�1DVXQL�FRQWLQXRXVO\�ZULWHV�VPDOO�÷OHV��.%��ZLWK�PDQ\�

threads (concurrency) for several weeks or at least until it has written

��PLOOLRQ�REMHFWV��,GHDOO\��WKH�WHVW�ZRXOG�LQYROYH�ELOOLRQV�RI�÷OHV�RYHU�

a longer period of time, but the costs of performing such a test are

SURKLELWLYH��$V�LW�ZULWHV�WKHVH�÷OHV��1DVXQL�PHDVXUHV�DQG�WUDFNV�WKH�HUURU�

rates and performance. Two of the eight providers that went through this

stage of testing failed.

:LWKRXW�SURSHU�WHVWLQJ��LW�LV�LPSRVVLEOH�WR�GLIIHUHQWLDWH�EHWZHHQ�DQ�

LQGXVWULDO�VWUHQJWK�&63�DQG�D�OHVVHU�RSHUDWLRQ��,Q�IDFW��VRPH�SURYLGHUV�

,W�LV�QRW�GLI÷FXOW�WR�create something that looks like cloud storage. It is very GLI÷FXOW��KRZHYHU��WR�create a cloud that is WUXO\�VFDODEOH��UHOLDEOH�and always available.






have asked Nasuni to cease testing at this stage because they said it

was negatively impacting their customers, which is a truly frightening

statement. True cloud storage should be able to accommodate billions of

÷OHV�ZLWKRXW�DQ\�YLVLEOH�VWUDLQ��

Those CSPs that faced performance issues under Nasuni’s test are simply

not equipped to deliver an appropriate level of service to customers.

The top two performers were, yet again, Amazon S3 and Microsoft Azure.

For writing objects, the error rate for both was effectively zero. There

was a very small error rate with reading objects for Microsoft Azure at 0.07;

Amazon’s error rate for reading was effectively zero.

%HVW�RI�6KRZ��$PD]RQ�6��8OWLPDWHO\��VL[�&63V�SDVVHG�WKH�WHVW��

á� Amazon S3

á� AT&T Synaptic Storage as a Service

á� Microsoft Azure

CSPs’ Error Rates Under Scalability Testing

However, Amazon S3 and Microsoft Azure were clearly the standouts, with Amazon S3 offering the best overall

UHVXOWV��7KRXJK�1LUYDQL[�ZDV�IDVWHU�WKDQ�$PD]RQ�6��IRU�ODUJH�÷OHV��DQG�0LFURVRIW�$]XUH�ZDV�VOLJKWO\�IDVWHU�ZKHQ�

LW�FRPHV�WR�ZULWLQJ�÷OHV��QR�RWKHU�YHQGRU�SRVWHG�WKH�NLQG�RI�FRQVLVWHQWO\�IDVW�VHUYLFH�DFURVV�DOO�÷OH�W\SHV�DV�GLG�

$PD]RQ�6��$PD]RQ�6��KDG�WKH�IHZHVW�RXWDJHV�DQG�EHVW�XSWLPH��DQG�ZDV�WKH�RQO\�&63�WR�SRVW�D��HUURU�UDWH�

in both writing and reading objects. And though Microsoft Azure had a slightly faster average ping time than

Amazon S3 (likely because Amazon S3 is much more heavily used than Microsoft Azure), Amazon nevertheless

had the lowest variability.

Nasuni’s testing of CSPs continues, so these standings could change in future reports.

Analysis

Cloud storage has the potential to truly disrupt the storage market due to its DELOLW\�WR�SURYLGH�ÜLQKHUHQWÝ�GDWD�SURWHFWLRQ�DQG�XQOLPLWHG�VFDODELOLW\��ZKLOH�imposing minimal infrastructure and management requirements on customers.

Like most technologies, this nascent market can be broken into three segments: Large enterprise, midmarket and

VPDOO�EXVLQHVV�FRQVXPHU��0DQ\�ODUJH�HQWHUSULVHV�GR�QRW�ZDQW�WR�GHSHQG�RQ�DQ�RXWVLGH�YHQGRU�IRU�VWRUDJH�RI�FULWLFDO�

÷OHV�DQG��DV�VXFK��DUH�ZRUNLQJ�WR�EXLOG�WKHLU�RZQ�SULYDWH�FORXGV��1HYHUWKHOHVV��D�QXPEHU�RI�ODUJH�EXVLQHVVHV�WKDW�

IXQFWLRQ�SULPDULO\�RQOLQH��VXFK�DV�)DFHERRN�DQG�=\QJD��DUH�WDNLQJ�DGYDQWDJH�RI�&63V�IRU�WKHLU�VWRUDJH�LQIUDVWUXFWXUH��

á� Nirvanix

á� Peer1 Hosting

á� Rackspace Cloud






As a result, CSPs are largely oriented to serving these customers and their very large appetites for storage.

Midmarket enterprises, on the other hand, face a dilemma. Even if it were appropriate for the business to build a

private cloud (and in most cases, it is not), they are not large enough to possess the economies of scale they need

to build one, so they must rely on a CSP for cloud storage. However, as stated above, CSPs are largely focused

RQ�VHUYLQJ�YHU\�ODUJH�HQWHUSULVHV�DQG��ZLWKRXW�KHOS��PLG�VL]HG�HQWHUSULVHV�ZLOO�÷QG�FXVWRPHU�VHUYLFH�DW�WKH�

ODUJHU�FORXG�SURYLGHUV�ODFNLQJ��7KH�,7�GLUHFWRU�IRU�D��HPSOR\HH�FRPSDQ\��IRU�H[DPSOH��ZLOO�÷QG�LW�GLI÷FXOW�WR�

UDLVH�VRPHRQH�RQ�WKH�SKRQH�DW�D�ODUJH�&63�WR�WURXEOHVKRRW�SUREOHPV��,Q�DGGLWLRQ��PLG�VL]HG�RUJDQL]DWLRQV�PD\�

GLVFRYHU�WKH\�ODFN�WKH�WHFKQLFDO�H[SHUWLVH�WR�LQWHUIDFH�SURSHUO\�ZLWK�WKH�&63ÚV�$3,V�DQG�RWKHU�DVSHFWV�RI�WKHLU�

WHFKQRORJ\��0DMRU�&63V�FDWHU�WR�GHYHORSHUV��QRW�,7�SHUVRQQHO�DW�HQG�XVHU�RUJDQL]DWLRQV�

Finally, there are a number of CSPs catering to the small business and consumer markets, but they are riddled

with security issues and do not provide robust data protection. Customers often cannot recover lost data and

VHUYLFH�OHYHO�DJUHHPHQWV�DUH�W\SLFDOO\�QRQ�H[LVWHQW��+RZHYHU��WKHVH�VKRUWFRPLQJV�PD\�EH�DFFHSWDEOH�WR�VRPH�LQ�

this segment of the market, since the data being sent to the cloud may not be terribly sensitive.

2I�WKH�WKUHH�PDUNHWV��WKH�PLGPDUNHW�IDFHV�WKH�PRVW�YH[LQJ�GLOHPPD��FRPSDQLHV�LQ�WKLV�VSDFH�UHTXLUH�WKH�

SHUIRUPDQFH�RI�WKH�WRS�&63V��EXW�WKH\�GR�QRW�GHOLYHU�WKH�YROXPH�RI�EXVLQHVV�WR�EH�ÜLQWHUHVWLQJÝ�WR�WKRVH�&63V��

0LG�VL]HG�HQWHUSULVHV�QHHG�WKH�KHOS�RI�SDUWQHUV�WKDW�FDQ�÷OO�WKLV�VHUYLFH�YRLG�E\�PDQDJLQJ�WKH�UHODWLRQVKLS�ZLWK�

WKH�&63��DQG�SURYLGLQJ�YDOXH�DGGHG�VHUYLFHV�VXFK�DV�HQKDQFHG�GDWD�SURWHFWLRQ��UHVSRQVLYH�FXVWRPHU�VHUYLFH�DQG�

guaranteed levels of performance.

The largest CSPs are the equivalent of the hard drive vendors in traditional storage, offering low prices and a high

TXDOLW\�UDZ�VWRUDJH�VHUYLFH�WKURXJK�VKHHU�RSHUDWLRQDO�H[FHOOHQFH�DQG�HFRQRPLHV�RI�VFDOH��%XW�UDZ�FORXG�VWRUDJH�

lacks performance, security, and any sort of comprehensive account management. Raw cloud storage is just as

unusable to most businesses as a solitary hard drive. In much the same way that the hard drive industry evolved,

the CSP market will continue to consolidate, leaving only a handful of players who have the massive economies

of scale required to compete effectively in what will eventually become a commodity business. And just as

companies such as EMC emerged to package commodity disk drives into intelligent systems, a new generation

of storage vendors is now emerging who are focused on harnessing the power of raw cloud storage to deliver

complete storage systems built to run businesses.

About Nasuni1DVXQL��D�QH[W�JHQHUDWLRQ�HQWHUSULVH�VWRUDJH�FRPSDQ\��GHOLYHUV�'DWD�&RQWLQXLW\�6HUYLFHV�WKDW�RIIHU�D�QHZ�EUHHG�

of data protection, accessibility and support to organizations that require their data be accessible 100 percent of

the time with no risk of data loss. Nasuni’s storage services offer primary data storage, offsite disaster recovery,

data backup and a 100 percent reliability guarantee that is supported by the storage industry’s most stringent

VHUYLFH�OHYHO�DJUHHPHQW��:LWK�1DVXQL��RUJDQL]DWLRQV�FDQ�VLPSOLI\�,7��HQVXUH�EXVLQHVV�FRQWLQXLW\��DQG�UHGXFH�WKH�

total cost of storage. For more information, visit ZZZ�QDVXQL�FRP.

Social Media Links

TwitterZZZ�WZLWWHU�FRP�QDVXQL

The Nasuni cloud storage blogKWWS��ZZZ�QDVXQL�FRP�EORJ

All company and product names are property of

their respective owners.




SOCS_BR_120111_MA


http://www.twitter.com/nasuni

http://www.nasuni.com/news/nasuni-blog/



Documents

State of Cloud Storage Providers Industry …...á Peer1 Hosting (powered by EMC ATMOS) á Rackspace Cloud It is worth noting that EMC Atmos Online originally passed performance, stability