Tag Archives: Josh Odgers

Giving Back to the VMware community

Posted on by
Reply

After achieving my VCDX in Toronto mid last year (2012), one of my goals was to start blogging and giving back to the VMware/Virtualisation community which I wrote in my About Me post back in April last year.

Over the last year I presented at multiple VMUG events , contributed to community podcasts and kicked off this blog (CloudXC). I also got more involved with Twitter and VMware Communities forum.

I have also helped a number of VCDX candidates with mock panels and submission reviews and I am very pleased a number of those candidates have been successful.

I am pleased to say I have thoroughly enjoyed getting more involved with the community, and have met a lot of great people and learnt lots of new things along the way.

Today I received notification that along with 574 others, I was awarded the title of vExpert for 2013. (vExpert Awardees announced here)

Just like achieving VCDX, earning the vExpert title for me is just motivation to continually keep improving my skills and adding value to the community.

Thanks to everyone involved with the vExpert Program and I look forward to continuing to contribute too this great community and hopefully get another vExpert gong next year.

Congrats to everyone else who was awarded vExpert for 2013!

vExpert_pre2013_new

 

 

Example Architectural Decision – Storage I/O Control for Clusters Protected by SRM (Example 2 – Use SIOC)

Posted on by
Reply

Problem Statement

In an environment with one or more clusters with virtual machines protected by SRM, What is the most appropriate configuration of Storage I/O control?

Requirements

1. SRM solution must not be impacted

Assumptions

1. vSphere Version 4.1 or later

2. FC (Block) Based Storage OR NFS (File) based Storage

3. Number of datastores is fairly static

Constraints

1. Storage I/O control can prevent unmounting of datastore during a Recovery which can lead to errors being reported by SRM

Motivation

1. Where possible ensure consistent storage performance for all virtual machines

Architectural Decision

Enable and Configure Storage I/O control for all datastores.

Set the congestion threshold to 20ms

Leave the shares value default

Add a Step to each SRM recovery Plan as Step 1 and Select the Step Placement of “Before selected step”.

Configure step type as “Command of SRM Server” and execute the Scheduled Task which will disable SIOC prior to executing a SRM recovery

Justification

1. The benefits of Storage I/O control can still be achieved without impact to the SRM solution

2. SIOC will not impact SRM failover as it will be disabled automatically as part of the SRM recovery plan

3. In the event the Protected site or is lost, SIOC will not prevent failover

Implications

1. Increased complexity for the SRM solution

2. An additional step to excecute a “Command of SRM Server” is required

3. A Scheduled Task will need to be setup and configured with setting “Allow task to be ran on demand”

4. A script to disable SIOC will need to be prepared and configured with all datastores

Alternatives

1. Enable Storage I/O control and leave default settings

2. Enable storage I/O control and set share values on virtual machines

3. Enable Storage I/O control and set a lower “congestion threshold”

4. Enable Storage I/O control and set a higher “congestion threshold”

5. Disable Storage I/O control

Relates Articles

1. Example Architectural Decision –  Storage I/O Control for Clusters Protected by SRM (Example 2 – Don’t Use SIOC)

 

Example Architectural Decision – Site Recovery Manager Server – Physical or Virtual?

Posted on by
Reply

Problem Statement

To ensure Production vSphere environment/s can meet/exceed the required RTOs in the event of a declared site failure, What is the most suitable way to deploy VMware Site Recovery Manager, on a Physical or Virtual machine?

Requirements

1. Meet/Exceed RTO requirements

2. Ensure solution is fully supported

3. SRM be highly available, or be able to be recovered rapidly to ensure Management / Recovery of the Virtual infrastructure

4. Where possible, reduce the CAPEX and OPEX for the solution

5. Ensure the environment can be easily maintained in BAU

Assumptions

1. Sufficient compute capacity in the Management cluster for an additional VM

2. SRM database is hosted on an SQL server

3. vSphere Cluster (ideally Management cluster)  has N+1 availability

Constraints

1. None

Motivation

1. Reduce CAPEX and OPEX

2. Reduce the complexity of BAU maintenance / upgrades

3. Reduce power / cooling / rackspace usage in datacenter

Architectural Decision

Install Site Recovery Manager on a Virtual machine

Justification

1. Ongoing datacenter costs relating to Power / Cooling and Rackspace are avoided

2. Placing Site Recovery Management on a Virtual machine ensures the application benefits from the availability, load balancing, and fault resilience capabilities provided by vSphere

3. The CAPEX of a virtual machine is lower than a physical system especially when taking into consideration network/storage connectivity for the additional hardware where a physical server was used

4. The OPEX of a virtual machine is lower than a physical system due to no hardware maintenance, minimal/no additional power usage , and no cooling costs

3. Improved scale-ability and the ability to dynamically add additional resources (where required) assuming increased resource consumption by the VM. Note: The guest operating system must support Hot Add / Hot Plug and be enabled while the VM is shutdown. Where these features are not supported, virtual hardware can be added with a short outage.

4. Improved manageability as the VMware abstraction layer makes day to day tasks such as backup/recovery easier

5. Ability to non-disruptively migrate to new hardware where EVC is configured in compatible mode and enabled between hosts within a vSphere data center

Alternatives

1. Place SRM on a physical server

Implications

1. For some storage arrays, the SRM server needs to have access to admin LUNs and using a virtual machine may increase complexity by the requirement for RDMs

I would like to Thank James Wirth VCDX#83 (@jimmywally81) for his contribution to this example architectural decision.

Related Articles

1. Site Recovery Manager Deployment Location

2. Swap file location for SRM protected VMs

CloudXClogo