Tag Archives: vSphere

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?

Free Training – Virtualizing Business Critical Applications (vBCA)

Posted on by
Reply

Just found another great free self paced training course offered by VMware. This one is focused on one of my favourite topics, Virtualizing Business Critical Applications.

The course covers thing like what business critical applications can be virtualized efficiently as well as covering common customer objections, some of which are FUD or fiction.

In addition use cases, best practices and value propositions for virtualizing each business-critical application.

One important area the course covers (which can be hard to find reliable information on) is the licensing requirements for applications such as Oracle databases, SAP and the Microsoft Suite e.g.: SQL / Exchange / Sharepoint.

Kudo’s to VMware for releasing this training free of charge. The link to access the course is below.

Virtualizing Business-Critical Applications [V5.X] – Customer

Example Architectural Decision – Transparent Page Sharing (TPS) Configuration for QA / Pre-Production Servers

Posted on by
Reply

Problem Statement

In a VMware vSphere environment, with future releases of ESXi disabling Transparent Page Sharing by default, what is the most suitable TPS configuration for an environment running Quality Assurance or Pre-Production server workloads?

Assumptions

1. TPS is disabled by default
2. Storage is expensive
3. Two Socket ESXi Hosts have been chosen to align with a scale out methodology.
4. Average Server VM is between 2-4vCPU and 4-8GB Ram with some larger.
5. Memory is the first compute level constraint.
6. HA Admission Control policy used is “Percentage of Cluster Resources reserved for HA”
7. vSphere 5.5 or earlier

Requirements

1. The environment must deliver consistent performance
2. Minimize the cost of shared storage

Motivation

1. Reduce complexity where possible.
2. Maximize the efficiency of the infrastructure

Architectural Decision

Leave TPS disabled (default) and leave Large Memory pages enabled (default).

Justification

1. QA/Pre-Production environments should be as close as possible to the configuration of the actual production environment. This is to ensure consistency between QA/Pre-Production validation and production functionality and performance.
2. Setting 100% memory reservations ensures consistent performance by eliminating the possibility of swapping.
3. The 100% memory reservation also eliminates the capacity usage by the vswap file which saves space on the shared storage as well as reducing the impact on the storage in the event of swapping.
4. RAM is cheaper than Tier 1 storage (which is recommended for vSwap storage to ensure minimal performance impact during swapping) so the increased cost of memory in the hosts is easily offset by the saving in Tier 1 shared storage.
5. Simplicity. Leaving default settings is advantageous from both an architectural and operational perspective.  Example: ESXi Patching can cause settings to revert to default which could negate TPS savings and put a sudden high demand on storage where TPS savings are expected.
6. TPS savings for server workloads is typically much less than with desktop workloads and as a result less attractive.
7. The decision has been made to use 2 socket ESXi hosts and scale out so the TPS savings per host compared to a 4 socket server with double the RAM will be lower.
8. HA admission control will calculate fail-over requirements (when using Percentage of cluster resources reserved for HA) so that performance will be approximately the same in the event of a fail-over due to reserving the full RAM reserved for every VM leading to more consistent performance under a wider range of circumstances.
9. Lower core count (and lower cost) CPUs will likely be viable as RAM will likely be the first constraint for further consolidation.
10. Remove the real or perceived security risk of sensitive information being gathered from other VMs using TPS as described in VMware KB 2080735

Implications

1. Using 100% memory reservations requires ESXi hosts and the cluster be sized at a 1:1 ratio of vRAM to pRAM (Physical RAM) and should include N+1 so a host failure can be tolerated.
2. Increased RAM costs
3. No memory overcommitment can be achieved
4. Potential for lower CPU utilization / overcommitment as RAM may become the first constraint.

Alternatives

1. Use 50% reservation and enable TPS
2. Use no reservation, Enable TPS and disable large pages

Related Articles:

1. Transparent Page Sharing (TPS) Example Architectural Decisions Register

2. The Impact of Transparent Page Sharing (TPS) being disabled by default @josh_odgers (VCDX#90)

3. Future direction of disabling TPS by default and its impact on capacity planning –@FrankDenneman (VCDX #29)

4. Transparent Page Sharing Vulnerable, Yet Largely Irrelevant – @ChrisWahl (VCDX#104)