Backup or Move Forward?

Our product was recently reviewed by a computer magazine. We appreciate the coverage and would like to advance the conversation about backup services and how dataSentinel’s technology is significantly different.

dataSentinel is not a backup/restore product. We are not a backup service. We provide a unique storage platform for you or your business to protect unstructured data files, using a patented security algorithm that keeps your data hidden so that it is visible only by the key-holder.

Some background: The concept of the backup dates all the way back to the days of ENIAC when hardware was incredibly expensive and the long time required to boot up a computer and re-perform calculations could not be tolerated. Up until the 1990’s most people worked with only one shared computer and so a backup image of one machine would protect many users.

Today we have the Cloud. Cloud Storage is a reincarnation of the online backup service with a twist. dataSentinel has enabled the primary copy of your data (not a backup) to be dispersed across hundreds or thousands of computers and you merely bring down a temporary copy of a piece of your data to a particular computer while you work on it. That’s the future. Your personal data is stored privately in the Cloud and is completely independent of the many computers (or computing devices) with which you interact during the course of your day – even if you’re on the road. This is what dataSentinel offers: the technology of the 2020’s in your hands today in the form of a pre-configured USB stick that manages your own unique and private view of both personal and corporate data. You have complete access of every piece of data you store wherever you care to take that small stick. Your data is protected by the safety of numbers – stored as anonymous blocks amongst billions of others on thousands of machines.

The backup is an anachronism from the past that cannot cope with the proliferation of computing devices. There are two reasons for this. In the first case, it won’t be practical for you as the consumer to do backups. You will probably have accumulated over a terabyte (1000 gigabytes) of data by 2020 and it will be distributed over the hundred or so computing devices you interact with in your day. It just doesn’t make sense to manage hundreds of copies of overlapping datasets. The corporate world also demands a higher level of security than conventional centralized disk-to-disk and tape storage solutions can provide. You don’t want those kinds of solutions and you should never be forced to perform a restore operation. It’s just plain cruel, in fact here’s my prediction: “By 2020, the typical computer user will not be performing computer backups of any kind.”

Many of the computer magazine review’s criticisms are well founded. The process of distributing the data file into thousands of blocks randomly through the cloud does increase the upload time a bit. But it is a small trade-off for the security of the application, especially since you can let it happen in the background. There were weaknesses in our Graphical User Interface and we have addressed them. By the time you read this, our major version 3 will have been released to correct most of these issues. We listen hard to our users and their valuable feedback has already identified all of the problems raised by this review.

Join us as we re-invent the secure storage landscape. We don’t just make it better, we make it exciting! Keep an eye out for our radically new way to access and retrieve your private and confidential data. It’s like nothing you’ve seen before. Contact me personally at tom_chalker@dataSentinel.com to find out more about dataSentinel.

Tom Chalker
President and CTO


213 - 31 Peet Street
St. John's, NL Canada
A1B 3W8
Tel: (709) 738-7517
Fax: (709) 738-7541
http://www.datasentinel.com

The Democratization of Storage

How do you store your data? How do you protect the electronic essence of who you are? The way things are these days you have two choices. First, you can horde data onto your own computer. If you are diligent you can encrypt and backup and all will be well. Not quite. Alternatively, you can pay someone to let you put your data on their equipment. You won’t have to do the backup thing, and you’re clever enough to encrypt before you send them your stuff, so it’s protected, right? Not so.

The first approach plays into the myth of physical security. If it’s on your own machine, in your own home and you own a big lock you may think it’s safe. The trouble is that your computer is connected by a big fat pipe to an enormous underground industry of organized crime who are using (someone else’s) clever attacks disguised as email attachments, free games and useful utilities. There is enough profit motive in the theft of your identity that they have amassed an army of thousands of computers to make attacks – many of which belong to innocent owners. Google ‘botnet’ if you want the scoop on that. The long and short is that your data is not all that safe unless you disconnect the Internet.

The second approach seems safe, assuming you trust the people on the other end to maintain all of their hardware and diligently test for virus attacks. The trouble is that you aren’t likely to visit their facility and meet their staff, so you have to take their promises on faith – the premise being that they wouldn’t let you down because their reputation would suffer. But you just don’t feel 100% safe with your personal stuff because there is always the nagging worry that you’ll get stuck with the one disgruntled employee that releases your data in an act of spite. Worse yet, new technologies on the horizon such as Quantum Computing are threatening to make a joke of conventional content encryption.

There are larger philosophical issues at play here. You pay for computer hardware, Internet connectivity and some of you pay for on-line storage but you don’t get what you want. You don’t get privacy. On the flip side, when you do want your stuff to be in the public domain, you have to give it to the big content holders such as FaceBook, My Space, Flickr, etc., and they decide how it is distributed. You have to play by their rules, and once it’s out there you have lost editorial control. Why is that? Why is data storage in such a mess?

I believe this is the result of an eccentricity of evolution. Digital data was born of colossal mainframes, owned by big corporations and centralized for maximum efficiency. That is where we got the concept of the ‘backup.’ Every machine was so expensive and the manpower to maintain it so large that there had to be a quick way to get back to a working state in the event of a breakdown. Fifty years later we are still thinking in terms of complete backup and restore operations even though the computers are dirt cheap but the labour to perform these complicated processes is through the roof. This is a ‘Machine-Centric’ view in which the data *belongs* to the machine. You have to figure out which of several machines you might operate contains the latest version of something you are working on.

Welcome to the 21st century and a new approach to data: All of your data, broken into tiny anonymous grains of sand where they reside alongside billions of others in the big public beach known as the ‘Net. Why is this safe? It’s all about the tyranny of big numbers. Sure botnets or Quantum Computing might be able to decrypt one of these ‘grains’, but how would an attacker know how to find the others needed to make up the rest of the file? Even if the decryption were instantaneous, the network delays of retrieving billions of billions of guesses would add up to forever. Only the author of the file has the ‘key’ to determine where all of the grains exist to fetch them, reorder them and recreate the original file, and the container of that ‘key’ is small enough for the author to carry it exclusively on their person.

It gets better. This is a democratic architecture. Lots of people contribute to maintain thousands of simple servers on the ‘Net. Each of these servers is eligible to store any ‘grain’ of data, no one server is more important than any other. These servers are analogous to the routing equipment of the Internet. No one owns the ‘highway’ but everyone maintains a little piece of it and permits everyone else’s traffic to flow. Like Internet connectivity, where the emergent behaviour produces self-correcting, robust traffic for all users, this solution will provide total data reliability for all users without anyone having to perform tedious 20th century backup and restore operations.

More importantly, your data is now stored in the ‘Net cloud but is independent of any of the servers that hold its bits and is also independent of the computer you might be using to interact with that data. That is the promise of ‘User-Centric’ storage: Your data, anytime, anywhere and with complete privacy. It is trivial to manufacture the keys that decide how your data is distributed across the ‘Net. That means you can create and distribute as many as you want. You can make them read-only so that your audience can view but not modify their contents, or you can decide to let them change their contents. You can control who gets those keys or you can put them in a public place for all. You’re in control.

If you would like to learn more about our implementation of this new architecture, Google ‘InfiniDrive’ by ‘dataSentinel’ or visit our public site at www.datasentinel.com. We are looking for lots of feedback on how we can make this even better for you. Check us out.

The next physical wave of the Internet

The first physical wave was all about decentralized connectivity. IMPs and later routers permitted a file to be broken into many fixed-sized blocks or packets and then sent independently to a distant machine. The blocks took different routes, arrived out of sequence and sometimes with duplication or retries, but no matter, they were all stitched together perfectly at the receiving end. The distinguishing feature of this architecture was that there was no one machine controlling the journeys of these blocks. It didn’t matter if a router broke down or T1 communication lines were severed, the emergent behavior of all those routers was to find a way to get all those packets delivered. It worked in the face of disaster or misconfiguration, and the process of delivery was abstracted completely from the many applications that depended upon it.

The next physical wave is about decentralized storage. We have the cheap hard-drives and servers that hold them and we have lots of data to protect. The problem is that we manage the data in an old-fashioned centralized way. Napster and its progeny were on the right track, but they were all about sharing; providing access through thousands of copies of a (music) file. But that’s no good here. Today’s user demands privacy but wants the same convenience of machine independence.

Visualize this: In the same way that the TCP/IP protocols split up a file into blocks for transfer, let’s do it for storage. We’ll compress the data for efficiency and encrypt them into thousands of anonymous blocks and store them on many different ‘block servers’. The block servers will be like stripped down web servers; only smart enough to accept a block for storage based on a 64 bit number and give it back in future when presented with that same 64 bit number. If you break into one of these servers, what will you see? There will be hundreds of millions of encrypted blocks of exactly the same size addressed by a set of these numbers.

Next, place some intelligence on the client computers that use this space. When it is time to store a file, software will create those blocks and then send them to the block servers. But how will it decide which block server should be used, and where (the 64 bit number) on that server it should be placed? I’m sure that you can dream up strategies to place blocks based on an ascending sequence of addresses on the next available server, but I suspect most of these ideas will require some central authority that regulates where everyone’s blocks must go to prevent conflicts. That’s no good for the next wave. We cannot efficiently grow a centralized storage system without technological (scaling) or political problems. We’ve tried that. It’s not working.

Here’s how we do it: Create a ‘storage schedule’ on the fly at the instant of storage for a file that is based on (1) a user’s privately-held encryption key and (2) the complete pathname of the file to be stored. This schedule will be created in a 64 bit number space using ‘one-way’ functions developed over the last 30 years by encryption theorists. Store the blocks. Discard the schedule. At some time in the future when you want to retrieve the file, recreate the schedule from (1) the encryption key and (2) the file’s pathname and use it to go to each block server in the list and ask for the particular block.

Let’s think about the ramifications of this technique. First, the ‘one-way’ functions statistically guarantee that the servers all receive an equal number of blocks so our hardware people will love us because all the equipment is used to peak efficiency. Secondly, the blocks of the file are retrieved through a direct numerical calculation – unlike conventional solutions that require two or three database lookups. This eliminates the requirement for expensive IT staff to manage complicated mission-critical database servers. Thirdly, we have a storage algorithm with two variables. If we hold the encryption key constant and permute the file's pathname, we have a hierarchical file system that can grow to any size (as long as we add more block servers when they fill up) that depends only on that one encryption key. If we permute the encryption key but use the same file pathname the schedule is still unique so we can have any number of independent file systems co-existing on the same block servers. That gives unbounded scalability.

The real issue in everyone’s mind, however, is privacy. Why would I place my personal data on someone else’s server? Why would I trust someone to hold my data? Let’s analyze the security of this architecture. With conventional technology, looking for customer data is a bit like breaking into a bank. Once the thief gets through the ‘door’ by hacking through the security or bribing the sys admin, the file system is laid out before them and they can easily get to the specific ‘safety-deposit box’ or file of a customer. Hackers can then use their formidable skills and resources (e.g. botnets) to try to ‘break open the box’ or crack the encryption of that file. Now consider our system. We let them into the safe. A hacker can ask any block server for a block by specifying a 64 bit number. The problem they face is that they don’t know where to look. To rebuild a file without the encryption key that created the schedule, the hacker has to make 2⁶³ = 9 billion, billion guesses at a hundred different servers, decrypt each block and reassemble them in the correct order. This is like searching 100 haystacks to find a specific blade of grass – unlike a needle, the right block does not look any different than its neighbors. Such an attack would take longer than the creation of the universe.

With this technology it is finally possible to create the user-centric Internet of storage. It is possible to place all data into a distributed and homogeneous store of anonymous blocks with complete privacy for all participants. The protection of data will no longer require the machine-centric point of view of the past and users will comfortably store their data ‘on the net’ in complete confidence. It only makes sense.

Just what is a file system, anyway?

What is a file system? Look at the C: drive on your PC, or the F: drive that shows up when you're in the office. In the simplest terms they are both just a database managing a bunch of blocks that reside on something that has persistent magnetic, electrostatic (USB drive) or optical properties (CD-ROM, DVD). If you peel back the covers on the 'device driver' that controls your hard-drive, you see that it is just an optimized database that maps filenames to specific blocks on the drive. Some of those filenames represent directories, so the contents of those directory blocks are just another layer of this database; more filenames pointing to other blocks of data. The end result is a heirarchical file system that abstracts variable-length files into nested directories by hiding that database implementation.

Now take another step back and look at your mapped drive on F:. What is that? Another database. A little different, perhaps. It's a mapping of your username, password and group memberships with a smattering of security settings to a specific directory on a certain hard-drive housed in a file server machine in your office. It looks like a part of the directory system on a hard-drive because it is just that. The only difference is that the hard-drive is in a different computer and there is a conversation between your computer and the file server to deliver the files when you want them. Again, the principles of abstraction insist that the details of this database are hidden to simplify the maintenance of this remote file system.

Lets take one more step. Let's look at a corporate-wide file system or perhaps the storage system of an on-line provider. How are they built? They're too large to be formed by simple clusters of Windows or Linux file servers. They're made from an alphabet soup of SAN, DAS and NAS and they run a complex application called File Virtualization. What's that? Well, it's another database. This one has the much richer content of implementation detail for each of the component storage pieces. Things like capacity, speed, physical location, maintenance history. Like the layers below, it will map the credentials of a user to entry points in the storage devices where the user's files will go. It's smart enough to shift user files around to ensure all of the storage devices are used efficiently, manage disk-to-disk and disk-to-tape backup procedures and presumably it can react when a sub-system fails.

This all makes good sense. What we have here is a set of layers of storage that have evolved over time to compensate for the weaknesses of the earlier layers. A single hard-drive is not big enough to meet the needs of an office. A file server does not have enough of its own drives to provide space for a large corporation. It is too much work for an IT staff to make sure that all the storage devices are used at capacity and are properly protected.

But there's a complexity problem here. Each of the layers is progressively more complicated. Each layer's 'database' is a single point of failure that must be protected through strategies of multiple redundant copies. A breakdown in any point in this chain may lead to an interruption of service while a particular database is restored from a backup. Highly qualified IT professionals who understand the complicated software must be on hand to monitor these processes and deal with conflicting circumstances that might pollute one of these databases as they are re-integrated with the real-time data. In short, it is expensive and it is fragile.

What about a fresh look at file storage? By changing the fundamental architecture of file data storage it is possible to replace the complexity of all those layers with one simple layer. This permits a massive file system that supports unlimited numbers of private collections of files across any number of cheap server appliances and does not require any databases at all. Would you as a consumer of storage space be interested in a file system that intrinsically self-balances, grows organically as need permits and does not require a backup procedure to protect data?

Impossible? No it's not. Keep reading and you'll see how one simple algorithm can make all file storage simple. It's all about thinking outside the box.

Mental Models

How many discrete objects are in your home? Try to estimate the pieces of furniture, appliances, entertainment devices, books, DVDs, ornaments. Then drill down even deeper. How many dishes, pictures on walls, pens in drawers, toothbrushes, paper documents and sewing needles can you add to that number. I bet there are tens of thousands of distinct things in your home that you could put your hands on within 60 seconds of searching.

Now turn to your computer. How many separate files on it? If you're a developer with ten years of history, it might number in the high end of the thousands. The average user will have less. How long would it take you (or them) to find a specific file? Even with Vista's improved searching could take a tens of minutes. In fact, it might prove impossible to find that file at all.

Why is that? It's because your brain has been wired through eons of evolution to work in three dimensional space. You remember things in a 3D context, and you learn the geometry of your own home because you spend so much time navigating through it. In contrast, a computer directory is a two dimensional hierarchy of words. Its completely alien to your evolutionary past and to work with it you have to develop new skills. Up until you saw your first files-view, you had never spoke that way or thought that way.

In Medieval times before paper was prevalent and when most people couldn't read, the scholars used a technique called Memory Theatre to remember lots of unrelated pieces of information. People would imagine themselves walking through a large cathedral and they would make associations between objects encountered in such a walk with what they wanted to remember. Later they would retrace the walk to recall all of the items. James Burke does a brilliant recounting of this in the "Matter of Fact" episode of his "The Day the Universe Changed" series.

Wouldn't it be cool be we could walk though our own home and find all of our computer files on the walls and in the drawers?

Wireless doesn't mean tiny

I was a big proponent of the J2ME environment from SUN for wireless devices. Seemed wise. Tailor the run-time environment to fit in the small memory spaces of cellphones and Personal Digital Assistants or PDAs (does anyone still call them that anymore?) Then you can write code that is sort of like the code you'd write for the workstations and laptops and it would work.

Well it did, within reason, but ultimately it was just another fork in the development of applications. You see technology relentlessly advances. Processors are still getting smaller, memories continue to get bigger. When you look a handheld device you have to ask what is it that is being constrained by that physical size and what will continue to be constrained in the near future.

Sure, you say, I know: power. The processor can only run so fast without draining the battery. OK, I agree. So why write applications that fit in small memory spaces? That's what J2ME is. A stripped-down version of the run-time that fits in a few MegaBytes. You can buy a 128 GByte USB stick for 10 dollars. Assume the new handhelds will have this space and skate to where the action will be.

The biggest problem with J2ME is that it tries to replace the underlying operating system. Here's a better idea. Put a real OS in there. Linux will fit in the memory space of those devices nicely because you can create a distribution that only has what's needed for that device without compromising the pieces that remain. That isn't possible with a monolithic operating system. Sure you can create a smaller version of a big OS for these devices but that's just another development fork just like J2ME was. Guess what. That's exactly what Apple did with their iPhone.

It will happen that way. The economics will dictate that Linux will ultimately run most of your handheld devices. The scary thing is that once you get used to these devices and the applications that run on them, you won't need the bloated operating systems that run the workstations. You will start using the those machines just as dumb terminals for the devices in your hands. You'll have figured out how to do your word processing on these gadgets and you'll think "if I just had a bigger screen to do this, I'd be OK. Easier that learning a new package...". There's a very smart man called Clayton Christenson who sees this happening. Check out his Podcast.

Shhh. Does anybody hear a dynasty crumbling?

Do you like the way computers make us do storage?

Hierarchical storage. What a great idea! My hat's off to the guy that came up with the idea of infinitely-nested layers of directories (or folders as we like to call them now) that can have as many files as needed. What a brilliant way to organize digital data. Modern operating systems or application suites could not exist without this concept. Seems so blindingly obvious now that you wonder where I am going with this.

If you think about it, a hierarchical model is ideal for organizing lots of separate pieces. The names of the folders can mean something or they may not. It doesn't matter because you can still express in code that a given piece of data is in a place that defined by this precise syntax of sub-directories and it will be there. Unless you deliberately move it. Its deterministic, it can be permanent and it can accommodate new files and new directories later on when the need exists.

But if you use this for your personal data it gets nasty. Can you remember where you stored that text file containing the street address of that excellent restaurant in Seattle where you had those great mussels last November? No, so you've got to hunt for it. Now the sheer number of directories fights against you. There's too many paths. You work down them randomly. You try to do a file search down a few folders. But was it end of November or first week of December? Did you even spell it correctly in your haste? You give up because the amount of work required to find that information outstrips your desire to have it.

Sad thing is, you've got computer skills. You knew how to do a file search, right? What about the new computer user who doesn't understand that a picture of a word in an image file is different than a text file containing that word? What chance have they got to find that file? Yeah, maybe they'll grit their teeth and slog through a download and installation of Google's latest desktop search utility. But will some conceptual misunderstanding of how to use that tool defeat them in the end?

To remember a personal thing, you need a real-world reference. That's the way the brain has evolved over the past eons. You operate with visual or aural clues to other things that have some sort of abstract relationship. Why is it that you can remember how to drive to that restaurant in Seattle the next time you're down there even though you gave up on finding its address at home? You only had a vague idea where it was in the city, but you got there. What's happening here? Hey, a city is a city and it has roads and some roads have buildings that look like large boxes, but this one was weird because it had all of its windows in that interesting geometric pattern, and wasn't that just before I turned left, and ..... Try and capture that in a text file.

The point is that we've got the technology to store lots of things, but now we've got to build some new tools that use this technology wastefully, perhaps, but get the job done in new ways. I've got some ideas. Want to hear them?