Category Archives: Performance

Can I use my existing SAN/NAS storage with Nutanix?

Posted on by
6

I question I get regularly is, “Can I use my existing SAN/NAS storage with Nutanix?”.

The short answer is, as always “It depends”.

  • iSCSI, NFS & SMB 3.0 can be presented to Nutanix nodes just like existing non Nutanix nodes.
  • FC based storage cannot be used as Nutanix does not support FC HBAs

The below diagram shows a Nutanix NX-3460 block w/ 4 nodes having both Nutanix Containers presented to the nodes as well as iSCSI LUNs , SMB 3.0 or NFS Mount points connected from the centralized SAN/NAS.

Note: SMB 3 is not supported for ESXi hosts & NFS is not supported for Hyper-V.

Nutanix w External iSCSi NFS SMB Storage

So what is the use cases for this style of deployment?

If you’re not ready to do an entire infrastructure refresh for whatever reason/s, you may wish to transition to Nutanix over time while maximizing ROI and lifespan of you’re existing storage.

Here is some examples of what I recommend customers do:

1. Migrate Business Critical Applications (BCAs) to Nutanix

There are many benefits of doing this including:

  • Improving resiliency / performance for vBCAs
  • Simplifying storage management for vBCAs
  • Freeing up capacity and reducing the workload on legacy SAN
  • Increasing ease of scalability for critical workloads
  • Use legacy SAN/NAS for high capacity low IOPS workloads which are better suited to centralized storage than vBCAs

Another great option is

2. Migrate Virtual Desktops (VDI) to Nutanix which shares similar benefits to migrating vBCAs including:

  • Separating non complimentary VDI workloads from Server & vBCAs as these workloads do not mix well in centralized storage deployments
  • Improving resiliency / performance for VDI
  • Simplifying storage management for VDI
  • Reducing the workload on legacy SAN/NAS which will give an effective increase in performance for workloads remaining on the SAN/NAS
  • Increasing linear scalability for VDI for if/when the environment scales
  • Use legacy SAN/NAS for high capacity low IOPS workloads which are better suited to centralized storage than VDI

The last example I wanted to point out is Management workloads.

1. Migrate Infrastructure Management workloads to Nutanix.

As has been recommended by many industry experts, separating Management VMs from customer (e.g.: vCAC / vCloud tenants) or production server/desktop workloads (at both the Compute & Storage layers) can dramatically simplify the datacenter and help improve performance, resiliency & recoverability.

Again doing this provides similar benefits to the previous two examples.

  • Separating Management workloads from Server / vBCAs / VDI as these workloads should be separate from a security, resiliency, performance and recoverability perspectives.
  • Improving resiliency / performance for all workloads in the datacenter
  • Simplifying storage management for Management
  • Reducing the workload on legacy SAN/NAS which will give an effective increase in performance for workloads remaining on the SAN/SAN
  • Increasing scalability for if/when the management demands increase.
  • Maximizes the life span / performance of the legacy SAN/NAS

In summary, where it is not possible for budgetary reasons to migrate all workloads to Nutanix, migrating some workloads such as VDI, vBCA or Management to Nutanix will help alleviate the impact of scalability, performance and/or resiliency issues with your existing centralized SAN/NAS.

Nutanix also provides a solution which can start (very) small and continue to be scaled in a granular fashion over time until the SAN/NAS goes End of Life and/or when budget exists. At this time all workloads can then be migrated to Nutanix!

Is VAAI beneficial with Virtual Storage Appliance (VSA) based solutions ?

Posted on by
7

I saw a tweet recently (below) which inspired me to write this post as there is still a clear misunderstanding of the benefits VAAI provides (even with Virtual Storage Appliances).

vaaionvsatweet2

I have removed the identity of the individual who wrote the tweet and the people who retweeted this as the goal of this post is solely to correct what I believe is mis-information.

My interpretation of the tweet was (and remains) if a solution uses a Virtual Storage Appliance (VSA) which resides on the ESXi host then VAAI is not providing any benefits.

My opinion on this topic is:

Compared to a traditional centralised NAS (such as a Netapp or EMC Isilon) providing NFS storage with VAAI-NAS support, a Nutanix or VSA solution has exactly the same benefits from VAAI!

My 1st reply to the tweet was:

vaaionvsatweetconvojoshreply2

The test I was referring to with Netapp OnTap Edge can be found here which was posted in Jan 2013, well prior to my joining Nutanix when I was working for IBM where I had been evangelising VAAI/VCAI based solutions for a long time as VAAI/VCAI provides significant value to VMware customers.

The following shows the persons initial reply to my tweet.

vaaionvsatweetconvo32

I responded with the below mentioning I will do a blog which is what you’re reading now.

I went onto provide some brief replies as shown below.

repliesdetail

The main comments from this persons tweets I would summarize (rightly or wrongly) below:

  • VAAI is designed only to offload functions externally (or off the ESXi host)
  • He/She had not seen any proof of performance advantages from VAAI on VSAs
  • Its broken logic to use VAAI with a VSA

Firstly, I would like comment on VAAI being designed to offload functions externally (or off the ESXi host). I don’t disagree VAAI has some functions designed to offload to the (centralised) array but VAAI also has numerous functions which are designed to bring other efficiencies to a vSphere environment.

An example of a feature designed to offload to a central array is the “XCOPY” primitive.

A simple example of what “XCOPY” or Extended Copy provides is offloading a Storage vMotion on block based storage (i.e.: VMFS over iSCSI,FC,FCoE not NFS) to the array so the ESXi host does not have to process the data movement.

This VAAI primitive would likely be of little benefit in a VSA environment where the storage is presented is block based and Storage DRS for example was used. The data movement would be offloaded from ESXi to the VSA running on ESXi and host would still be burdened with the SvMotion.

However XCOPY is only one of the many primitives of VAAI, and VAAI does alot more than just offload Storage vMotions.

For the purpose of this post, I will be discussing VAAI with Nutanix whos Software defined storage solution runs in a VM on every ESXi host in a Nutanix cluster.
Note: This information is also relevant to other VSAs which support VAAI-NAS.

So what benefit does VAAI provide to Nutanix or a VSA solution running NFS?

Nutanix deploys by default with NFS and supports the VAAI-NAS primitives which are:

  • Full File Clone
  • Fast File Clone
  • Reserve Space
  • Extended Statistics

Note: XCOPY is not supported on NFS, importantly and specifically speaking for Nutanix it is not required as SvMotion will be rarely if ever used with Nutanix solutions.

See my post “Storage DRS and Nutanix – To use, or not to use, that is the question?” for more details on why SvMotion is rarely needed when using Nutanix.

For more details of VAAI primitives, Cormac Hogan (@CormacJHogan) wrote an excellent post which can be found here.

Now here is an example of a significant performance benefits of VAAI with Nutanix.

Lets look at Clone of a VM on a Nutanix platform, the VMs details are below.admin01vm

The VM I have used for this test resides on a datastore called “Management” (as per the above image) which presented via NFS and has VAAI (Hardware Acceleration) enabled as shown below.datastore

Now if I do a simple clone of a VM (as shown below) if the VM is turned on, VAAI-NAS is bypassed as the “Fast File Clone” primitive only works on VMs which are powered off.

clone

So a simple way to test the performance benefits of VAAI on any platform (including Hyper-converged such as Nutanix, a Virtual Storage Appliance (VSA) such as Netapp Ontap Edge or traditional centralised SAN or NAS) is to clone a VM while powered on then shut-down the VM and clone it again.

I performed this test and the first clone with the VM powered on started at 1:17:23 PM and finished at 1:26:12 PM, so a total of 8 mins 49 seconds.

Next I shut down the VM and repeated the clone operation.cloneresults

As we can see in the above screen capture from the 2nd clone started at 1:26:49 PM and finished at 1:26:54 PM, so a total of 5 seconds.

The reason for the huge difference in the speed of the two clones is because VAAI-NAS “Fast File Clone” primitive offloaded the 2nd clone to the Nutanix platform (which runs as a VM on the ESXi host) which has intelligently cloned the VM (using metadata resulting in almost zero data creation) as opposed to 1st clone where VAAI-NAS was not used which resulted in the hypervisor and storage solution having to read 11.18GB of data (being the source VM – Admin01) and write a full copy of the same data resulting in effectively >22GB of data movement in the environment.

Now from a capacity savings perspective, a simple way to demonstrate the capacity savings of VAAI on any platform is to clone a VM multiple times and compare the before and after datastore statistics.

Before I performed this test I captured a baseline of the Management datastore as shown below.

BeforeCloningCapacityVMcount

The above highlighted areas show:

  • Virtual Machines and Templates as 83
  • Capacity 8.49TB
  • Provisioned Space 7.09TB
  • Free Space 7.01TB

I then cloned the Admin01 VM a total of 7 times.clone7vmsrecenttasks

Immediately following the last clone completing I took the below screen shot of the Management datastores statistics.

AfterCloningCapacityVMcount

The above highlighted areas in the updated datastore summary show:

  • Virtual Machines and Templates INCREASED by 7 to 90 (as I cloned 7 VMs)
  • Capacity remained the same at 8.49TB
  • Provisioned Space INCREASED to 7.29TB as we cloned 7 x ~40Gb VMs (Total of ~280GB)
  • Free Space REMAINED THE SAME at 7.01TB due to VAAI-NAS Fast File Clone primitive working with the Nutanix Distributed File System.

So VAAI-NAS allowed a VM of ~11GB of used storage (~40GB provisioned) to be cloned without using any significant additional disk space and the clones were each done in between 5 and 7 seconds each.

So some of the benefits VAAI-NAS provides to Nutanix (which some people would term as a VSA type solution) include:

  • Near instant VM cloning via vSphere Client/s (as shown above)
  • Near instant Horizon View Linked Clone deployments (VCAI) – Similar to example shown.
  • Near instant vCloud Director clones (via FAST Provisioning) – Similar to example shown.
  • Major capacity savings by using Intelligent cloning rather than Full Clones (As shown above)
  • Lower CPU overhead for both ESXi hosts AND Nutanix Controller VM (CVM)
  • Ability to create EagerZeroThick VMDKs on NFS (e.g.: To support Fault Tolerance & clustered workloads such as Oracle RAC)
  • Enhanced ability to get statistics on file sizes , capacity usage etc on NFS

In Summary:

Overall I would say that VMware have developed an excellent API in VAAI and Nutanix along with VSA providers having support for VAAI provides major advantages and value to our joint customers with VMware.

It would be broken logic NOT to leverage the advantages of VAAI regardless of storage type (VSA, Nutanix or traditional centralized SAN/NAS) and for the vast majority of vSphere deployments, any storage solution not supporting (or having issues/bugs with) VAAI will have significant downsides.

I am looking forward to ongoing developments from VMware such as vVols and VASA 2.0 to continue to enhance storage of vSphere solutions in the future.

I hope customers and architects now have the correct information to make the most effective design and purchasing recommendations to meet/exceed customer requirements.

Unlimited VMs per datastore? Its not a myth with Nutanix!

Posted on by
5

For many years, I have been asked on countless occasions questions relating to how many VMs can (or should) be placed in one datastore.

In fact, just this morning I was asked this same question, and I decided to whip up a quick post.

I have previously posted an Example Architectural Decision relating to Datastore sizing for Block based storage. What this example was aimed to show was a how things like RPO/RTO and performance should be taken into consideration when choosing a datastore size.

The above example is not a hard and fast rule, but an example of one deployment which I was involved in.

There is a great article written on this topic by VCDX, Jason Boche (@jasonboche), titled  “VAAI and the Unlimited VMs per Datastore Urban Myth” which covers in great detail this topic as it relates to block based storage, being iSCSI, FC & FCoE.

But what about NFS, and what about with Hyper-converged solutions like Nutanix?

NFS has gained significant popularity in recent years, and in my opinion, people who know what they are talking about, no longer refer to NFS as “Tier 3 Storage” which was once common.

With traditional storage solutions, generally only a smaller number of controllers can actively serve IO to the one NFS mount, so the limiting factor preventing running more virtual machines per NFS mount, in my experience was performance but things like RPO/RTO were and are important considerations.

NFS does not suffer from SCSI reservations which resulted in increased latency ,which is what VAAI, specifically the Atomic Test & Set or ATS primitive helped too all but eliminate for block based datastores.

LUNs are limited by there queue depth, which in most cases is 32 (sometimes 64). This is also a limiting factor, as all the VMs in a datastore (LUN) share the same queue which can lead to contention. SIOC helps manage the contention by ensuring fairness based on share values, but it does not solve the issue.

NFS on the other hand has a much larger queue depth, in fact its basically unlimited as shown below.

NFSqueuedepth

So as NFS does not suffer from SCSI reservations, or queue depth issues, what is limiting us having hundreds or more VMs per datastore?

It comes down to how many active storage controllers are able to service the NFS mount, and the performance of the storage controller/s. In addition to this your business requirements around RPO/RTO. In other words, if a NFS mount is lost, how quickly can you recover.

For most traditional shared storage products,

1. Have only 1 or 2 active controllers – thus potentially limiting performance which would lead to lower VMs per NFS datastore.

2. Do snapshots at the NFS mount layer, so if you need to recover an entire NFS mount, the larger it is, the longer it may take.

For Nutanix, by default, NFS is used to present the Nutanix Distributed File System (NDFS) to vSphere, however the key difference between Nutanix and traditional shared storage is every controller in the Nutanix cluster, can and does Actively serve IO to any datastore in the cluster concurrently.

So the limit from a performance perspective is gone thanks to Nutanix scale out, shared nothing architecture, with one virtual storage controller (CVM) per Nutanix node. The number of nodes that’s can be scaled too, is also unlimited. An example of Nutanix ability to scale can be found here – Scaling to 1 million IOPS and beyond, Linearly!

Next what about the RPO/RTO issue? Well, Nutanix does not rely on LUNs or NFS mounts for our data protection (or snapshots), this is all done at a VM layer so your RPO/RTO is now per VM, which gives you much more flexibility.

With Nutanix, you can literally run hundreds or even thousands of VMs per NFS datastore, without performance or RPO/RTO problems thanks to scale out, shared nothing architecture and the Nutanix Distributed File System.

There are some reasons why you may choose to have multiple NFS datastores even in a Nutanix environment, these include, if you want to enable Compression and/or De-duplication which are enabled/disabled on a per container (or datastore) level. As some workloads don’t compress or dedupe well, these types of workloads should be excluded to reduce the overhead on the cluster.

It is important to note, Nutanix uses a concept called a “Storage Pool” which contains all the storage for the Nutanix cluster. On top of a “Storage Pool” you create “Containers” (or datastores). This means regardless of if you have 1 or 100 datastores, they all still sit on top of the one “Storage Pool” which means you still have access to the same amount of storage capacity, with no silos for maximum capacity utilization (and performance!).

Lastly, Nutanix does not suffer from the same availability concerns as traditional shared storage where a single LUN could potentially be lost. This is due to the distributed architecture of the Nutanix solution. For more information on how Nutanix is more highly available than traditional shared storage, check out “Scale out, Shared Nothing Architecture Resiliency by Nutanix”

Check out a screen shot of one cluster with ~800 VMs on a single datastore. Note: The sub millisecond latency and 14K IOPS w/ ~900MBps throughput. Not bad!

800VMsonDatastore