Tag Archives: datastore

The future of NAS Storage (NFS) for Virtual Environments

Posted on by
9

I read the article (below) by Howard Marks after seeing it come up on Twitter today, and I found it to be very interesting and refreshing to read as it hits the nail on the head.

http://www.networkcomputing.com/storage-networking-management/vmware-has-to-step-up-on-nfs/240163350

For a long time Network Attached Storage (NAS) has been considered by many (including myself in the past) as a second class citizen, or Tier 3 storage and not a serious choice for mission critical virtual environments.

In recent years, I have used more and more NFS in vSphere environments, and as I went through my VCDX journey I formed the strong view that NFS was in fact the best storage protocol for vSphere/vCloud/View environments having gone through a process of trying to learn as much as possible about every storage alternative available to vSphere.

In fact my VCDX design was based on a vCloud solution running on NFS, and this was one area I found quite easy to present and defend during the VCDX defence due to the many advantages of NFS.

In the article, Howard wrote

“It’s time for VMware to upgrade its support for file storage (as opposed to block storage) and embrace the pioneering vendors who are building storage systems specifically for the virtualization environment.”

I totally agree with this statement, and I think it is in the best interest of VMware, its partners and customers for VMware to go down this path. I think most would agree that Netapp have been leading the charge with NFS based storage for a long time, and in my opinion rightly so, with some new storage vendors also choosing to build solutions around NFS.

Another comment Howard made was

“managing vSphere with NFS storage is somewhat simpler than managing an equivalent system on block storage. Even better, a good NFS storage system, because it knows which blocks belong to which virtual machine, can perform storage management tasks such as snapshots, replication and storage quality of service per virtual machine, rather than per volume.”

I totally agree with the above statement and VMware’s development of features such as View Composer for Array Integration (VCAI) which is only supported on NFS, shows the protocol has significant advantages over block based storage especially for deployment speed and reduced workload on the storage compared. (VCAI uses the Fast File Clone VAAI-NAS Primitive to create near instant space efficient Linked Clone desktops)

I wrote an example architectural decision regarding storage protocol choice for Horizon View (VDI) environments which covers in more depth the advantages of NFS for VDI environments. The article can be viewed here : Example Architectural Decision – Storage Protocol Choice for Horizon View

Also NFS does not suffer from the same challenges as block based storage, as much larger numbers of VMs can share an NFS datastore compared to VMFS datastore without being negatively impacted by latency as a result of SCSI reservations (although vastly improved with VAAI) or contention resulting from limited SCSI queue depths which is something VAAI does still not address.

These limitations of block storage leads to the number of VMs per datastore remaining at the old rules of thumb of <25 for non I/O intensive workloads even with VAAI which some felt was the magic solution to the issue which sadly was incorrect. (Note: Number of desktop VMs per VMFS datastore with VAAI the recommended maximum is 140 compared to 64 without VAAI and NFS of >200).

Howard went on to write

“The first step would be for VMware to acknowledge that NFS has advanced in the past decade.”

I think this has been acknowledged by VMware along with many experts in the industry which is a positive step forward and I believe VMware will give more attention to NFS in future versions.

Howard further commented that

“Today vSphere supports version 3.0 of NFS—which is seventeen years old. NFS 4.1 has much more sophisticated security, locking and network improvements than NFS 3.0. The optional pNFS extension can bring the performance and multipathing of SANs with centralized file system management.”

I really think that VMware adding support in the future for NFS 4.1 will really help cement NFS as the protocol of choice for virtual environments and will be complimentary to VMware’s upcoming VSAN offering.

I think with bolstered NFS support and VSAN, VMware will have a solid storage layer to take virtualization into the future, without requiring storage vendors to immediately support vVOLs which in my opinion is being built (at least in part) to solve the challenges of VMFS and block based storage, when NFS (even version 3.) addresses most requirements in virtual environments very well today, and NFS 4.1 support will only improve the situation.

Howard’s comment (below) appears to echo these thoughts.

“Better NFS support will empower storage vendors to innovate and strengthen the vSphere ecosystem and fill the gap until vVols are ready. NFS support will also provide an alternative once vVols hit the market.”

 

To finish I thought Howard’s comment on snapshots (below) and replication being per Virtual Machine rather than volume or LUN, several vendors are doing this today moving towards NFS 4.1 will help these vendors continue to innovate and provide better and more efficient storage solutions for VMware’s customers which I think is what everyone wants.

Even better, a good NFS storage system, because it knows which blocks belong to which virtual machine, can perform storage management tasks such as snapshots, replication and storage quality of service per virtual machine, rather than per volume.

Example Architectural Decision – Storage Protocol Choice for a Horizon View Environment

Posted on by
Reply

Problem Statement

What is the most suitable storage protocol for a Virtual Desktop (Horizon View) environment using Linked Clones?

Assumptions

1. VMware View 5.3 or later

Motivation

1. Minimize recompose (maintenance) window
2. Minimize impact on the storage array and HA/DRS cluster during recompose activities
3. Reduce storage costs where possible
4. Simplify the storage design eg: Number/size of Datastores / Storage Connectivity
5. Reduce the total solution cost eg: Number of Hosts required

Architectural Decision

Use Network File System (NFS)

Justification

1. Using native NFS snapshot (VCAI) offloads the creation of VMs to the array, therefore reducing the compute overhead on the ESXi hosts
2. Native NFS snapshots require much less disk space than traditional linked clones
3. Recomposition times are reduced due to the offloading of the cloning to the array
4. More virtual machines can be supported per NFS datastore compared to VMFS datastores (200+ for NFS compared to max recommended of 140, but it is generally recommended to design for much lower numbers eg: 64 per VMFS)
5. Recompositions/Refresh activities can be performed during business hours, or at Logoff (for Refresh) with minimal impact to the HA/DRS cluster, thus giving more flexibility to maintain the environment
6. Avoid’s potential VMFS locking issues – although this issue is not as important for environments using vSphere 4.1 onward with VAAI compatible arrays
7. When sizing your storage array, less capacity is required. Note: Performance sizing is also critical
8. The cost and complexity of a FC Storage Area Network can be avoided
9. Fewer ESXi hosts may be required as the compute overhead of driving cloning has been removed thus reducing cost
10. VCAI is fully supported feature in Horizon View 5.3

Implications

1. The Storage Array supports NFS native snapshot offload to enable the full benefit of NFS (VCAI clones) however all other benefits remain without VCAI support.

Alternatives

1. Use VMFS (block) based datastores via iSCSI or FC/FCoE and have more VMFS datastores – Note: Recompose activity will be driven by the host which adds an overhead to the cluster. (Not Recommended)

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

Posted on by
7

Storage DRS (SDRS) is an excellent feature which was released with vSphere 5.0 in late 2011. For those of you who are not familiar with SDRS I recommend reading the following article prior to reading the rest of this post as SDRS knowledge is assumed from now on.

Understanding VMware vSphere 5.1 Storage DRS

This post also assumes basic knowledge of 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

Storage DRS & Nutanix – To use, or not to use, that is the question?

With Storage DRS (SDRS), both capacity and performance can be managed, but what should SDRS manage in a Nutanix environment?

Lets start with performance. SDRS can help ensure optimal performance of virtual machines by enabling the I/O metric for SDRS recommendations as shown in the screen shot below.

SDRSsettingsIOmetricCircledSmall

Once this is done, SDRS will evaluate I/O every 8 hours (by default) and where the configured latency threshold is exceeded, perform a cost/benefit analysis before deciding to make a migration recommendation or do nothing.

So the question is, does SDRS add value in a Nutanix environment from a performance perspective?

The Nutanix solution adopts the “Scale-out” methodology by having one (1) Nutanix Controller VM (CVM) per Nutanix Node (ESXi Host) and then presents NFS datastore/s to the vSphere cluster which are serviced by all CVMs. The CVMs use intelligent auto-tiering to ensure optimal performance. The way this works at a high level, is as follows.

Data is written to an SSD tier (either PCIe SSD such as Fusion-io or SATA SSD) before being migrated off to a SATA tier once the blocks are determined to be “Cold” and if/when required, promoted back the an SSD tier when they become “Hot” again for improved read performance.

As with other vendor storage solutions with auto tiering technologies (such as FAST-VP , FlashPools etc) the same recommendation around SDRS and the I/O metric is true for Nutanix, leave it disabled.

So, at this point we have concluded the I/O metric will be “Disabled”, lets move onto Capacity management.

The Nutanix solution presents large NFS datastore/s to the ESXi hosts (Nutanix nodes) which are shared across all ESXi hosts in one or more vSphere clusters.

When using SDRS, it can manage initial placement of a new Virtual machine based on the configured “Utilized Space” metric (shown below) to ensure there is not a capacity imbalance between the datastores in a datastore cluster, as well as move virtual machines around when new machines are provisioned to ensure the balance is maintained.

UtilizedSpaceSDRS

So this is a really good feature which I have and do recommend in several scenarios, however the Nutanix solution presents typical a small number of large NFS datastores to the vSphere cluster (or clusters) which are serviced by all Controller VMs (CVMs) in the Nutanix cluster. Using SDRS for initial placement does not add much (if any) value as the initial placement will almost always be on the same large NFS datastore.

Where actual physical capacity becomes an issue, space saving technologies such as compression can be enabled, or the environment can be granularly scaled by adding just a single additional Nutanix node which linearly scales the solution from both a capacity and performance perspective.

The only real choice is when you choose to present two (or more) datastores where one datastore leverage’s the Nutanix compression technology. This is a very easy scenario for a vSphere admin to choose the placement of a VM and is the same amount of administrative effort as choosing a datastore cluster which would be a collection of datastores either using compression, or not depending on the workloads.

As a result there is no advantage to using SDRS to manage utilized space.

In conclusion, Storage DRS is a great feature when used with storage arrays where performance does not scale linearly or provide intelligent tiering to address I/O bottlenecks and/or where your environment has large numbers of datastores where you need to actively manage capacity.

As performance and capacity management are intelligently managed natively by the Nutanix solution, the requirement (or benefit) provided by SDRS is negated, as a result there is no requirement or benefit for using SDRS with a Nutanix solution.

Related Articles

1. Example Architectural Decision – VMware DRS automation level for a Nutanix environment