Tag Archives: cluster

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 – 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


 

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