Tag Archives: IP Storage

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 – Storage Protocol Choice for a VMware View Environment using Linked Clones

Posted on by
2

Problem Statement

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

Assumptions

1.  The Storage Array supports NFS native snapshot offload
2. VMware View 5.1 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 (VAAI) 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 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

Implications

1.  In the current release, 5.1, View Storage Accelerator (formally Content Based Read Cache or CBRC) is not supported when using Native NFS snapshots (VAAI)
2. Also in the current release 5.1, “Use native NFS snapshots (VAAI) is in “Tech Preview” – This is rumored to change in View 5.2

Alternatives

1. Use VMFS (block) based datastores and have more VMFS datastores – Note: Recompose activity will be driven by the host which adds an overhead to the cluster.