Monthly Archives: October 2013

Competition Example Architectural Decision Entry 2 – Use of RDMs in Standard IaaS Clusters

Posted on by
Reply

Name: Chris Jones
Title: Virtualization Architect
Twitter: @cpjones44
Profile: VCP5 / VCAP5-DCD

Problem Statement

VMs require more than 1.9TB in a single disk. The existing virtual environment has LUNs provisioned that are 2TB in size. As these VMs have virtual data disks (VMDKs) that are > 1.9TB in size, alarms are being triggered by the infrastructure monitoring solution and raising Incident tickets to the Virtual Infrastructure support queue.

Assumptions

1. Data within the OSI must reside within the VM and not on some kind of IP based store (like a NAS share).

2. vSphere datastores are presented through FC and not IP based stores (ie. NFS).

3. vSphere Hypervisor is ESXi 4.1.

4. There is no requirement for the VMs to be performing SAN specific functionality or running SCSI target-based software.

Constraints

1. The implemented monitoring solution cannot be customised with triggers and monitoring policies for individual objects within the environment (ie. having one monitoring policy per individual or sub-group of datastores).

2. Maximum vSphere datastore size in version 4.1 is 2TB minus 512 bytes.

3. Unable to upgrade beyond ESXi 4.1 Update 3.

Motivation

1. Reduce the number of incident tickets being raised, thus improving SLA posture.

2. Reduce the requirement to span single Windows logical volumes across multiple VMDKs.

Architectural Decision

Turn the disk into an RDM (Virtual Compatibility Mode) to remove the level of monitoring from the vSphere layer.

Alternatives

1. Create smaller VMDKs (ie. 1-1.5TB disks) and create a RAID0 volume within the guest OS.

2. Change the level of alerting so that tickets are not raised for alerts that trigger beyond 90%.

3. Turn the disk into an RDM to remove the level of monitoring from the vSphere layer.

4. Thin Provision the virtual disks

5. Store the data within the guest on some kind of IP based storage (NAS/iSCSI target).

Justification

1. Option 5 goes against the assumption that data must be local to the VM, so was ruled out.

2. Whilst thin provisioning (Option 4) is an attractive solution, this option is ruled out based on a wider infrastructure decision to thick provision all disks in the environment to reduce the risk to datastores filling up and critical business VMs stopping.

3. Option 1 via smaller VMDKs spread across multiple vSphere datastores will result in these alerts disappearing, however it will create issues when trying to execute a DR recovery for either the individual disks (Active/Passive) or the whole VM (Active/Cold). All that’s needed is for one VMDK not to be replicated and the whole Windows volume will be corrupted, or for the VMDKs to be mounted in the wrong order. Multiple VMDKs to one Windows volume also complicates the recovery of snapshot array-based backups (eg. via SMVI or NetBackup).

4. Option 2 goes against the constraint of the infrastructure monitoring solution not being able to creating individual alerting policies for either a single or sub-group of datastores in the inventory. Should individualised policies be created, we would need to ensure that the affected VMDKs that consume 90-95% of a datastore remain on that datastore as moving from one to another (ie. from Tier 2 to Tier 1) will require a change to the monitoring that has been configured. At this stage, the monitoring solution has no way to track these customised policies, which is most of the reason why global environment wide policies exist.

5. Option 3 and the use of RDMs in Virtual Compatibility Mode will allow the VM to benefit from the features of VMFS, such as advanced file locking for data protection and vSphere snapshotting. The use of RDMs will also allow for VMs to be managed by DRS (ie. can be vMotion’ed) and protected by vSphere HA.

Implications

  1. The RDM mapping will need to be recorded clearly to avoid the lengthy process of discovering from scratch what physical LUN is presented to the virtual machine.

An example of how to map these will be to:

A)    Record the name of the VM that has the RDM.

B)    Record the NAA number of the physical LUN(s) that are presented to the VM.

C)    Record the virtual device node on the virtual disk controller as to where the RDM is mounted.

D)    Record the Windows drive letter that this RDM is mounted to.

2. Additional paths will be consumed, reducing the total number of vSphere datastores that can be presented to the cluster.

Back to Competition Main Page or Competition Submissions

Competition Example Architectural Decision Entry 1 – TSM backup configuration for PureFlex environment?

Posted on by
Reply

Name: Ash Simpson
Title: Virtualization Architect
Company: IBM
Twitter: @Yipikaye1
Profile: VCP4

Problem Statement

Which is the ideal method for TSM backup for PureFlex environment? LAN free backup or LAN based backup or both?

Assumptions

1. IBM PureFlex hardware is used

2. Physical TSM server exists within PureFlex.

3. External (Virtual) Tape Library available on PureFlex SAN Fabric.

Constraints

1. Customer has selected PureFlex Infrastructure as hardware platform
2. IBM storage must be used – Storwize V7000 and IBM DS8000
3. ProtecTier VTL available and should be used

Motivation

1. Flexibility of Choice based on specific application requirements requirements.
2. The configuration to be deployed has the capability to support both.
3. LAN free backup is getting popular option in the industry.
4. LAN free backup negates the need for large backup windows.
5. PureFlex V7000 allows for FlashCopy Manager (FCM)
6. FCM is application aware for many critical Intel workloads such as SQL and Exchange.
7. All Backup I/O is retained within a single PureFlex Chassis

Architectural Decision

Deploy LAN free backup and LAN based backup infrastructure in PureFlex environments with LAN free backup via TSM for VE and FlashCopy Manager as the default. Should a particular application have the requirement for LAN based backup, the infrastructure can support it.

Host the Physical TSM server and an ESXi Host with the TSM for VE server (via affinity rule) in the same Chassis.

For the few servers requiring LAN based backup agents use affinity rules to prefer ESXi hosts in the same PureFlex chassis as the TSM server.

Alternatives

1. Provide LAN based backup only

2. Provide LAN free backup only.

Justification

1.Better utilization of network bandwidth in LAN free backup.
2.Improved performance for backup and restore operations is possible in LAN free backup.
3. LAN based backup is still required by certain applications, hence it is recommended to retain this feature.
4. Hosting TSM server in same chassis as proxy/agents prevents North/South network I/O.
5. FlashCopy Manager will reduce backup times by creating application aware snapshots on the storage array.

Implications

1. The hardware infrastructure will have to be configured for both LAN free and LAN based backup. For LAN free backup the SAN fabric in PureFlex system will be used for backup environment. The backup server transfers data from its storage directly to the tape device via FC.

2. Fibre Channel ports needs to be dedicated for backup traffic

3. Separate Zones needs to be configured in the Fibre Channel Switch module environment for backup traffic.

Back to Competition Main Page or Competition Submissions

Data Centre Migration Strategies – Part 2 – Lift and Shift

Posted on by
2

Continuing on from Data Centre Migration Strategies Part 1 – Overview, Part 2 focuses on the “Lift and Shift” method.

I’m sure your reading this and already thinking, “this is the least interesting migration strategy, tell me about vMSC and SRM!” and well, your right, BUT it is important to understand the pros and cons so if you are ever in a situation where you have to use this method (I have on numerous occasions) that the migration is successful.

So what are the pros and cons of this method.

Pros

1. No need to purchase equipment for the new data centre
2. The environment should perform as it did at the original data centre following relocation
3.The approach is simple from a technical perspective ie: No new products are required
4. Low direct cost (Note: Point 8 in Cons)
5. Achieves a Recovery Point Objective (RPO) of zero (0).

Cons

1. The entire environment needs to be fully shut-down
2. The outage for the environment starts from when the servers are shut-down, until completion of operational verification testing at the new datacenter. Note: This may take several days depending on the size of the environment.
3. This method is high risk as the ability to fail back to the original datacenter requires all equipment be physically relocated back. This means the Recovery Time Objective (RTO) cannot be low.
4. The Lift and shift method cannot be tested until at least a significant amount of equipment has been physical relocated
5. In the event of an issue during operational verification at the new data centre, a decision needs to be made to proceed and troubleshoot the issues, OR at what point to fail back.
6. Depending on your environment, a vendor (eg: Storage) may need to revalidate your environment
7. Your migration (and schedule) are heavily dependant on the logistical side of the relocation which may have many factors (eg: Traffic / Weather) which are outside your control which may lead to delays or failed migration.
8. Potentially high indirect cost eg: Downtime, Loss of Business , productivity etc

When to use this method?

1. When purchasing equipment for the new data centre is not possible
2. When extended outages to the environment are acceptable
3. When you have no other options

Recommendations when using “Lift and Shift”

1. Ensure you have accurate wiring and rack diagrams of your datacenter
2. Be prepared with your vendor support contact details on hand as it is common following relocation of equipment to have hardware failures
3. Ensure you have an accurate Operational Verification document which tests every part of your environment from Layer 1 (Physical) all the way to Layer 7 (Application)
4. Label EVERYTHING as you disconnect it at the original datacenter
5. Prior to starting your data centre  migration, discuss and agree on a timeline for the migration and at what point and under what situation do you initiate a fail back.
6. Migrate the minimum amount of physical equipment that is required to get your environment back on-line and do your Operational Verification, then on successful completion of your Operational Verification migrate the remaining equipment. This allows for faster fail-back in the event Operational Verification fails.

In Part 3, we discuss Data centre migrations using VMware Site Recovery Manager. (Coming soon)