Category Archives: vSphere 5.1

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.

 

 

Example Architectural Decision – Jumbo Frames with IP Storage (Use Jumbo Frames)

Posted on by
1

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. Dedicated 10GB Storage Network which is highly available

2. Two 10GB connections per ESXi host dedicated to IP Storage

3. Storage array supports Jumbo Frames

4. Benefit of Jumbo Frames outweighs the complexity to implement/maintain/support

5. Network performance is constrained at an interrupt level

Constraints

1. Maximum of two connections per ESXi host for IP Storage

Motivation

1. Maximum performance and security

Architectural Decision

Use Jumbo Frames

Justification

1. There is a dedicated physical network for IP storage

2. All devices end to end support Jumbo Frames and this is enabled on all switches globally

3. As only IP storage traffic traverses the dedicated network, a larger MTU will not have any adverse effects on data network traffic.

4.  IP storage packets will not be fragmented or dropped as the storage network has been verified and configured to support Jumbo Frames. Thus avoiding costly re-transmits

5. No routing exists (or is required) for the IP storage network, as such the environment is flat and simple to support

6. IP Storage performance will not be constrained by MTU

7. A standard MTU of 1500 can optionally be configured at the VMKernel layer if performance is negatively impacted by Jumbo Frames without the need to modify the switch configuration which will support up to 9216 MTU

8. Increasing the MTU will decrease the number of packets required for the same bandwidth to help prevent IP storage network being constrained at an interrupt level

Implications

1. A dedicated network needs to be maintained for IP storage which reduces consolidation

2. Storage network needs to be configured for Jumbo Frames

3. The Storage controller needs to be configured for Jumbo Frames

4. The VMKernel/s need to be configured for Jumbo Frames

5. Where the networks becomes constrained at either an interrupt or throughput level, any benefit of Jumbo Frames may be reduced or lost and IP storage performance may degrade

Alternatives

1. Do not use Jumbo Frames

2. Use Jumbo Frames in a converged network (ie: No dedicated IP Storage switches)

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.

Example Architectural Decision – Datastore Heartbeats for Clusters protected by SRM

Posted on by
Reply

Problem Statement

To enhance the isolation detection abilities of vSphere to minimize the chance of false positive isolation responses  Datastore Heartbeats will be used. What is the most suitable configuration of Datastore Heartbeats for an environment using SRM?

Requirements

1. SRM solution must not be impacted

2. Maximum vSphere environment availability

Assumptions

1. Site Recovery Manager 5.1 protects virtual machines in the cluster/s

2. Appropriate isolation address/es have been configured OR the default isolation address is suitable

3. As all storage is presented via Active/Active storage controllers

4. There are some datastore which are not replicated

5. Isolation response is set to “Shutdown”

Constraints

1. None

Motivation

1. Minimize the chance of a false positive isolation event

2. In the event of isolation, automate the recovery of VMs

Architectural Decision

Use Datastore Heartbeats to enhance the isolation detection capabilities of vSphere.

For each cluster where SRM is used, Configure Datastore Heartbeating to Manually select two non replicated datastores per cluster as the heartbeat datastores

Justification

1. Datastore heartbeating frequently writes to the datastore selected for heartbeating so in the event the network is down, isolation, partition or failure can be properly determained. As a result, during a SRM recovery, datastores need to be un-mounted from the failed site and the Datastore heartbeating may cause one or more datastores to fail to unmount due to I/O on the datastore

2. Datastores failing to un-mount will cause one or more of the SRM recovery steps to report as failed, selecting non replicated datastores prevents this impacting SRM

3. The environment benefits from increases resiliency as a result of datastore heartbeats being used

4. There is no negative impact to the SRM solution

Implications

1. Each cluster will need to have one or more non replicated datastores if Datastore Heartbeating is to be used

2. Additional configuration required to manually select non replicated datastores for heartbeating

Alternatives

1. Do not use Datastore heartbeating

2. Use Datastore Heartbeats and have datastores automatically selected

Relates Articles

1. Example Architectural Decision – Host Isolation Response for FC Based storage