Advertisements

Category Archives: Storage

Cloud Management – Turbonomics is Awesome!

Hello my friends, It has been quite a while since I last blogged but I wanted to take some time to share some of my experience over the past couple of years. I have had the opportunity to work with some great companies, people, and it has definitely been a very enlightening experience.

I had the privilege of being apart of a special project nearly 5 years ago which began my career in the cloud. I got to engineer and deploy one of the nations first ever GSA clouds which was a great experience. As time rolled on and cloud was adopted many things came into the light. Being a VMware savvy guy I really didn’t have all the time to spend learning all these new technologies which were directly competing. At this time, Amazon was getting big, VMware was about to release VRA, and the market stood still… or so it felt.

Microsoft had launched their On-Prem cloud and before we knew it we had to start getting serious about the cost of our delivery and compute. If you have never had the pleasure of working for service providers let me tell you – its all about cost. So we put Azure to the test, compared it, vetted it, did anything we could to ensure it could be operationally supported. It was a very interesting time and nice comparison to our existing IaaS architecture. We definitely had our work cut out for us.

Since then the challenges of hybrid cloud have become real. Although some vendors had good solutions like UCS Inter-Cloud Fab or vCloud Connector… (insert whatever else here) we always seemed to have unique enough requirements to disqualify it. Needless to say we still deployed, stood them up, tested them, and found great value it still wasn’t justifiable enough for us to warrant a change. Being a service provider isn’t about offloading to another cloud… it’s about how you can upsell your services and provide more value for customers.

As time grew on people adopted Cisco UCS into their infrastructures and eventually it seemed like updating and maintaining infrastructure became critical and the speed of delivery is only hindered by how fast we can adopt new offerings.. If we cannot seamlesly update, migrate, or refresh to new then what can we do?

“Its so old its not even supported!”
“Wow, no new firmware for 5 tears?!”
“Support for VMware has lapsed :(”

“Who cares?”

You can automate this pain away easily. Just because one vendor doesn’t support a feature or a new version does not mean you have to still burden your IT staff. If you can standardize operational processes between your cloud(s), Visibility, Integration, and Support – would you?

The biggest challenge is getting out of the old and into the new. Most legacy infrastructure runs on VMware and you can do this with Turbonomics and a variety of other tools. One of the benefits of going 3rd party is that you don’t have “lock-in” to any infrastructures or software. You can size it, optimize it, price it, and compare it to ensure things run as they should. Versioning, Upgrades, and these things will always be challenge but as long as you can ensure compliance, provisioning, optimization, and performance it won’t be an after thought. I found Turbonomics to always get the job done and always respond in a way that provided a solution and more than that… at a push of a button.

Some of the benefits:
– Agnostic Integration with a large set of vendors
– Automated Provisioning for various types of compute
– Easily retrofit existing infrastructure for migration
– Elastic compute models
– Cost Comparison, Pricing Existing, Etc…
– I.e. Amazon AWS, Azure
– Track and exceed your ROI Goals
– Eliminate Resource Contention
– Automate and Schedule Migrations between Compute Platforms (Iaas > DBaaS)
– Assured performance, control, and automated re-sizing
– Not version dependent and can be used in a wide variety of scenarios – I.e. I can elaborate if needed.
– Get rolling almost instantly with it…

5 years and I still think Turbonomics is a great product. I have used it extensively in the early days and also worked with it during the vCloud Integration piece. The free version is also amazing and very helpful. Spending time checking capacity, double checking data, ensuring things are proper and standard, all that stuff you can forget about it. Configure your clouds; private, public, or dedicated into Turbonomics quickly.

You just have to trust proven software especially if its been 7 years in the making and exceeds capabilities that most tools require significant configuration for. Also, always keep in mind that TURBONOMICS can learn your environment and the value of understanding the platform and providing insight can be huge.  You have to admit that some admins may not understand or know other platforms. This simplifies all that by simply understanding the workload and infrastructure that it runs on.

Other Great Information or References:
Cisco One Enterprise Suite – Cisco Workload Optimization Manager:
CWOM offered with
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/data-center-virtualization/one-enterprise-suite/solution-overview-c22-739078.pdf
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/data-center-virtualization/one-enterprise-suite/at-a-glance-c45-739098.pdf
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/cisco-launches-new-ucs-servers-hybrid-cloud-management-software/2017/07/

Turbonomics and BMC:
“Running it Red Hot with Turbonomics”
https://turbonomic.com/resources/videos/cloud-economics-on-prem-or-off-with-turbonomic-bmc/

 

Advertisements

vSphere 5 – Storage pt.3 LUN Sizing – Why it matters..

Well, I guess I am on a roll this week. I feel like a lot of my themes have been around storage and VMware this week. I don’t think that is a bad thing but I am seeing some gaps out there as far as considerations and recommendations. My only point in this post is to share my thoughts for you and what you should consider when facing this after your vSphere 5 upgrade or after you install it. I have to wonder just how many enterprises out there have seriously pushed the envelope of LUN sizing in VMware. One has to think; “If you are carving up large LUNS does that mean your scaling up?”. There are so many implications one should consider when designing your storage. One of the more critical pieces is I/Ops and the cluster size and what your target workload is. With bigger LUNS this is something you have to consider and I do think it is common knowledge for the most part.

There are so many things one should consider when deciding on a LUN Size for vSphere 5. I sincerely believe VMware is putting us all in a situation of scaling up sometimes. With the limitations of SDRS and Fast Provisioning it has really got my mind thinking. It’s going to be hard to justify a design scenario of a 16 node “used to be” cluster when you are trying to make a call on if you really want to use some of these other features. Again, you have heard me says this before but I will say it again; it seems more and more that VMware is making a huge target of this to Small to Medium sized businesses but offering some features larger sized companies (with much bigger clusters) now have to invest even more time in reviewing their current designs and standards – Hey, that could be a good thing 🙂 . Standards to me are a huge factor for any organization. That part seems to take the longest to define and some cases even longer to get other teams to agree to. I don’t think VMware thought about some of those implications but I am sure they did their homework and knew just were a lot of this was going to land…

With that being said I will stop my rambling on about these things and get to the heart of the matter or better yet heart of the storage.

So, After performing an upgrade I have been wondering what LUN size would work best. I believe I have some pretty tough storage and a solid platform (CISCO UCS) so we can handle some I/Ops. I wanted to share some numbers with you that I found was very VERY interesting. I have begun to entertain the notion of utilizing Thin Provisioning even further. However, we are all aware that VMware still has an issue with UNMAP command which I have pointed out in previous blogs (here). However being that I have been put between a rock and hard place I believe update 1 to vSphere 5 at least addressed 1/2 of my concern of it. The other 1/2 that didn’t was the fact that now I have to defer to a manual process that involves an outage to reclaim that Thin Provisioned space… I guess that is a problem I can live it with given the way we use our storage today. It doesn’t cause us to much of a pain, but it is a pain none the less.

Anyways, so here is my homework on LUN sizing and how to get your numbers (Estimates):
(Note: This is completely hypothetical and not related to any specific company or customer; this will also include Thin Provisioning and Thick)

  • Factor an Average IOps per LUN (if you can from your storage vendor or from vCenter or an ESXi host)

    Take the IOps per all production LUNS and divide it by the number of datastores

    Total # IOps / # of Datastores

  • Gather the average numbers of virtual machines per datastore

    Total # VM’s / # of Datastores

    Try to use Real World production virtual machines

  • Decide on the LUN Size and use your current baseline as a multiplication factor from your current.

    So if you want to use 10TB Datastores and you are using 2TB datastores you can take whatever numbers and

    10TB / 2TB = 5 (this is you multiplication factor for IOPs and VM:Datastore Ratio)

So now let’s use an example to put this to practical use… and remember to factor in free space for maintenance I always keep it at 10% free.

Let’s say we have a customer with the following numbers before:

16 VM’s per Datastore

1200 I/Ops Average per Datastore (we will have to account for peak to)

2TB Datastore LUNS

Now for the math (Lets say the customer is moving to 10TB LUNS so this would be a factor of 5):

16 x 5 = 80 VM’s per Datastore (Thick Provisioned)

120 x 5 = 600 IOps per Datastore…

Not bad at all, but now let’s seriously take a look at thin provisioning which is QUITE different on numbers. Let’s say we check our storage software and it tells us on average a 2TB LUN only really uses 500 GB of space for the 16 VM’s per Datastore. Lets go ahead and factor some room in here (10% for alerting and maintenance purposes this time around). You can also download RVTools to get a glimpse of actual VM usage versus provisioned for some thin numbers.

First off:

16 VM per 500GB so that times 4 for the 2TB LUN; Makes 64 Thin VMs per 2TB Datastore.

Times that by the new LUN size 9TB / by 2TB = 4.5 (minus 10% for reserved for alerting purposes and Maintenance; this could also be considered conservative)

64 x 4.5 = 288 Average VM Per 10TB Datastore (and that 1 TB reserved too!)

We aren’t done yet; here comes the IOPs and lets use 1500 IOPs. Since we times the VM’s by a factor of 4 we want to do this for the average of IOPs as well:

1500 x 4 = 6000 per 2TB LUN; Using thin provisioning on VMs

600 x 4.5 = 2700 IOps per LUN.

So this leave use with the following numbers for thick and thin:

VM to 10TB Datastore ratios:

80 Thick

288 Thin

IOps to 10TB Datastore ratios:

6000/IOps Thick Provisioning

2700/IOps Thin Provisioning

So, I hope this brings to light some things you will have to think about when choosing a LUN size. Also note that this is probably more of a service provider type of scenario as we all know most may use a single 64TB LUN though I am not sure I would recommend that. It all comes down to use-case and how it can be applied. So this also begs to question what’s the point of some of those other features if you leverage Thin Provisioning. Here are some closing thoughts and things I would recommend:

  • Consider Peak loads for your design; the maximum IOps you may be looking for in some cases
  • Get an average/max per VM datastore ratio (locate your biggest Thin VM)
  • Consider tiered storage and how it could be better utilized
  • Administration and Management overhead; essentially the larger the LUN the less over all provisioning time and so on.
  • VAAI capable array for those Thin benefits (running that reclaim UNMAP script..)
  • Benchmark, Test using some other tools on that bigger LUN to ensure stability at higher IOps
  • Lastly the storage array benchmarks and overall design/implementation
  • The more VM you can scale on a LUN can affect your cluster design; You may not want to enable your customers to scale that much
  • Alerting considerations and how you will manage it efficiently to not be counterproductive.
  • Consider other things like SDRS (fast provisioning gets ridiculous with Thin Provisioning)
  • Storage latency and things like Queues can be a pain point.

I hope this helps some of those out there that have been wondering about some of this stuff. The LUN size for me dramatically affect my cluster design and what I am looking to achieve. You also want to load test your array or at least get some proven specs on the array. I currently work with HDS VSP arrays and these things can handle anything you can throw at them. They are able to add any type of additional capacity you need rather it be Capacity, IOps, Processing or what not you can easily scale it out or up. Please share your thoughts on this as well. Here are some great references:

http://www.yellow-bricks.com/2011/07/29/vmfs-5-lun-sizing/
http://serverfault.com/questions/346436/vmware-vmfs5-and-lun-sizing-multiple-smaller-datastores-or-1-big-datastore
http://communities.vmware.com/thread/334553
http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=2014849 

Note: these numbers are hypothetical but its all in the numbers.

vSphere – vCloud – Fast Provisioning – My Thoughts…

Yea, some would say this post is probably overdue but lately I have sincerely been thinking. Have we been drinking some Kool-Aid around this feature? I couldn’t help but have some concerns around possible implementation of this feature in VCD installments. I in particular, am not sold on it completely. Here are just some quick reasons for me that didn’t exactly sell me.

  1. It’s a very “new” feature in regards to VCD which is still early in its years as a cloud platform.
  2. No way of currently updating those linked clones unlike VMware View. (some admin over head as well as using local and shared catalogs)
  3. Added complexity (with linked images, snap chains, and how you have handle storage motion)
  4. By Default ALL linked clone images are mis-aligned. (VMware has yet to address this problem) In some cases this could be a compounding factor causing some additional I/O overhead.
  5. Design has to be highly considered and evaluated with a max of 8 node clusters (This will affect current installments as well)

So yeah, I know I look like the bad guy but I seriously think this release was just a target more to SMB than anything. IMO, this is more like a feature for those of smaller businesses because now they don’t have to go out and spend all that crazy dough on a VAAI capable array (Hooray for them :)) which begs to question….

Why do you need to enable this feature if you already leverage VAAI capable arrays?

It just seems to me that Fast Provisioning is a little pre-mature in its release. Although VCD continues to improve I think this features needs some serious improving before some bigger shops may decide to utilize it. The other down is that we have yet to see any real progress on the UNMAP problem and it’s now treated as a manual task we should run during certain times… or outages I should say. That really blows because we all know what kinds of benefits and problems thin provisioning on some array can cause. For the most part, it’s just really bad reporting… lol.

Here are some other sources I would recommend reading and I seriously think you should read them and learn for yourself if it’s really worth it. Also, be careful not to put the cart before the OX and do your homework. Some people drink the kool-aid and don’t think to question or ask “What’s really under the hood?”. Fast Provisioning should never be compared to VMware View… It’s similar but not identical.. I would definitely recommend reading Nick’s blog it opened my eyes to what he calls the “Fallacies” and of course Chris has a good read.

http://datacenterdude.com/vmware/vcd-fast-provisioning-vaai-netapp/
http://www.chriscolotti.us/vmware/info-vcloud-director-fast-provisioned-catalog-virtual-machines/
http://www.kendrickcoleman.com/index.php?/Tech-Blog/vcloud-director-15-features-that-effect-limitation-and-design.html

vSphere 5 – Storage pt.1 VMFS and Provisioning

VMFS:

VMware® vStorage Virtual Machine File System (VMFS) is a high-performance cluster file system that provides storage virtualization optimized for virtual machines. Each virtual machine is encapsulated in a small set of files and VMFS is the default storage system for these files on physical SCSI disks and partitions. This File system enables the use of VMware® cluster features of DRS, High-Availability, and other storage enhancements.
For more information please see the following document here and the following KB here.

Upgrading VMFS:

There are two ways to upgrade the VMFS to version 5 from previous 3.xx. An important for when upgrading VMFS-5 or provisioning new VMFS-5 is that legacy ESX host will not be able to see the new VMFS partitions. This is because of the enhancements made into ESX and the partitioning. Upgrading VMFS-5 is irreversible and consider always what you are doing. Lastly, there are many ways to provision VMFS-5 these are just two of the more common ways of doing it.

Method 1: Online Upgrade

Although an online upgrade does give you some of the new features in VMFS-5 it does not give you all of them. However, it is the least impacting and can be performed at anytime without an outage. Below are the features you will not gain by doing an in-place upgrade:

  • VMFS-5 upgraded from VMFS-3 continues to use the previous file block size which may be larger than the unified 1MB file block size.
  • VMFS-5 upgraded from VMFS-3 continues to use 64KB sub-blocks and not new 8K sub-blocks.
  • VMFS-5 upgraded from VMFS-3 continues to have a file limit of 30720 rather than new file limit of > 100000 for newly created VMFS-5.
  • VMFS-5 upgraded from VMFS-3 continues to use MBR (Master Boot Record) partition type; when the VMFS-5 volume is grown above 2TB, it automatically & seamlessly switches from MBR to GPT (GUID Partition Table) with no impact to the running VMs.
  • VMFS-5 upgraded from VMFS-3 continue to have its partition starting on sector 128; newly created VMFS5 partitions will have their partition starting at sector 2048.

RDM – Raw Device Mappings

  • There is now support for passthru RDMs to be ~ 60TB in size.
  • Non-passthru RDMs are still limited to 2TB – 512 bytes.
  • Both upgraded VMFS-5 & newly created VMFS-5 support the larger passthru RDM.

The end result in using the in place upgrade can be the following:

  • Performance is not optimal
  • non-standards can still be in place
  • Disk Alignment will be a consistent issue with older environments
  • File limit can be impacting in some cases

Method 1: How to perform an “Online” upgrade for VMFS-5

Upgrading a VMFS-3 to a VMFS-5 file system is a single-click operation. Once you have upgraded the host to VMware ESXi™ 5.0, go to the Configuration tab > Storage view. Select the VMFS-3 datastore, and above the Datastore Details window, an option Upgrade to VMFS-5 will be displayed:


Figure 3. Upgrade to VMFS-5

The upgrade process is online and non-disruptive. Virtual machines can continue to run on the VMFS-3 datastore while it is being upgraded. Upgrading the VMFS file system version is a one-way operation. There is no option to reverse the upgrade once it is executed. Additionally, once a file system has been upgraded, it will no longer be accessible by older ESX/ESXi 4.x hosts, so you need to ensure that all hosts accessing the datastore are running ESXi 5.0. In fact, there are checks built into vSphere which will prevent you from upgrading to VMFS-5 if any of the hosts accessing the datastore are running a version of ESX/ESXi that is older than 5.0.

As with any upgrade, VMware recommends that a backup of your file system is made prior to upgrading your VMFS-3 file system to VMFS-5.

Once the VMFS-5 volume is in place, the size can be extended to 64TB, even if it is a single extent, and ~2TB Virtual Machine Disks (VMDKs) can be created, no matter what the underlying file-block size is. These features are available ‘out of the box’ without any additional configuration steps.

NOTE: Some documentation are excerpts and provided and used from VMware Documentation and Sources..

Method 2: Provisioning New VMFS-5

This method explains how to update VMFS without performing an “online” upgrade. Essentially this would be the normal process of provisioning a VMFS LUN for ESXi 5 or older. Here are the listed benefits of VMFS-5 provisioning without doing an “online” upgrade.

  • VMFS-5 has improved scalability and performance.
  • VMFS-5 does not use SCSI-2 Reservations, but uses the ATS VAAI primitives.
  • VMFS-5 uses GPT (GUID Partition Table) rather than MBR, which allows for pass-through RDM files greater than 2TB.
  • Newly created VMFS-5 datastores use a single block size of 1MB.
  • VMFS-5 has support for very small files (<1KB) by storing them in the metadata rather than in the file blocks.
  • VMFS-5 uses sub-blocks of 8K rather than 64K, which reduces the space used by small files.
  • VMFS-5 uses SCSI_READ16 and SCSI_WRITE16 cmds for I/O (VMFS-3 used SCSI_READ10 and SCSI_WRITE10 cmds for I/O).

Other Enhancements:

  • Disk Alignment for Guest OS’s become transparent and have less impact.
  • Performance I/O and scalability become a greater value to running online vs. new.

As you can see the normal provisioning of VMFS-5 is a lot more robust in features and offers a great deal of improvement to just performing an “Online” upgrade. The online upgrade is easy and seamless but for normal considerations all benefits should be considered. In my case the chosen Method would be Method 2. The only instance in which an “Online” upgrade would be considered under normal circumstances would be if you were already at capacity on an existing array. In this type of scenario it could be viewed as a more beneficial way. Also, if you did not have Storage vMotion licensed through VMware further considerations on how to migrate to the new VMFS would have to be made. Migrating workloads to new VMFS-5 would be a bit more of a challenge in that case as well. However this is not an issue under most circumstances.

Method 2: How To provision new VMFS-5 for ESXi

  1. Connect to vSphere vCenter with vSphere Client
  2. Highlight a host and click the “Configuration” tab in the right pane.
  3. Click on “Storage”
  4. In the right pane click “Add Storage” (See image)
  5. Select the LUN you wish to add
  6. Expand the Name column to record the last four digits (this will be on the naa name) In this case it will be 0039. Click “Next”
  7. Select to use “VMFS-5” option
  8. Current Disk Layout – Click “Next”
  9. Name the datastore using abbreviations for the customers name with the type of storage followed by the LUN LDEV (Yes, a standard). This example would be “Cust-Name”=name “SAN”=type “01”= Datastore Number “LDEV” = 0038. (cus-nam-san-01-1234)
  10. Select the radio button “Maximum available space” click > Next
  11. Click Finish and watch for the “task” to complete on the bottom of vSphere client
  12. After the task completes go to the Home > Inventory > Datastores
  13. Make sure there is a Fiber Storage folder created. Under that folder create a tenant folder and relocate the datastores in the new tenant name folder.
  14. After moving the folder you may need to provision this datastore for vCloud. Proceed to the optional method for this below.

Note: Some of the information contained in this blog post is provided by VMware Articles and on their website http://www.vmware.com

HDS Storage Best Practices – What you need to know

Here are some notes I find useful for anyone wanting to learn more about the latest that HDS has to offer. Please note the date of this post and that something are subject to change.

1.Thin Provisioning > Unmap primitive WILL not be availible until Q1 2012

PER HDS > Reason being is that the UNMAP primitive when issued from VMware ESXi (vSphere 5) causes all the workloads on the Provisioned Storage Pool
to take a performance hit.  This is because the UNMAP is issued with a “high priority”.

http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=2007427

The KB provides how to disable this feature.. It IS NOT disabled by default.  This is a command ran locally on each ESXi 5 host.

2. sVmotions, VMDK deletions on various storage platforms with ANY thin provisioned Arrays will always be showns as space allocated. (The space is never reclaimed) To counter this negative effect UNMAP was introduced however is not production ready and causes problems.

3. Round – Robin PSP – is the HDS best practice for multi-pathing. HOWEVER we cannot do any clustering (MSCS or Oracle RAC) with this plug-in or AKA – Physical Compatible Raw Device Mappings. (VMs accessing physical SAN LUNS vs. VMFS) However HDS has released HDLM which is the HDS branded VMware Multi-Path Plug in and you can do both with this plug-in.

4. Block Size on HDS is 42MB – with vSphere 5 unified block size of 1 MB HDS arrays have to delete more blocks due to the unified block sizing. Stated that proper alignment is important between SAN, VMFS, and VMs.

5. Tier 1 Applications need special consideration depending on the use case – we may need to look at dedicating a particular level of Guaranteed I/O or creating seperate Dynamic Storage pools to meet the workloads. There is HDS documentation for using VSP with vCloud Director however it doesn’t cover application workloads > waiting for these from HDS as we virtualize MANY different workloads in our cloud and it needs to scale easily on demand.

7. vCenter plug in – more to come..

8. I/O and measurements for performance on the SAN side is done through Performance Tuner from HDS. More to come.

9. No firmware update should be needed on the HDS side for VSP array to utilize the two new vSphere 5 VAAI primitives. Not sure about AMS…

10. VASA is coming quickly and this will give customers the visibility and deeper reporting for other things especially for VMware environments using HDS storage.

11. HDS recommend doing VMware Guest OS’es as Thick and doing San array thin.  However there is not a huge gain in performance between the two.  Our direction is to use Thin on Thin provisioning for reporting purposes, and etc..

For more HDS white papers and such you get to those here under a resources tab:
Hitchi Data Systems VMware resources

***Disclaimer: The thoughts and views expressed on VirtualNoob.wordpress.com and Chad King in no way reflect the views or thoughts of his employer or any other views of a company. These are his personal opinions which are formed on his own. Also, products improve over time and some things maybe out of date. Please feel free to contact us and request an update and we will be happy to assist. Thanks!~

%d bloggers like this: