Tag Archives: example architectural decision

Example Architectural Decision – Port Binding Setting for a dvPortGroup

Posted on by
7

Problem Statement

In a VMware vSphere environment using Virtual Distributed Switches (VDS) where all VMs including vCenter is hosted on the VDS, What is the most suitable Port Binding setting for dvPortgroups to ensure maximum performance and availability?

Assumptions

1. Enterprise Plus Licensing
2. vCenter is hosted on the VDS

Requirements

1. The environment must have central management of vNetworking
2. All VMs must be able to be powered on in the event of a vCenter outage
3. Network connectivity must not be impacted if vCenter is down.

Motivation

1. Reduce complexity where possible.
2. Maximize the availability of the infrastructure

Architectural Decision

Use the default dvPortGroup Port Binding setting of “Static Binding”

Justification

1. A dvPortGroup port is assigned to a VM and reserved when a VM is connected to the dvPortGroup. This ensures connectivity at all times including when vCenter is down.
3. Using “Static Binding” ensures the vCenter VM can be powered on and connected to the dvPortGroup even after a failure/outage.
4. “Static Binding” is the default setting and there is no reason to modify this setting.

Implications

1. The number of VMs supported on the dvPortGroup / VDS is limited to the number ports on the VDS (not overcommitment of ports is possible).
2. Number of ports configured on a dvPortGroup should be greater than the maximum number of VMs required to be supported.
3. Port Allocation should be left at the default of “Elastic” to ensure the number of ports is automatically expanded if/when required.
4. New Virtual machines cannot be powered on and connected to a dvPortGroup (VDS) when vCenter is down.

Alternatives

1. Set dvPortGroup Port Binding to “Dynamic binding”
2. Set dvPortGroup Port Binding to “Ephemeral binding”

Related Articles

1. Distributed vSwitches and vCenter outage, what’s the deal? – @duncanyb (VCDX #007)

2. Choosing a port binding type in ESX/ESXi (1022312)

Example Architectural Decision – Horizon View Desktop Power Policy for Linked Clones (1 of 2)

Posted on by
Reply

Problem Statement

In a VMware Horizon View environment using persistent Linked Clones, Disposable disks are being used to redirect transient paging and  temporary files to a separate VMDK.

What is the most suitable Desktop Pool setting to ensure storage overheads are reduced?

Assumptions

1. VMware View 4.5 or later
2. Recompose / Refresh cycles are infrequent
3. Desktop Usage concurrency within the pool is less than 100%
4. Memory Reservations are not being used.

Requirements

1. The environment must deliver consistent performance
2. Minimize the cost/utilization of shared storage

Motivation

1. Reduce complexity where possible.
2. Maximize the efficiency of the infrastructure

Architectural Decision

Set the Power Policy for all Linked Clone desktop pools to “Power Off”

Justification

1. Using disposable disks can save storage space by slowing the growth of linked clones and reducing the space used by powered off virtual machines.
2. Using the “Power Off” policy for the pool means at user logoff (or shutdown) the disposable disk will be refreshed, therefore reducing the capacity usage at the storage layer.
3. “Powered Off” VMs do not have a Virtual Machine SWAP file which will also reduce storage consumption.

Implications

1. Setting the policy to “Power Off” will result in more frequent power operations which may impact the performance of the storage and vCenter.
2. When a user attempts to login to a desktop which has been powered off, there will be a delay while the VM is powered on and booting up before the user will be logged in.
3. The peak concurrency rate of users will need to be understood to allow accurate storage planning for the VSWAP file.

Alternatives

1. Increase the frequency of Recompose / Refresh / Rebalance operations
2. Set the Policy to “Take no power action” and schedule an Administrator task to periodically change the Power Policy to “Powered Off” during a maintenance window.
3. Set the Policy to “Ensure desktops are always powered on” and schedule an Administrator task to periodically change the Power Policy to “Powered Off” during a maintenance window.
4. Set the Policy to “Suspend”  and schedule an Administrator task to periodically change the Power Policy to “Powered Off” during a maintenance window, however this will consume extra storage for the Suspend File.
5. Use Memory Reservations to reduce storage requirements for vSwap and leave Power Policy to “Always On”.

Related Articles:

The example architectural decision was contributed to by Travis Wood (@vTravWood) and was inspired by the following article:

1. Understanding View Disposable Disks by @vTravWood (Double VCDX #97 Desktop/Datacenter Virtualization)

1. Transparent Page Sharing (TPS) Configuration for VDI (1 of 2)

2. Transparent Page Sharing (TPS) Configuration for VDI (2 of 2)

Example Architectural Decision – Transparent Page Sharing (TPS) Configuration for VDI (2 of 2)

Posted on by
Reply

Problem Statement

In a VMware vSphere environment, with future releases of ESXi disabling Transparent Page Sharing by default, what is the most suitable TPS configuration for a Virtual Desktop environment?

Assumptions

1. TPS is disabled by default
2. Storage is expensive
3. Two Socket ESXi Hosts have been chosen to align with a scale out methodology.
4. Average VDI user is Task Worker with 1vCPU and 2GB Ram.
5. Memory is the first compute level constraint.
6. HA Admission Control policy used is “Percentage of Cluster Resources reserved for HA”
7. vSphere 5.5 or earlier

Requirements

1. VDI environment costs must be minimized

Motivation

1. Reduce complexity where possible.
2. Maximize the efficiency of the infrastructure

Architectural Decision

Enable TPS and disable Large Memory pages

Justification

1. Disabling Large pages is essential to maximizing the benefits of TPS
2. Not disabling large pages would likely result in minimal TPS savings
3. With Kiosk and Task worker VDI profiles, the percentage of memory which is likely to be shared is higher than for Power users.
4. Existing shared storage has plenty of spare Tier 1 capacity to vSwap files

Implications

1. Sufficient capacity for VM swap files must be catered for.
2. VDI & Storage performance may be impacted significantly in the event of memory contention.
3. Decreased memory costs may result in increased storage costs.
4. During patching, and operational verification that non default settings have not been reverted by the patching of ESXi.
5. Additional CPU overhead on ESXi from enabling TPS.
6. HA admission control will calculate fail-over requirements (when using Percentage of cluster resources reserved for HA) so that performance will be approximately the same in the event of a fail-over due to reserving the full RAM reserved for every VM,
6. HA admission control (when configured to Percentage of Cluster resources reserved for HA) will only calculate fail-over capacity based on 0MB + VM overhead for each VM which can lead to significantly degraded performance in a HA event.
7. Higher core count (and higher cost) CPUs may be desired to drive overcommitment ratios as RAM will be less likely to be a point of contention.

Alternatives

1. Use 100% memory reservation and leave TPS disabled (default)
2. Use 50% memory reservation and Enable TPS and disable large pages

Related Articles:

1. The Impact of Transparent Page Sharing (TPS) being disabled by default @josh_odgers (VCDX#90)

2. Example Architectural Decision – Transparent Page Sharing (TPS) Configuration for VDI (1 of 2)

3. Future direction of disabling TPS by default and its impact on capacity planning –@FrankDenneman (VCDX #29)

4. Transparent Page Sharing Vulnerable, Yet Largely Irrelevant – @ChrisWahl(VCDX#104)