Tag Archives: reserve space

How to successfully Virtualize MS Exchange – Part 16 – Virtual Disk Provisioning Types

Posted on by
3

Once you have made the decision on storage platform, and assuming you have chosen to use VMFS or NFS datastores, the next decision is how should my VMDKs be provisioned?

The VMware Exchange 2013 Best Practice Guide does not make mention of disk provisioning options nor does it make any recommendations, however you’re in luck as we will cover all the options along with pros and cons here.

For Exchange 2010, Microsoft state in Understanding Exchange 2010 Virtualization:

Virtual disks that dynamically expand aren’t supported by Exchange.

Virtual disks that use differencing or delta mechanisms (such as Hyper-V’s differencing VHDs or snapshots) aren’t supported.

However I have been unable to find confirmation if this has changed or not for Exchange 2013 in the Exchange 2013 storage configuration options document which does state Thin provisioning for Storage spaces is supported but it does not state that any other form of thin provisioning is or is not supported.

While technically not supported in 2010, there is plenty of experts who understand and recommend thin provisioning including MCM and MVP for Exchange Dustin Smith who in this video talks about some of the considerations and benefits of thin Provisioning for Exchange 2010.

Now on to the topic at hand:

When creating a Virtual Machine, VMDK/s can be provisioned in one of three ways, these are:

1. Thick Provisioned Lazy Zeroed
2. Thick Provisioned Eager Zeroed
3. Thin Provisioned

Starting with Thick Provisioned Lazy Zeroed this means that the VMDK is thick provisioned but only zeroed in a just in time fashion.

The advantages of Thick Provisioned Lazy Zeroed VMDKs include:

1. Faster VM creation time than Eager Zeroed Thick (Minimal if the storage supports VAAI Write Same primitive) 
2. The entire VMDKs capacity is reserved making capacity planning easier than Thin Provisioning

The disadvantages of Thick Provisioned Lazy Zeroed VMDKs include:

1. Slower provisioning that Thin Provisioning (although the different is generally minimal)
2. The entire VMDKs capacity is reserved and unavailable for use by other virtual machines.

With Thick Provisioned Eager Zeroed (EZT) the VMDK is thick provisioned and all blocked zeroed at the time of creation. Eager Zeroed Thick VMDKs are supported on all VMFS datastores and on NFS datastores which support the VAAI-NAS Reserve Space primitive.

The advantages of EZT VMDKs these days are really minimal but include:

1.  Supporting Oracle RAC and VMware Fault Tolerance (neither being applicable to Exchange)
2. Increased performance verses Lazy and Thin Provisioned VMDKs (but more on this topic later).

However there are a number of downsides to this method which include:

1. Slower VM creation times. The time depends on the size of the VMDK/s being created and the speed of your storage as every Gb needs to be zeroed, just like performing a Full (not quick) format on your physical server.

Note: Storage array’s who support VAAI with the “Write Same” primitive can offload the zeroing to the storage array to reduce the load on the ESXi host and speed up provisioning time dramatically.

2. Increased potential for wasted capacity on a datastore.

3. Free space within VMDKs cannot be shared with other VMs which requires every VMDK have some (generally >10% is recommended) free space per VMDK to ensure the VM does not run out of space.

Lastly there is  Thin Provision which means the VMDK only takes up the amount of space that data is written too and before each write the block must be zeroed.

The advantages of Thin Provisioning VMDKs include:

1. You can create larger VMDKs with no space utilization penalty making capacity planning and growth easier.
2. Reduce wasted or unused space on the storage
3. Allows for disk space to be overcommitted ensuring maximum utilization and flexibility.
4. Free space in VMDKs is not wasted on the datastore reducing capacity requirements compared to Eager and Lazy Zeroed VMDKs.
5. The impact of SCSI reservations (VMFS datastores ONLY) causing performance issues (increased latency) when thin provisioned virtual machines (VMDKs) grow is no longer an issue as the VAAI Atomic Test & Set (ATS) primitive alleviates the issue of SCSI reservations.
6. Thin provisioned VMs reduce the overhead for Storage vMotion , Cloning and Snapshot activities. Eg: For Storage vMotion it eliminates the requirement for Storage vMotion (or the array when offloaded by VAAI XCOPY Primitive) to relocate “White space”. Note: Storage vMotion should rarely if ever be required for Exchange VMs.
7. Thin provisioning leaves maximum available free space on the physical spindles which should improve performance of the storage subsystem as a whole.

The disadvantages of thin provisioning include:

1. Increased risk of running out of space on a datastore or underlying storage array.
2. Additional write penalty of zeroing a block before writing to it. (again more on performance later in this post).
3. Increased importance of monitoring storage capacity utilization.
4. Not supported for Exchange 2010. Note: However there is no technical inhibitor for using Thin Provisioning but supported options are obviously preferable.

All in all, @FrankDenneman (VCDX #29) sums it up perfectly with his article Thin or thick disks? – it’s about management not performance. I would also suggest considering all other workloads in the environment, not just Exchange when making decisions about Thin Provisioning as it can be very beneficial and a huge cost saving (especially CAPEX) when purchasing new equipment.

Which brings us to our next topic, Thin Vs Thick Provisioning Performance!

There have been many recommendations not to use Thin Provisioning due to the performance impact of Zeroing a block before writing to it. This recommendation has been around for a long time, and like the VMDK on NFS debate appears to have strong options on both sides.

Now for the facts!

From a performance perspective most people are surprised to learn there is no significant performance advantage to using Thick Provisioned (Eager or Lazy Zeroed) VMDKs compared to Thin Provisioned disks.

In addition to that, with the reduction of I/O from Exchange 2007 to 2010 being around 50%, and from 2010 to 2013 another 50% reduction in I/O, Exchange is no longer the huge storage I/O heavy monster it once was.

VMware conducted a Performance Study of VMware vStorage Thin Provisioning back in the ESXi 4.0 days (~2009) which I will briefly summarize.

On page 6 of the performance study the following graph shows the different in performance between Thin and Thick VMDKs during zeroing and post-zeroing.

As you can see the performance is almost identical.

ThinThickScaling

The next chart shows also from Page 6 is a comparison of throughput between thin and thick VMDKs. Again we see the difference is insignificant.

AggThrougjputThickvThin

As a result of there being no significant performance impact of using Thin Provisioning, Performance should no longer be considered an objection to using Thin Provisioning!

I recommend taking advantage of the flexibility of using Thin Provisioning and creating larger Thin Provisioned VMDKs which can help simplify capacity management from a VM/OS and application perspective as well as making growth easier for Exchange as mailbox sizes increase over time.

ThinProvision

When using thin provisioning always ensure you have your alerting properly set-up with early warning on your vSphere environment AND underlying storage to advise when storage capacity of a datastore or underlying LUN/NFS mount or storage is running low so this can be remediated.

In an upcoming post I will discuss the underlying storage, including provisioning type for LUNs and NFS mounts (i.e.: Thin on Thick / Thin on Thin / Thick on Thick and Thick on Thin).

Recommendations for VMDK provisioning:

1. Check with your storage vendor and unless they have solid justification for not using Thin Provisioning OR you have an operational constraint preventing it, use Thin Provisioned VMDKs. (The pros outweigh the cons in my opinion)
2. When using Thin Provisioning create larger VMDKs to simplify capacity management at the VM and OS/Application layer.
3. When using Thick or Thin provisioning, ensure you test performance using Jetstress and LoadGen with the same provisioning type.
4. Ensure alerting is configured and working to monitor capacity utilization especially when using thin provisioned VMDKs.

Back to the Index of How to successfully Virtualize MS Exchange.

More Information on VMDK and Datastore provisioning options:

1. Example Architectural Decision – Datastore (LUN) and Virtual Disk Provisioning (Thin on Thin)

2. Example Architectural Decision – Datastore (LUN) and Virtual Disk Provisioning (Thin on Thick)

Back to the Index of How to successfully Virtualize MS Exchange.

Is VAAI beneficial with Virtual Storage Appliance (VSA) based solutions ?

Posted on by
7

I saw a tweet recently (below) which inspired me to write this post as there is still a clear misunderstanding of the benefits VAAI provides (even with Virtual Storage Appliances).

vaaionvsatweet2

I have removed the identity of the individual who wrote the tweet and the people who retweeted this as the goal of this post is solely to correct what I believe is mis-information.

My interpretation of the tweet was (and remains) if a solution uses a Virtual Storage Appliance (VSA) which resides on the ESXi host then VAAI is not providing any benefits.

My opinion on this topic is:

Compared to a traditional centralised NAS (such as a Netapp or EMC Isilon) providing NFS storage with VAAI-NAS support, a Nutanix or VSA solution has exactly the same benefits from VAAI!

My 1st reply to the tweet was:

vaaionvsatweetconvojoshreply2

The test I was referring to with Netapp OnTap Edge can be found here which was posted in Jan 2013, well prior to my joining Nutanix when I was working for IBM where I had been evangelising VAAI/VCAI based solutions for a long time as VAAI/VCAI provides significant value to VMware customers.

The following shows the persons initial reply to my tweet.

vaaionvsatweetconvo32

I responded with the below mentioning I will do a blog which is what you’re reading now.

I went onto provide some brief replies as shown below.

repliesdetail

The main comments from this persons tweets I would summarize (rightly or wrongly) below:

  • VAAI is designed only to offload functions externally (or off the ESXi host)
  • He/She had not seen any proof of performance advantages from VAAI on VSAs
  • Its broken logic to use VAAI with a VSA

Firstly, I would like comment on VAAI being designed to offload functions externally (or off the ESXi host). I don’t disagree VAAI has some functions designed to offload to the (centralised) array but VAAI also has numerous functions which are designed to bring other efficiencies to a vSphere environment.

An example of a feature designed to offload to a central array is the “XCOPY” primitive.

A simple example of what “XCOPY” or Extended Copy provides is offloading a Storage vMotion on block based storage (i.e.: VMFS over iSCSI,FC,FCoE not NFS) to the array so the ESXi host does not have to process the data movement.

This VAAI primitive would likely be of little benefit in a VSA environment where the storage is presented is block based and Storage DRS for example was used. The data movement would be offloaded from ESXi to the VSA running on ESXi and host would still be burdened with the SvMotion.

However XCOPY is only one of the many primitives of VAAI, and VAAI does alot more than just offload Storage vMotions.

For the purpose of this post, I will be discussing VAAI with Nutanix whos Software defined storage solution runs in a VM on every ESXi host in a Nutanix cluster.
Note: This information is also relevant to other VSAs which support VAAI-NAS.

So what benefit does VAAI provide to Nutanix or a VSA solution running NFS?

Nutanix deploys by default with NFS and supports the VAAI-NAS primitives which are:

  • Full File Clone
  • Fast File Clone
  • Reserve Space
  • Extended Statistics

Note: XCOPY is not supported on NFS, importantly and specifically speaking for Nutanix it is not required as SvMotion will be rarely if ever used with Nutanix solutions.

See my post “Storage DRS and Nutanix – To use, or not to use, that is the question?” for more details on why SvMotion is rarely needed when using Nutanix.

For more details of VAAI primitives, Cormac Hogan (@CormacJHogan) wrote an excellent post which can be found here.

Now here is an example of a significant performance benefits of VAAI with Nutanix.

Lets look at Clone of a VM on a Nutanix platform, the VMs details are below.admin01vm

The VM I have used for this test resides on a datastore called “Management” (as per the above image) which presented via NFS and has VAAI (Hardware Acceleration) enabled as shown below.datastore

Now if I do a simple clone of a VM (as shown below) if the VM is turned on, VAAI-NAS is bypassed as the “Fast File Clone” primitive only works on VMs which are powered off.

clone

So a simple way to test the performance benefits of VAAI on any platform (including Hyper-converged such as Nutanix, a Virtual Storage Appliance (VSA) such as Netapp Ontap Edge or traditional centralised SAN or NAS) is to clone a VM while powered on then shut-down the VM and clone it again.

I performed this test and the first clone with the VM powered on started at 1:17:23 PM and finished at 1:26:12 PM, so a total of 8 mins 49 seconds.

Next I shut down the VM and repeated the clone operation.cloneresults

As we can see in the above screen capture from the 2nd clone started at 1:26:49 PM and finished at 1:26:54 PM, so a total of 5 seconds.

The reason for the huge difference in the speed of the two clones is because VAAI-NAS “Fast File Clone” primitive offloaded the 2nd clone to the Nutanix platform (which runs as a VM on the ESXi host) which has intelligently cloned the VM (using metadata resulting in almost zero data creation) as opposed to 1st clone where VAAI-NAS was not used which resulted in the hypervisor and storage solution having to read 11.18GB of data (being the source VM – Admin01) and write a full copy of the same data resulting in effectively >22GB of data movement in the environment.

Now from a capacity savings perspective, a simple way to demonstrate the capacity savings of VAAI on any platform is to clone a VM multiple times and compare the before and after datastore statistics.

Before I performed this test I captured a baseline of the Management datastore as shown below.

BeforeCloningCapacityVMcount

The above highlighted areas show:

  • Virtual Machines and Templates as 83
  • Capacity 8.49TB
  • Provisioned Space 7.09TB
  • Free Space 7.01TB

I then cloned the Admin01 VM a total of 7 times.clone7vmsrecenttasks

Immediately following the last clone completing I took the below screen shot of the Management datastores statistics.

AfterCloningCapacityVMcount

The above highlighted areas in the updated datastore summary show:

  • Virtual Machines and Templates INCREASED by 7 to 90 (as I cloned 7 VMs)
  • Capacity remained the same at 8.49TB
  • Provisioned Space INCREASED to 7.29TB as we cloned 7 x ~40Gb VMs (Total of ~280GB)
  • Free Space REMAINED THE SAME at 7.01TB due to VAAI-NAS Fast File Clone primitive working with the Nutanix Distributed File System.

So VAAI-NAS allowed a VM of ~11GB of used storage (~40GB provisioned) to be cloned without using any significant additional disk space and the clones were each done in between 5 and 7 seconds each.

So some of the benefits VAAI-NAS provides to Nutanix (which some people would term as a VSA type solution) include:

  • Near instant VM cloning via vSphere Client/s (as shown above)
  • Near instant Horizon View Linked Clone deployments (VCAI) – Similar to example shown.
  • Near instant vCloud Director clones (via FAST Provisioning) – Similar to example shown.
  • Major capacity savings by using Intelligent cloning rather than Full Clones (As shown above)
  • Lower CPU overhead for both ESXi hosts AND Nutanix Controller VM (CVM)
  • Ability to create EagerZeroThick VMDKs on NFS (e.g.: To support Fault Tolerance & clustered workloads such as Oracle RAC)
  • Enhanced ability to get statistics on file sizes , capacity usage etc on NFS

In Summary:

Overall I would say that VMware have developed an excellent API in VAAI and Nutanix along with VSA providers having support for VAAI provides major advantages and value to our joint customers with VMware.

It would be broken logic NOT to leverage the advantages of VAAI regardless of storage type (VSA, Nutanix or traditional centralized SAN/NAS) and for the vast majority of vSphere deployments, any storage solution not supporting (or having issues/bugs with) VAAI will have significant downsides.

I am looking forward to ongoing developments from VMware such as vVols and VASA 2.0 to continue to enhance storage of vSphere solutions in the future.

I hope customers and architects now have the correct information to make the most effective design and purchasing recommendations to meet/exceed customer requirements.