Tag Archives: vSphere

Acropolis: Scalability

Posted on by
Reply

One of the major focuses for Nutanix both for our Distributed Storage Fabric (part of the Nutanix Xtreme Computing Platform or XCP) has been scalability with consistent performance.

Predictable scalability is critical to any distributed platform as it predictable scalability for the management layer.

This is one of the many strengths of the Acropolis management layer.

All components which are required to Configure, Manage, Monitor, Scale and Automate are fully distributed across all nodes within the cluster.

As a result, there is no single point of failure with the Nutanix/Acropolis management layer.

Lets take a look at a typical four node cluster:

Below we see four Controller VMs (CVMs) which service one node each. In the cluster we have an Acropolis Master along with multiple Acropolis Slave instances.

Acropolis4nodecluster1

In the event the Acropolis Master becomes unavailable for any reason, an election will take place and one of the Acropolis Slaves will be promoted to Master.

This can be achieved because Acropolis data is stored in a fully distributed Cassandra database which is protected by the Distributed Storage Fabric.

When an additional Nutanix node is added to the cluster, an Acropolis Slave is also added which allows the workload of managing the cluster to be distributed, therefore ensuring management never becomes a point of contention.Acropolis5NodeCluster

Things like performance monitoring, stats collection, Virtual Machine console proxy connections are just a few of the management tasks which are serviced by Master and Slave instances.

Another advantage of Acropolis is that the management layer never needs to be sized or scaled manually. There is no vApp/s , Database Server/s, Windows instances to deploy, install, configure, manage or license, therefore reducing cost and simplifying management of the environment.

Summary:

Acropolis Management is automatically scaled as nodes are added to the cluster, therefore increasing consistency , resiliency, performance and eliminating potential for architectural (sizing) errors which may impact manageability.

Note: For non-Acropolis deployments, PRISM is also scaled in the same manner as described above, however the scalability of Hypervisor management layers such as vCenter or SCVMM will need to be considered separately when not using Acropolis.

Support for Active Directory on vSphere

Posted on by
Reply

I heard something interested today from a customer, a storage vendor who sells predominantly block storage products was trying to tell them that Active Directory domain controllers are not supported on vSphere when using NFS datastores.

The context was the vendor was attempting to sell a traditional block based SAN, and they were trying to compete against Nutanix. The funny thing is, Nutanix supports block storage too, so it was a uneducated and pointless argument.

None the less, the topic of support for Active Directory on vSphere using NFS datastores is worth clarifying.

There are two Microsoft TechNet articles which cover support for  topic:

  1. Things to consider when you host Active Directory domain controllers in virtual hosting environments
  2. Support policy for Microsoft software that runs on non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software

Note: There is no mention of storage protocols (Block or File) in these articles.

The second article states:

for vendors who have Server Virtualization Validation Program (SVVP) validated solutions, Microsoft will support server operating systems subject to the Microsoft Support Lifecycle policy for its customers who have support agreements when the operating system runs virtualized on non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software.

VMware has validated vSphere as a SVVP solution which can be validated here: http://www.windowsservercatalog.com/svvp.aspx

The next interesting point is:

If the virtual hosting environment software correctly supports a SCSI emulation mode that supports forced unit access (FUA), un-buffered writes that Active Directory performs in this environment are passed to the host operating system. If forced unit access is not supported, you must disable the write cache on all volumes of the guest operating system that host the Active Directory database, the logs, and the checkpoint file.

Funnily enough, this is the same point for Exchange, but where the Exchange team decided not to support it, the wider organisation have a much more intelligent policy where they support SCSI emulation (ie: VMDKs on NFS datastores) as long as the storage ensures writes are not acknowledged to the OS prior to being written to persistent media (ie: Not volatile memory such as RAM).

This is a very reasonable support statement and one which has a solid technical justification.

In Summary, running Active Directory is supported on vSphere including both block (iSCSI, FC, FCoE) and file (NFS) based datastores where the storage vendor complies with the above requirements.

So check with your storage vendor to confirm if the storage your using is compliant.

Nutanix 100% complies with these requirements for both Block and File storage. For more details see: Ensuring Data Integrity with Nutanix – Part 2 – Forced Unit Access (FUA) & Write Through

For more information about how NFS datastores provide true block level storage to Virtual Machines via VMDKs, check out Emulation of the SCSI Protocol which shows how all native SCSI commands are honoured by VMDKs on NFS.

Related Articles:

  1. Running Domain Controllers in Hyper-V

This post covers the requirement for FUA the same as with vSphere and recommends the use of UPS (to ensure write integrity) as well as enterprise grade drives which are also applicable to vSphere deployments.

In-Kernel verses Virtual Storage Appliance

Posted on by
17

Let me start by asking, What’s all this “In-Kernel verses Virtual Storage Appliance” debate all about?

It seems to me to be total nonsense yet it is the focus of so called competitive intelligence and twitter debates. From an architectural perspective I just don’t get why it’s such a huge focus when there are so many other critical areas to focus on, like the benefit of Hyper-Converged vs SAN/NAS!!!

Saying In-Kernel or VSA is faster than the other (just because of where the software runs) is like saying my car with 18″ wheels is faster than your car with 17″ wheels. In reality there are so many other factors to consider, the wheel size is almost irrelevant, as is whether or not storage is provided “In-Kernel” or via a “Virtual Appliance”.

If something is In-Kernel, it doesn’t mean it’s efficient, it could be In-Kernel and really inefficient code, therefore being much worse than a VSA solution, or a VSA could be really inefficient and an In-Kernel solution could be more efficient.

In addition to this, Hyper-converged solutions are by design scale-out solutions, as a result the performance capabilities are the sum of all the nodes, not one individual node.

As long as a solution can provide enough performance (IOPS) per node for individual (or scaled up) VMs and enough scale-out to support all the customers VMs, it doesn’t matter if Solution A is In-Kernel or VSA, or that the solution can do 20% or even 100% more IOPS per node compared to solution B. The only thing that matters is the customers requirements are met/exceeded.

Let’s shift focus for a moment and talk about the performance capabilities of the ESX/ESXi hypervisor as this seems to be argued as an significant overhead which prevents a VSA from being high performance. In my experience , ESXi has never been a significant I/O bottleneck, even for large customers with business critical applications as the focus on Biz Critical Apps really took off around the VI3 days or later where the hypervisor could deliver ~100K IOPS per host.

The below is a chart showing VMware’s tested capabilities from ESX 1, through to vSphere 5 which was released in July 2011.

IOPSvmware

What we can clearly see is vSphere 5.0 can achieve 1 Million IOPS (per host), and even back in the VI3 days, 100,000 IOPS.

In 2011, VMware wrote a great article “Achieving a Million I/O Operations per Second from a Single VMware vSphere® 5.0 Host” which shows how the 1 million IOPS claim has been validated.

In 2012 VMware published “1 million IOPS On 1VM” which showed not only could vSphere achieve a million IOPS, but it could do it from 1 VM.

I don’t know about you, but it’s pretty impressive VMware has optimized the hypervisor to the point where a single VM can get 1 million IOPS, and that was back in 2012!

Now in both the articles, the 1 million IOPS was achieved using a traditional centralised SAN, the first article was with an EMC VMAX with 8 engines and I have summarized the setup below.

  • 4 quad-core processors and 128GB of memory per engine
  • 64 front-end 8Gbps Fibre Channel (FC) ports
  • 64 back-end 4Gbps FC ports
  • 960 * 15K RPM, 450GB FC drives

The IO profile for this test was 8K , 100% read, 100% random.

For the second 1 million IOPS per VM test, the setup used 2 x Violin Memory 6616 Flash Memory Arrays with the below setup.

  • Hypervisor: vSphere 5.1
  • Server: HP DL380 Gen8
    CPU: 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2690, HyperThreading disabled
    Memory: 256GB
  • HBAs: 5 x QLE2562
  • Storage: 2 x Violin Memory 6616 Flash Memory Arrays
  • VM: Windows Server 2008 R2, 8 vCPUs and 48GB.
    Iometer Config: 4K IO size w/ 16 workers

For both configurations, all I/O needs to traverse from the VM, through the hypervisor, out HBAs/NICs, across a storage area network, through central controllers and then make the return journey back to the VM.

There is so many places where additional latency or contention can be introduced in the storage stack it’s amazing VMs can produce the level of storage performance they do, especially back 3 years ago.

Chad Sakac wrote a great article back in 2009 called “VMware I/O Queues, Microbursting and Multipathing“, which has the below representation of the path I/O takes between a VM and a centralized SAN.

6a00e552e53bd28833011570408872970c

As we can see, Chad shows 12 steps for I/O to get to the disk queues, and once the I/O is completed, the I/O needs to traverse all the way back to the VM, so all in all you could argue it’s a 24 step round trip for EVERY I/O!

The reason I am pointing this out is because the argument around “In-kernel” verses “Virtual Storage Appliance” is only about 1 step in the I/O path, when Hyper-Converged solutions like Nutanix (which uses a VSA) eliminate 3/4’s of the steps in an overcomplicated I/O path which has been proven to achieve 1 million IOPS per VM.

Andre Leibovici recently wrote the article “Nutanix Traffic Routing: Setting the story straight” where he shows the I/O path for VMs using Nutanix.

The below diagram which Andre created shows the I/O path (for Read I/O) goes from the VM, across the ESXi hypervisor to the Controller VM (CVM) which then using DirectPath I/O to directly access the locally attached SSD and SATA drives.

nutanix_datapath3

Consider if the VM in the above diagram was a Web Server and the CVM was a database server and they were running in an environment with a SAN/NAS. The Web Server would be communicating to the DB server over the network (via the hypervisor) but the DB Server would have to access it’s data (that the Web Server requested) from the centralized SAN, so in the vast majority of environments today (which are using SAN/NAS) the data is travelling a much longer path than it would compared to a VSA solution and in many cases traversing from one VM to another across the hypervisor before going to the SAN/NAS and back through a VM to be served to the VM requesting the data.

Now back to the diagram, For Nutanix the Read I/O under normal circumstances will be served locally around 95% of the time, this is thanks to data locality and how Write I/O happens.

For Write I/Os, one copy of each piece of data is written locally where the VM is running which means all subsequent Read I/O can be served locally (and freshly written data is also typically “Active data”), and the 2nd copy is replicated throughout the Nutanix cluster. This means even though half the Write I/O (of the two copies) needs to traverse the LAN, it doesn’t hit a choke point like a traditional SAN, because Nutanix scales out controllers on a 1:1 ratio with ESXi hosts and writes are distributed throughout the cluster in 1MB extents.

So if we look back to Chad’s (awesome!) diagram, Hyper-converged solutions like Nutanix and VSAN are only concerned with Steps 1,2,3,12 (4 total) for Read I/O and 1,2,3,12 as well as 1 step for the NIC at the source & 1 step for the NIC at the destination host.

So overall it’s 4 steps for Read, 6 steps for Write, compared to 12 for Read and 12 for Write for a traditional SAN.

So Hyper-converged solutions regardless of In-Kernel or VSA based remove many of the potential points of failure and contention compare to a traditional SANNAS and as a result, have MUCH more efficient data paths.

On twitter recently, I responded to a tweet where the person claims “Hyperconverged is about software, not hardware”.

I disagree, Hyper-converged to me (and the folk at Nutanix) is all about the customer experience. It should be simple to deploy, manage, scale etc, all of which constitute the customers experience. Everything in the datacenter runs on HW, so I don’t get the fuss on the Software only vs Appliance / OEM software only solution debate either, but this is a topic for another post.

TweetAboutCustomerExperience

I agree doing things in software is a great idea, and that is what Nutanix and VSAN do, provide a solution in software which combines with commodity hardware to create a Hyper-converged solution.

Summary:

A great customer experience (which is what I believe matters) along with high performance (1M+ IOPS) solution can be delivered both In-Kernel or via a VSA, it’s simple as that. We are long past the days where a VM was a significant bottleneck (circa 2004 w/ ESX 2.x).

I’m glad VMware has led the market in pushing customers to virtualize Business Critical Apps, because it works really really well and delivers lots of value to customers.

As a result of countless best practice guides, white papers, case studies from VMware and VMware Storage Partners such as Nutanix, we know highly compute / network & storage intensive applications can easily be virtualized, so anyone saying a Virtual Storage Appliance can’t (or shouldn’t) be, simply doesn’t understand how efficient the ESXi hypervisor is and/or he/she hasn’t had the industry experience deploying storage intensive Business Critical Applications.

To all Hyper-converged vendors: Can we stop this ridiculous debate and get on with the business of delivering a great customer experience and focus on the business at hand of taking down traditional SAN/NAS? I don’t know about you, but that’s what I’ll be doing.