Tag Archives: scale up

Nutanix Scalability – Part 4 – Storage Performance for Monster VMs with AHV!

Posted on by
Reply

In Part 3 we learned a number of ways to scale storage performance for a single VM including but not limited too:

  • Using multiple PVSCSI controllers
  • Using multiple virtual disks
  • Spreading large workloads (like databases) across multiple vDisks/Controllers
  • Increasing the CVMs vCPUs and/or vRAM
  • Adding storage only nodes
  • Using Acropolis Block Services (ABS)

Now here at Nutanix, especially in the Solutions/Performance engineering team we’re never satisfied and we’re always pushing for more efficiency which leads to greater performance.

A colleague of mine, Michael Webster (NPX#007 and VCDX#66) was a key part of the team who designed and developed what is now known as “Volume Group Load Balancer” or VG LB for short.

Volume Group Load Balancer is an Acropolis Hypervisor (AHV) only capability which combines the IO path efficiencies of AHV Turbo Mode with the benefits of the Acropolis Distributed Storage Fabric (ADSF) to create a more simplified and dynamic version of Acropolis Block Services (ABS).

One major advantage of VG LB over ABS is it’s simplicity.

There is no requirement for in-guest iSCSI which removes the potential for driver and configuration issues and VG LB is configured through PRISM UI by using the update VM option making it a breeze to setup.

UpdateVMwVG

The only complexity with VG LB currently is to enable the load balancing functionality, it needs to be applied at the Acropolis CLI (acli) using the following command:

acli vg.update Insert_vg_name_here load_balance_vm_attachments=true

In the event you do not wish all Controller VMs to provide IO for VG LB, one or more CVMs can be excluded from load balancing. However I recommend leaving the cluster to sort itself out as the Acropolis Dynamic Scheduler (ADS) will move virtual disk sessions if CVM contention is discovered.

iSCSI sessions are also dynamically balanced as workload on individual CVMs exceed 85% to ensure hot spots are quickly alleviated which is another reason why CVMs should not be excluded as you are likely constraining performance for the VG LB VM unnecessarily.

VG LB is how Nutanix has achieved >1 MILLION 8k random read IOPS at just 0.11ms latency from a single VM as shown below.

This was achieved using just a 10 node cluster, imagine what can be achieved when you scale out the cluster further.

A Frequently asked question relating to high performance VMs is what happens when you vMotion?

The link above shows this in detail including a YouTube demonstration, but in short the IO dropped below 1 million IOPS for approx 3 seconds during the vMotion with the lowest value recorded at 956k IOPS. I’d say an approx 10% drop for 3 seconds is pretty reasonable as the performance drop is caused by the migration stunning the VM and not by the underlying storage.

The next question is “What about mixed read/write workloads?”

Again the link above shows this in detail including a YouTube demonstration, but at this stage you’re probably not surprised that this result shows a maximum starting baseline of 436K random read and 187k random write IOPS and immediately following the migration performance reduced to 359k read and 164k write IOPS before achieving greater performance than the original baseline @ 446k read and 192k IOPS within a few seconds.

So not only can Nutanix VG LB achieve fantastic performance, it can do so during normal day to day operations such as VM live migrations.

The VG LB capability is unique to Nutanix and is only achievable thanks to the true Distributed Storage Fabric.

With Nutanix highly scalable software defined storage and the unique capabilities like storage only nodes, AHV Turbo and VG LB, the question “Why?” seriously needs to be asked of anyone recommending a SAN.

I’d appreciate any constructive questions/comments on use cases which you believe Nutanix cannot handle and I’ll follow up with a blog post explaining how it can be done, or I’ll confirm if it’s not currently supported/recommended.

Summary:

Part 3 has taught us that Nutanix provides excellent scalability for Virtual Machines and provides ABS for niche workloads which may require more performance than a single node can offer while Part 4 explains how Nutanix’ next generation hypervisor (AHV) provides further enhanced and simplified performance for monster VMs with Volume Group Load Balancing leveraging Turbo Mode.

Back to the Scalability, Resiliency and Performance Index.

Example Architectural Decision – ESXi Host Hardware Sizing (Example 1)

Posted on by
4

Problem Statement

What is the most suitable hardware specifications for this environments ESXi hosts?

Requirements

1. Support Virtual Machines of up to 16 vCPUs and 256GB RAM
2. Achieve up to 400% CPU overcommitment
3. Achieve up to 150% RAM overcommitment
4. Ensure cluster performance is both consistent & maximized
5. Support IP based storage (NFS & iSCSI)
6. The average VM size is 1vCPU / 4GB RAM
7. Cluster must support approx 1000 average size Virtual machines day 1
8. The solution should be scalable beyond 1000 VMs (Future-Proofing)
9. N+2 redundancy

Assumptions

1. vSphere 5.0 or later
2. vSphere Enterprise Plus licensing (to support Network I/O Control)
3. VMs range from Business Critical Application (BCAs) to non critical servers
4. Software licensing for applications being hosted in the environment are based on per vCPU OR per host where DRS “Must” rules can be used to isolate VMs to licensed ESXi hosts

Constraints

1. None

Motivation

1. Create a Scalable solution
2. Ensure high performance
3. Minimize HA overhead
4. Maximize flexibility

Architectural Decision

Use Two Socket Servers w/ >= 8 cores per socket with HT support (16 physical cores / 32 logical cores) , 256GB Ram , 2 x 10GB NICs

Justification

1. Two socket 8 core (or greater) CPUs with Hyper threading will provide flexibility for CPU scheduling of large numbers of diverse (vCPU sized) VMs to minimize CPU Ready (contention)

2. Using Two Socket servers of the proposed specification will support the required 1000 average sized VMs with 18 hosts with 11% reserved for HA to meet the required N+2 redundancy.

3. A cluster size of 18 hosts will deliver excellent cluster (DRS) efficiency / flexibility with minimal overhead for HA (Only 11%) thus ensuring cluster performance is both consistent & maximized.

4. The cluster can be expanded with up to 14 more hosts (to the 32 host cluster limit) in the event the average VM size is greater than anticipated or the customer experiences growth

5. Having 2 x 10GB connections should comfortably support the IP Storage / vMotion / FT and network data with minimal possibility of contention. In the event of contention Network I/O Control will be configured to minimize any impact (see Example VMware vNetworking Design w/ 2 x 10GB NICs)

6. RAM is one of the most common bottlenecks in a virtual environment, with 16 physical cores and 256GB RAM this equates to 16GB of RAM per physical core. For the average sized VM (1vCPU / 4GB RAM) this meets the CPU overcommitment target (up to 400%) with no RAM overcommitment to minimize the chance of RAM becoming the bottleneck

7. In the event of a host failure, the number of Virtual machines impacted will be up to 64 (based on the assumed average size VM) which is minimal when compared to a Four Socket ESXi host which would see 128 VMs impacted by a single host outage

8. If using Four socket ESXi hosts the cluster size would be approx 10 hosts and would require 20% of cluster resources would have to be reserved for HA to meet the N+2 redundancy requirement. This cluster size is less efficient from a DRS perspective and the HA overhead would equate to higher CapEx and as a result lower the ROI

9. The solution supports Virtual machines of up to 16 vCPUs and 256GB RAM although this size VM would be discouraged in favour of a scale out approach (where possible)

10. The cluster aligns with a virtualization friendly “Scale out” methodology

11. Using smaller hosts (either single socket, or less cores per socket) would not meet the requirement to support supports Virtual machines of up to 16 vCPUs and 256GB RAM , would likely require multiple clusters and require additional 10GB and 1GB cabling as compared to the Two Socket configuration

12. The two socket configuration allows the cluster to be scaled (expanded) at a very granular level (if required) to reduce CapEx expenditure and minimize waste/unused cluster capacity by adding larger hosts

13. Enabling features such as Distributed Power Management (DPM) are more attractive and lower risk for larger clusters and may result in lower environmental costs (ie: Power / Cooling)

Alternatives

1.  Use Four Socket Servers w/ >= 8 cores per socket , 512GB Ram , 4 x 10GB NICs
2.  Use Single Socket Servers w/ >= 8 cores , 128GB Ram , 2 x 10GB NICs
3. Use Two Socket Servers w/ >= 8 cores , 512GB Ram , 2 x 10GB NICs
4. Use Two Socket Servers w/ >= 8 cores , 384GB Ram , 2 x 10GB NICs
5. Have two clusters of 9 hosts with the recommended hardware specifications

Implications

1. Additional IP addresses for ESXi Management, vMotion, FT & Out of band management will be required as compared to a solution using larger hosts

2. Additional out of band management cabling will be required as compared to a solution using larger hosts

Related Articles

1. Example Architectural Decision – Network I/O Control for ESXi Host using IP Storage (4 x 10 GB NICs)

2. Example VMware vNetworking Design w/ 2 x 10GB NICs

3. Network I/O Control Shares/Limits for ESXi Host using IP Storage

4. VMware Clusters – Scale up for Scale out?

5. Jumbo Frames for IP Storage (Do not use Jumbo Frames)

6. Jumbo Frames for IP Storage (Use Jumbo Frames)

CloudXClogo