Tag Archives: scsi

Integrity of I/O for VMs on NFS Datastores – Part 1 – Emulation of the SCSI Protocol

Posted on by
6

This is the first of a series of posts covering how the Integrity of I/O is ensured for Virtual Machines when writing to VMDK/s (Virtual SCSI Hard Drives) running on NFS datastores presented via VMware’s ESXi hypervisor as a “Datastore”.

Note: To be crystal clear, this post is not talking about presenting NFS direct to Windows or any other guest operating system.

This process is patented (US7865663) by VMware and its inventors and on the patent the process is called “SCSI Protocol Emulation”.

This series will first cover the topics in a vendor agnostic manner, meaning I am talking in general about VMware + any NFS storage on the VMware HCL with NFS support.

Following the vendor agnostic posts, I will follow with a series of posts focusing specifically on Nutanix, as the motivation for the series was to cover off this topic for existing or potential Nutanix customers, some of whom are less familiar with NFS and have asked for clarification, especially around virtualizing Business Critical Applications (vBCA) such as Microsoft SQL and Exchange.

The below diagram visualizes shows how storage can be presented to an ESXi host and what this series will focus on.

A VM accesses its .vmx and .vmdk file/s via a datastore the same way, regardless of the underlying storage protocol (DAS SCSI, iSCSI , NFS , FCP).

GUID-AD71704F-67E4-4AC2-9C22-10B531755566-high

In the case of NFS datastores, SCSI protocol emulation is used to allow the Guest Operating System (OS) and application/s to read and write via SCSI even when the underlying storage (which is abstracted by the hypervisor) is served via NFS which does not natively support the same commands.

Image Source: https://pubs.vmware.com/vsphere-50/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.vmware.vsphere.introduction.doc_50%2FGUID-2E7DB290-2A07-4F54-9199-B68FCB210BBA.html

In the following section, and throughout this series, many images shown are from the patent (US7865663) and are the property of the patent owners, not the author of this article.

The areas which I will be focusing on are the ones where there has been the most concern in the industry, especially for business critical applications, such as Microsoft SQL and Microsoft Exchange, being how are the VM operating system and application/s (or data integrity) are impacted when issuing commands when the storage is abstracted by the hypervisor and served to via NFS which does not have equivalent I/O commands as SCSI.

Some examples areas of concern around the industry for VMs running on datastores backed by NFS are:

1. SCSI Aborts / Resets
2. Forced Unit Access (FUA) & Write Through
3. Write Ordering
4. Torn I/O (Writes + Reads)

In this first part, we will look at the SCSI Protocol Emulation process and discuss SCSI Aborts and Resets and how the SCSI protocol emulation process deals with these.

Below is a diagram showing the flow of an I/O request for a VM writing SCSI commands to a VMDK (formatted as NTFS) through the SCSI emulation process and through to the NFS storage.

US07865663-20110104-D00005

The first few steps in my opinion are fairly self explanatory, where it gets interesting for me, and one of the points of contention among I.T professional (being SCSI aborts) is described in the box labelled “550“.

If the SCSI command is an abort (which has no equivalent in the NFS protocol), the SCSI emulation process removes the corresponding request from the virtual SCSI request list created in the previous step (box labelled “540“).

The same is true if the SCSI command is a reset (which also has no equivalent in the NFS protocol), the SCSI emulation process removes the corresponding request from the virtual SCSI request list. This process is shown below in the box labelled “560”

US07865663-20110104-D00006

Next lets look at what happens if the SCSI “abort” or “reset” command is issued after the SCSI emulation process has passed on the command to the storage and is now receiving a reply to a command which the Guest OS / Application has aborted?

Its quite simple, the SCSI emulation process receives a reply from the NFS server, looks up the corresponding tag in the Virtual SCSI request list, and because this corresponding tag does not exist, the emulator drops the reply therefore emulating a SCSI abort command.

The process is shown below from box labelled “710” to “720” and finishing at “730“.

US07865663-20110104-D00007

In the patent, the above process is summed up nicely in the following paragraph.

Accordingly, a faithful emulation of SCSI aborts and resets, where the guest OS has total control over which commands are aborted and retried can be achieved by keeping a virtual SCSI request list of outstanding requests that have been sent to the NFS server. When the response to a request comes back, an attempt is made to find a matching request in the virtual SCSI request list. If successful, the matching request is removed from the list and the result of the response is returned to the virtual machine. If a matching request is not found in the virtual SCSI request list, the results are thrown away, dropped, ignored or the like.

So there we have it, that is how VMware’s patented SCSI Protocol emulation allows SCSI commands not supported natively by NFS to be honoured, therefore allowing applications dependant on Block based storage to be ran successfully within a VM where its VMDK is backed by NFS storage.

Let’s recap what we have learned so far.

1. The SCSI Commands, abort & reset have no equivalent in the NFS protocol.
2. The VMware SCSI Emulation process handles SCSI commands not supported natively by NFS thanks to the Virtual SCSI Request List.
3. Guest Operating Systems and Applications running in Virtual Machines on ESXi issue native SCSI commands to the NTFS volume, which is presented to the VM via a VMDK and housed on an NFS datastore.
4. The underlying NFS protocol is not exposed to the Guest OS, Application/s or Virtual Machine.
5. The SCSI Commands, abort & reset are emulated by the hyper visor through removing these requests from the Virtual SCSI emulation list.

In part two, I will discuss Forced Unit Access (FUA) & Write Through.

Integrity of Write I/O for VMs on NFS Datastores Series

Part 1 – Emulation of the SCSI Protocol
Part 2 – Forced Unit Access (FUA) & Write Through
Part 3 – Write Ordering
Part 4 – Torn Writes
Part 5 – Data Corruption

Nutanix Specific Articles

Part 6 – Emulation of the SCSI Protocol (Coming soon)
Part 7 – Forced Unit Access (FUA) & Write Through (Coming soon)
Part 8 – Write Ordering (Coming soon)
Part 9 – Torn I/O Protection (Coming soon)
Part 10 – Data Corruption (Coming soon)

Related Articles

1. What does Exchange running in a VMDK on NFS datastore look like to the Guest OS?
2. Support for Exchange Databases running within VMDKs on NFS datastores (TechNet)
3. Microsoft Exchange Improvements Suggestions Forum – Exchange on NFS/SMB
4. Virtualizing Exchange on vSphere with NFS backed storage?

The future of NAS Storage (NFS) for Virtual Environments

Posted on by
9

I read the article (below) by Howard Marks after seeing it come up on Twitter today, and I found it to be very interesting and refreshing to read as it hits the nail on the head.

http://www.networkcomputing.com/storage-networking-management/vmware-has-to-step-up-on-nfs/240163350

For a long time Network Attached Storage (NAS) has been considered by many (including myself in the past) as a second class citizen, or Tier 3 storage and not a serious choice for mission critical virtual environments.

In recent years, I have used more and more NFS in vSphere environments, and as I went through my VCDX journey I formed the strong view that NFS was in fact the best storage protocol for vSphere/vCloud/View environments having gone through a process of trying to learn as much as possible about every storage alternative available to vSphere.

In fact my VCDX design was based on a vCloud solution running on NFS, and this was one area I found quite easy to present and defend during the VCDX defence due to the many advantages of NFS.

In the article, Howard wrote

“It’s time for VMware to upgrade its support for file storage (as opposed to block storage) and embrace the pioneering vendors who are building storage systems specifically for the virtualization environment.”

I totally agree with this statement, and I think it is in the best interest of VMware, its partners and customers for VMware to go down this path. I think most would agree that Netapp have been leading the charge with NFS based storage for a long time, and in my opinion rightly so, with some new storage vendors also choosing to build solutions around NFS.

Another comment Howard made was

“managing vSphere with NFS storage is somewhat simpler than managing an equivalent system on block storage. Even better, a good NFS storage system, because it knows which blocks belong to which virtual machine, can perform storage management tasks such as snapshots, replication and storage quality of service per virtual machine, rather than per volume.”

I totally agree with the above statement and VMware’s development of features such as View Composer for Array Integration (VCAI) which is only supported on NFS, shows the protocol has significant advantages over block based storage especially for deployment speed and reduced workload on the storage compared. (VCAI uses the Fast File Clone VAAI-NAS Primitive to create near instant space efficient Linked Clone desktops)

I wrote an example architectural decision regarding storage protocol choice for Horizon View (VDI) environments which covers in more depth the advantages of NFS for VDI environments. The article can be viewed here : Example Architectural Decision – Storage Protocol Choice for Horizon View

Also NFS does not suffer from the same challenges as block based storage, as much larger numbers of VMs can share an NFS datastore compared to VMFS datastore without being negatively impacted by latency as a result of SCSI reservations (although vastly improved with VAAI) or contention resulting from limited SCSI queue depths which is something VAAI does still not address.

These limitations of block storage leads to the number of VMs per datastore remaining at the old rules of thumb of <25 for non I/O intensive workloads even with VAAI which some felt was the magic solution to the issue which sadly was incorrect. (Note: Number of desktop VMs per VMFS datastore with VAAI the recommended maximum is 140 compared to 64 without VAAI and NFS of >200).

Howard went on to write

“The first step would be for VMware to acknowledge that NFS has advanced in the past decade.”

I think this has been acknowledged by VMware along with many experts in the industry which is a positive step forward and I believe VMware will give more attention to NFS in future versions.

Howard further commented that

“Today vSphere supports version 3.0 of NFS—which is seventeen years old. NFS 4.1 has much more sophisticated security, locking and network improvements than NFS 3.0. The optional pNFS extension can bring the performance and multipathing of SANs with centralized file system management.”

I really think that VMware adding support in the future for NFS 4.1 will really help cement NFS as the protocol of choice for virtual environments and will be complimentary to VMware’s upcoming VSAN offering.

I think with bolstered NFS support and VSAN, VMware will have a solid storage layer to take virtualization into the future, without requiring storage vendors to immediately support vVOLs which in my opinion is being built (at least in part) to solve the challenges of VMFS and block based storage, when NFS (even version 3.) addresses most requirements in virtual environments very well today, and NFS 4.1 support will only improve the situation.

Howard’s comment (below) appears to echo these thoughts.

“Better NFS support will empower storage vendors to innovate and strengthen the vSphere ecosystem and fill the gap until vVols are ready. NFS support will also provide an alternative once vVols hit the market.”

 

To finish I thought Howard’s comment on snapshots (below) and replication being per Virtual Machine rather than volume or LUN, several vendors are doing this today moving towards NFS 4.1 will help these vendors continue to innovate and provide better and more efficient storage solutions for VMware’s customers which I think is what everyone wants.

Even better, a good NFS storage system, because it knows which blocks belong to which virtual machine, can perform storage management tasks such as snapshots, replication and storage quality of service per virtual machine, rather than per volume.