Category Archives: Networking

VMware Host Isolation Response in a Nutanix Environment #NoSAN

Posted on by
4

I was recently discussing the Nutanix solution with a friend of mine and fellow VCDX, Michael Webster (@vcdxnz001) and he asked what the recommended Host Isolation Response is for Nutanix.

At this stage I must advise there is no formal recommendation, but an Official vSphere on Nutanix Best Practice guide is in the works and will be released asap.

Back to my conversation with Michael, Being that Nutanix is an IP Storage solution, my initial feeling is that Host isolation Response should be set to “Shutdown”, but I didn’t go into any more detail with Michael, so I thought it best to post a quick explanation.

This post also assumes basic knowledge of vSphere as well as the Nutanix platform, for those of you who are not familiar with Nutanix please review the following links prior to reading the remainder of this post.

About Nutanix | How Nutanix Works | 8 Strategies for a Modern Datacenter

So back on topic, in other posts I have written for IP Storage, such as (Example Architectural Decision – Host Isolation Response for IP Storage) I have concluded that “Shutdown” was the most suitable setting and recommended specifying isolation addresses of the NAS controllers.

But as Nutanix changes the game and has one virtual storage controller per ESXi host, so does this change the recommendation?

In short, No, but for those who are interested, here is why.

If we leave the default isolation address, (being the default gateway for ESXi Management), in the event the gateway is down, it will trigger an isolation response even if the rest of the network is operating fine, thus an unnecessary outage would occur.

If we configure das.isolationaddress1 & 2 with the Management IP address of any two Nutanix Controller VMs (192.168.1.x , 192.168.1.y in my below diagram) then an isolation response will only be triggered if both Nutanix Controller VMs (CVMs) are not responding, in which case, the VMs should be Shutdown as the Nutanix cluster may not be function properly with two Controllers offline concurrently as its configured by default for N+1 (or replication factor of “2” in Nutanix speak).

The below is a high level example of the above configuration.

NutanixHostIsolation

Related Articles

1. Example Architectural Decision – Host Isolation Response for a Nutanix Environment

2. Storage DRS and Nutanix – To use, or not to use, that is the question?

3. VMware HA and IP Storage

Example Architectural Decision – ESXi Host Hardware Sizing (Example 1)

Posted on by
4

Problem Statement

What is the most suitable hardware specifications for this environments ESXi hosts?

Requirements

1. Support Virtual Machines of up to 16 vCPUs and 256GB RAM
2. Achieve up to 400% CPU overcommitment
3. Achieve up to 150% RAM overcommitment
4. Ensure cluster performance is both consistent & maximized
5. Support IP based storage (NFS & iSCSI)
6. The average VM size is 1vCPU / 4GB RAM
7. Cluster must support approx 1000 average size Virtual machines day 1
8. The solution should be scalable beyond 1000 VMs (Future-Proofing)
9. N+2 redundancy

Assumptions

1. vSphere 5.0 or later
2. vSphere Enterprise Plus licensing (to support Network I/O Control)
3. VMs range from Business Critical Application (BCAs) to non critical servers
4. Software licensing for applications being hosted in the environment are based on per vCPU OR per host where DRS “Must” rules can be used to isolate VMs to licensed ESXi hosts

Constraints

1. None

Motivation

1. Create a Scalable solution
2. Ensure high performance
3. Minimize HA overhead
4. Maximize flexibility

Architectural Decision

Use Two Socket Servers w/ >= 8 cores per socket with HT support (16 physical cores / 32 logical cores) , 256GB Ram , 2 x 10GB NICs

Justification

1. Two socket 8 core (or greater) CPUs with Hyper threading will provide flexibility for CPU scheduling of large numbers of diverse (vCPU sized) VMs to minimize CPU Ready (contention)

2. Using Two Socket servers of the proposed specification will support the required 1000 average sized VMs with 18 hosts with 11% reserved for HA to meet the required N+2 redundancy.

3. A cluster size of 18 hosts will deliver excellent cluster (DRS) efficiency / flexibility with minimal overhead for HA (Only 11%) thus ensuring cluster performance is both consistent & maximized.

4. The cluster can be expanded with up to 14 more hosts (to the 32 host cluster limit) in the event the average VM size is greater than anticipated or the customer experiences growth

5. Having 2 x 10GB connections should comfortably support the IP Storage / vMotion / FT and network data with minimal possibility of contention. In the event of contention Network I/O Control will be configured to minimize any impact (see Example VMware vNetworking Design w/ 2 x 10GB NICs)

6. RAM is one of the most common bottlenecks in a virtual environment, with 16 physical cores and 256GB RAM this equates to 16GB of RAM per physical core. For the average sized VM (1vCPU / 4GB RAM) this meets the CPU overcommitment target (up to 400%) with no RAM overcommitment to minimize the chance of RAM becoming the bottleneck

7. In the event of a host failure, the number of Virtual machines impacted will be up to 64 (based on the assumed average size VM) which is minimal when compared to a Four Socket ESXi host which would see 128 VMs impacted by a single host outage

8. If using Four socket ESXi hosts the cluster size would be approx 10 hosts and would require 20% of cluster resources would have to be reserved for HA to meet the N+2 redundancy requirement. This cluster size is less efficient from a DRS perspective and the HA overhead would equate to higher CapEx and as a result lower the ROI

9. The solution supports Virtual machines of up to 16 vCPUs and 256GB RAM although this size VM would be discouraged in favour of a scale out approach (where possible)

10. The cluster aligns with a virtualization friendly “Scale out” methodology

11. Using smaller hosts (either single socket, or less cores per socket) would not meet the requirement to support supports Virtual machines of up to 16 vCPUs and 256GB RAM , would likely require multiple clusters and require additional 10GB and 1GB cabling as compared to the Two Socket configuration

12. The two socket configuration allows the cluster to be scaled (expanded) at a very granular level (if required) to reduce CapEx expenditure and minimize waste/unused cluster capacity by adding larger hosts

13. Enabling features such as Distributed Power Management (DPM) are more attractive and lower risk for larger clusters and may result in lower environmental costs (ie: Power / Cooling)

Alternatives

1.  Use Four Socket Servers w/ >= 8 cores per socket , 512GB Ram , 4 x 10GB NICs
2.  Use Single Socket Servers w/ >= 8 cores , 128GB Ram , 2 x 10GB NICs
3. Use Two Socket Servers w/ >= 8 cores , 512GB Ram , 2 x 10GB NICs
4. Use Two Socket Servers w/ >= 8 cores , 384GB Ram , 2 x 10GB NICs
5. Have two clusters of 9 hosts with the recommended hardware specifications

Implications

1. Additional IP addresses for ESXi Management, vMotion, FT & Out of band management will be required as compared to a solution using larger hosts

2. Additional out of band management cabling will be required as compared to a solution using larger hosts

Related Articles

1. Example Architectural Decision – Network I/O Control for ESXi Host using IP Storage (4 x 10 GB NICs)

2. Example VMware vNetworking Design w/ 2 x 10GB NICs

3. Network I/O Control Shares/Limits for ESXi Host using IP Storage

4. VMware Clusters – Scale up for Scale out?

5. Jumbo Frames for IP Storage (Do not use Jumbo Frames)

6. Jumbo Frames for IP Storage (Use Jumbo Frames)

CloudXClogo

 

Example Architectural Decision – Jumbo Frames for IP Storage (Do not use Jumbo Frames)

Posted on by
3

Problem Statement

When using IP based storage over a converged 10GB network, should Jumbo Frames be used?

Requirements

1. Fully Supported storage

2. Maximum vSphere environment availability

3. Maximize performance where possible

Assumptions

1. Converged 10GB Network which is highly available

2. Two (or more) 10GB connections per ESXi host

Constraints

1. No dedicated network for IP storage traffic

Motivation

1. Simplify the environment

Architectural Decision

Do not use Jumbo Frames

Justification

1. Reduce the complexity in the environment for initial implementation

2. Simplify ongoing support / troubleshooting

3. For a Jumbo Frame to be transmitted without fragmentation, All devices end to end must support and be configured for Jumbo Frames

4. While there can be performance benefits of Jumbo Frames for IP Storage this is not generally seen across the board and depends on I/O types

5. Ensure IP storage packets are not fragmented or dropped by mis-configured devices or devices that do not support Jumbo Frames

6. Storage performance for the virtual environment will generally be constrained by the storage array controllers not the storage area network

7. Ensure packet fragmentation does not occur as all devices support a default MTU of 1500

8. Increasing the MTU will decrease the number of packets required for the same bandwidth but where the bottleneck is throughput (bytes) there will be minimal/no benefit

9. Jumbo Frames will only assist where the network is constrained at an interrupt level

Implications

1. IP Storage may have reduced performance in some circumstances compared to what Jumbo Frames may offer

Alternatives

1. Use Jumbo Frames

Relates Articles

1. Example Architectural Decision – Jumbo Frames for IP Storage (Use Jumbo Frames)

 Contributors

Thanks to Rob McNab (IBM) and Peter McCrystal (IBM) for their input into this example architectural decision.