Category Archives: Architectural Decisions

Example Architectural Decision – VMware HA – Percentage of Cluster resources reserved for HA

Posted on by
8

Problem Statement

The decision has been made to use “Percentage of cluster resources reserved for HA” admission control setting, and use Strict admission control to ensure the N+1 minimum redundancy level is maintained. However, as most virtual machines do not use  “Reservations” for CPU and/or Memory, the default reservation is only 32Mhz and 0MB+overhead for a virtual machine. In the event of a failure, this level of resources is unlikely to provide sufficient compute to operate production workloads. How can the environment be configured to ensure a minimum level of performance is guaranteed in the event of one or more host failures?

Requirements

1. All Clusters have a minimum requirement of N+1 redundancy
2. In the event of a host failure, a minimum level of performance must be guaranteed

Assumptions

1. vSphere 5.0 or later (Note: This is Significant as default reservation dropped from 256Mhz to 32Mhz, RAM remained at 0MB + overhead)

2. Percentage of Cluster resources reserved for HA is used and set to a value as per Example Architectural Decision – High Availability Admission Control

3. Strict admission control is enabled

4. Target over commitment Ratios are <=4:1 vCPU / Physical Cores | <=1.5 : 1 vRAM / Physical RAM

5. Physical CPU Core speed is >=2.0Ghz

6. Virtual machines sizes in the cluster will vary

7. A limited number of mission critical virtual machines may be set with reservations

8. Average VM size uses >2GB RAM

9. Clusters compute resources will be utilized at >=50%

Constraints

1. Ensuring all compute requirements are provided to Virtual machines during BAU

Motivation

1. Meet/Exceed availability requirements
2. Minimize complexity
3. Ensure the target availability and performance is maintained without significantly compromising  over commitment ratios

Architectural Decision

Ensure all clusters remain configured with the HA admission control setting use
“Enable – Do not power on virtual machines that violate availability constraints”

and

Use “Percentage of Cluster resources reserved for HA” for the admission control policy with the percentage value based on the following Architectural Decision – High Availability Admission Control

Configure the following HA Advanced Settings

1. “das.vmMemoryMinMB” with a value of “1024″
2. “das.vmCpuMinMHz” with a value of “512”

Justification

1. Enabling admission control is critical to ensure the required level of availability.
2. The “Percentage of cluster resources reserved for HA” setting allows a suitable percentage value of cluster resources to reserved depending on the size of each cluster to maintain N+1
3.The potentially inefficient slot size calculation used with “Host Failures cluster tolerates” does not suit clusters where virtual machines sizes vary and/or where some mission Critical VMs require reservations

  • 4.
  • Using advanced settings “das.vmCpuMinMHz” & “das.vmMemoryMinMB” allows a minimum level of performance (per VM) to be guaranteed in the event of one or more host failures
  • 5.
  • Advanced settings have been configured to ensure the target over commit ratios are still achieved while ensuring a minimum level of resources in a the event of a host failure
  • 6.
  • Maintains an acceptable minimum level of performance in the event of a host failure without requiring the administrative overhead of setting and maintaining “reservations” at the Virtual machine level
  • 7.
  • Where no reservations are used, and advanced settings not configured, the default reservation would be 32Mhz and 0MB+ memory overhead is used. This would likely result in degraded performance in the event a host failure occurs.

Alternatives

1. Use “Specify a fail over host” and have one or more hosts specified
2. “Host Failures cluster tolerates” and set it to appropriate value depending on hosts per cluster without using advanced settings
3.Use higher Percentage values
4. Use Higher / Lower values for “das.vmMemoryMinMB” and “das.vmCpuMinMHz”
5. Set Virtual machine level reservations on all VMs

Implications

1. The “das.vmCpuMinMHz” advanced setting applies on a per VM basis, not a per vCPU basis, so VMs with multiple vCPUs will still only be guarenteed 512Mhz in a HA event

2. This will reduce the number of virtual machines that can be powered on within the cluster (in order to enforce the HA requirements)

CloudXClogo

 

 

Example Architectural Decision – BC/DR Solution for vCloud Director

Posted on by
Reply

Problem Statement

What is the most suitable BC/DR solution for a vCloud director environment?

Requirements

1. Ensure the vCloud solution can tolerate a site failure in an automated manner
2. Ensure the vCloud solution meets/exceeds the RTO of 4hrs
3. Comply with all requirements of the Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
4. Solution must be a supported vSphere / vCloud Configuration
5. Ensure all features / functionality of the vCloud solution are available following a DR event

Assumptions

1. Datacenters are in an Active/Active configuration
2. Stretched Layer 2 network across both datacenters
3. Storage based replication between sites
4. vSphere 5.0 Enterprise Plus or later
5. VMware Site Recovery Manager 5.0 or later
6, vCloud Director 1.5 or later
7. There is no requirement for workloads proposed to be hosted in vCloud to be at one datacenter or another

Constraints

1. The hardware for the solution has already been chosen and purchased. 6 x 4 Way, 32 core Hosts w/ 512GB RAM and 4 x 10GB
2. The storage solution is already in place and does not support a Metro Storage Cluster (vMSC) configuration

Motivation

1. Meet/Exceed availability requirements
2. Minimize complexity

Architectural Decision

Use the vCloud DR solution as described in the “vCloud Director Infrastructure Resiliency Case Study” (By Duncan Epping @duncanyb and Chris Colotti @Ccolotti )

In Summary, Host the vSphere/vCloud Management virtual machines on an SRM protected cluster.

Use a dedicated cluster for vCloud compute resources.

Configure the vSphere cluster which is dedicated to providing compute resources to the vCloud environment (Provider virtual data center – PvDC) to have four (4) compute nodes  located at Datacenter A for production use and two (2) compute nodes located at Datacenter B (in ”Maintenance mode”) dedicated to DR.

Storage will not be stretched across sites; LUNs will be presented locally from “Datacenter A” shared storage to the “Datacenter A” based hosts. The “Datacenter A” storage will be replicated synchronously to “Datacenter B” and presented from “Datacenter B” shared storage to the two (2) “Datacenter B” based hosts. (No stretched Storage between sites)

In the event of a failure, SRM will recover the vSphere/vCloud Management virtual machines bringing back online the Cloud, then a script as the last part of the SRM recovery plan, Mounts the replicated storage to the ESXi hosts in “Datacenter B” and takes the two (2) hosts at “Datacenter B” out of maintenance mode. HA will then detect the virtual machines and power on them on.

Justification

1. Stretched Clusters are more suited to Disaster Avoidance than Disaster Recovery
2. Avoids complex and manual  intervention in the case of a disaster in the case of a stretched cluster solution
3. A Stretched cluster provides minimal control in the event of a Disaster where as in this case, HA simply restarts VMs once the storage is presented (automatically) and the hosts are taken out of Maintenance mode (also automated)
4. Having  two (2) ESXi hosts for the vCloud resource cluster setup in “Datacenter B” in “Maintenance Mode” and the storage mirrored as discussed  allows the virtual workloads to be recovered in an automated fashion as part of the VMware Site Recovery Manager solution.
5. Removes the management overhead of managing a strecthed cluster using features such as DRS affinity rules to keep VMs on the hosts on the same site as the storage
6. vSphere 5.1 backed resource clusters support >8 host clusters for “Fast provisioning”
7. Remove the dependency on the Metropolitan Area Data and Storage networks during BAU and the potential impact of the latency between sites on production workloads
8. Eliminates the chance of a “Split Brain” or a “Datacenter Partition” scenario where VM/s can be running at both sites without connectivity to each other
9. There is no specific requirement for non-disruptive mobility between sites
10. Latency between sites cannot be guaranteed to be <10ms end to end

Alternatives

1. Stretched Cluster between “Datacenter A” and “Datacenter B”
2. Two independent vCloud deployments with no automated DR
3. Have more/less hosts at the DR site in the same configuration

Implications

1. Two (2) ESXi hosts in the vCloud Cluster located in “Datacenter B” will remain unused as “Hot Standby” unless there is a declared site failure at “Datacenter A”
2. Requires two (2) vCenter servers , one (1) per Datacenter
3. There will be no non-disruptive mobility between sites (ie: vMotion)
4. SRM protection groups / plans need to be created/managed Note: This will be done as part of the Production cluster
5. In the event of a DR event, only half the compute resources will be available compared to production.
6. Depending on the latency between sites, storage performance may be reduced by the synchronous replication as the write will not be acknowledged to the VM at “Datacenter A” until committed to the storage at “Datacenter B”

CloudXClogo

 

 

Example Architectural Decision – Number of paths per LUN for VMFS datastores

Posted on by
1

Problem Statement

In a vSphere environment hosting a large number of VMs,  Virtual machines I/O requirements range from small <100 IOPS to large business critical applications with tens of thousands of IOPS, the ESXi hosts have been configured with 4 x 8Gb FC HBAs.

What is the most suitable number of paths per LUN when using 4 x 8GB FC connections per Host, and how will they be presented in a highly available manner with two (2) SAN Fabrics connected to an Active/Active Enterprise Disk array?

Requirements

1. All LUNs are available on all FC Interfaces
2. The storage be highly available
3. The environment should be able to continue running production workloads in the unlikely event of a dual port HBA, or single Fabric failure.
4. The environment maintain a consistent level of performance

Assumptions

1. The Storage area network has two (2) fabrics each of which is highly available
2. The disk system is presented to both SAN fabrics
3. The number of VMs per host is >100
4. vSphere 4.0 or later
5. Storage array is Active/Active
6. ESXi hosts are large and are designed to drive significant I/O
7. VAAI is supported and enabled

Constraints

1. Maximum paths supported per ESXi host is 1024
2. Maximum number of datastores per ESXi host is 256

Motivation

1. Ensure optimal performance redundancy
2. Maximum the total capacity able to be presented to a cluster

Architectural Decision

Use a standard of 8 paths per LUN

Each LUN will be presented to each HBA via both Controller A and Controller B resulting in two paths per LUN per HBA.

With a total of 4 FC connections across two (2) physical dual port HBAs in a HA configuration with one (1) connection per HBA per Fabric, this equates to a total of 8 paths per LUN to the ESXi host (4 paths per Fabric)

Justification

1. This equates to 4 paths (1 per HBA interface per LUN) per Fabric
2. The use of VMware NMP with “Round Robin” will be used and having all LUNs presented via both fabrics and all HBAs will provide the maximum reducing in latency and the most consistent performance overall
3. 8 paths per LUN ensures up to 128 LUNs can be presented within the 1024 paths per ESXi host limit which will support sufficient capacity for the cluster
4. The solution is highly available as it uses two fabrics and both controllers are Active
5. In the event of a Fabric failure, the remaining Fabric serving 2 x 8Gb connections will provide connectivity to both Controller A and B, with a total of 4 paths
6. Ensures the cluster can have enough LUNs to balance workloads across which will assist keeping latency at a minimum

Alternatives

1. Have less paths per LUN which enabled the use of more LUNs
2. Have more paths per LUN and have less LUNs

Implications

1. LUN sizes will need to be sizes to ensure a maximum of 128 LUNs are sufficient from a capacity perspective to cater for the desired number of virtual machines

vmware_logo_ads