Splitting SQL datafiles across multiple VMDKs for optimal VM performance

After recently helping multiple customers resolve performance issues with vBCA workloads by configuring multiple PVSCSI adapters and spreading workloads across multiple VMDKs, I wrote: SQL and Exchange performance in a virtual machine.

The post talked about how you should use multiple PVSCSI adapters with multiple VMDKs spread evenly across the adapters to achieve optimal performance and reduce overheads.

But what about if you only have a single SQL database. Can we split it across multiple VMDKs and importantly, can we do this without downtime?

The answer to both, thankfully is Yes!

The below is an example of a worst case scenario for a SQL server database. A single VMDK (using a single SCSI controller) hosting the Operating System, Database and Logs, especially when it’s a business critical application.

In the above scenario the single virtual SCSI controller and/or the single VMDK could both result in lower than expected performance.

We have learned earlier that using multiple PVSCSI adapters and VMDKs is the best way to deploy a high performance solution. The below is an example deployment where the OS , Pagefile and SQL binaries are using one virtual controller and VMDK, then four VMDKs for database files are hosted by a further two PVSCSI controllers and the logs are hosted by a fourth PVSCSI controller and VMDK.

In the above diagram the C:\ is using a LSI Logic controller which in most cases does not constraint performance, however since it’s very easy to change to a PVSCSI controller and there are no significant downsides, I recommend standardizing on PVSCSI.

Now if we look at our current database, we can see it has one database file and one log file as shown below.

The first step is the update the Virtual machines disk layout as describe in the aforementioned article which should end up looking like the below:

Next we go into Disk manager to rescan for the new storage devices, mark the drives are online, then format them with a 64k Allocation size which is optimal for databases. Once this is done you should check My Computer and see something similar to the below:

Next I recommend creating a directory for the database and log files rather than using the root directory so each drive should have a new folder as per the example below.

Next step is to create the new database files on each of new drives as shown below.

If the size of the original database is for example 10GB with say 2GB free space and you plan to split the database across 4 drives, then each of the new databases should be sized at no more than 2GB each to begin with. This prepares us to shrink the original DB and helps ensure the data is evenly spread across the new database files.

In the above screenshot, we can see the databases are limited to 2000MB, this is on purpose as we don’t want the database files expanding which can result in an uneven spread of data during the redistribution process I will cover later.

Switch the Recovery mode of Database to SIMPLE

Now go to the database, navigate to Tasks, Shrink and select “Files”

Now select the “Empty File by migrating data to other files in the same filegroup” option and press “Ok”.

Depending on the size of the database and the speed of the storage this may take some time and it will have at least some impact on the performance of the server. As such I recommend performing the process outside of peak hours if possible.

The error below is expected as we do not want to empty out the first *.mdf file completely. This is also an indication of our tasks being complete for empty file operation to the limit we’ve set earlier.

Once the task has completed you should see a roughly even distribution of data across the four database files by using the script below in query window.

USE tpcc
name AS FileName,
size/128.0 AS CurrentSizeMB,
size/128.0 - CAST(FILEPROPERTY(name, 'SpaceUsed') 
AS INT)/128.0 AS FreeSpaceMB
FROM sys.database_files;


Next we want to configure autogrow onto our databases so they can grow during business as usual operations.

The above shows the database are configured to autogrow by 100MB up to a limit of 2048MB each. The amount a database should autogrow will vary based on the rate of growth in your database, as will the file size limit so consider these values carefully.

Once you have set these settings it’s now time to shrink the original final to the same size as the other database files as shown below:

This process cleans up white space (empty space) within the database.

So far we have achieved the following:

  1. Updated the VM with additional PVSCSI controllers and more VMDKs
  2. Initialized the VMDKs and formatted to the Guest OS
  3. Created three new database files
  4. Balanced the database across the four database file (including the original file)

We have achieved all of this without taking the database offline.

At this stage the virtual machine and SQL can be left as is until such time as you can schedule a short maintenance window to perform the following:

  1. Copy the original DB file from C: to the remaining new database VMDK
  2. Copy the original Logs file from C: to the new logs VMDK

This process only takes a few minutes plus the time to copy the database and logs. The duration of the file copy will depend on the size of your database and the performance of the underlying storage. The good news is with the virtual machine having already been partially optimized with more PVSCSI controllers and VMDKs, the read (copy) process will be served by one SCSI controller/VMDK and the paste (write) process served by another which will minimize the downtime required.

Once you have locked in your maintenance window, all you need to do is ensure all users and applications dependent on the database are shutdown, then detach the database and select the “Drop Connections” and “Update Statistics” and press Ok.

The next steps are very simple; we need to copy (or rather move/cut) the database from the original location as shown below:

Now we paste the database file to the new data1 drive.

Then we copy the log file and paste it into the new log drive.

Now we simply reattach the database specifying the new location of the *.mdf file. You will note the message highlighted below which indicates the log files are not found which is expected since we have just relocated them.


To resolve this simply update the path to the logs file as shown below and press Ok.

And we’re done! Simple as that.

Adjust the maximum growth of the datafile to an appropriate size. If you set to unlimited, please ensure that you monitor the volumes and manage them according to the growth rate of the database.

Lastly, don’t forget to change the database recovery model to Full

Now you have your OS separated from your SQL database and logs and all of the drives are configured across four virtual SCSI controllers.


If you have an existing SQL server and storage performance is considered a problem, before buying new storage (Nutanix or otherwise), ensure you optimize the virtual machines storage layout as the constraint may not be the underlying storage.

As this post explains, most of this optimization can be done without taking the database offline so you don’t really have anything lose in following this process. Worst case scenario is performance does not improve and you have eliminated the VM storage as the constraining factor and when you do implement new Nutanix nodes or any underlying storage, you will get the most out of it. Do follow some other best practices like RAM to vCPU balancing, SQL Memory optimization, Trace Flags and database compression, be it row or page.


A huge thank you to Kasim Hansia from the Nutanix Business Critical Applications (vBCA) team for documenting this process and allowing me to publish this post using his screenshots. It’s a pleasure working with such a talented group at Nutanix both in the vBCA team and in the broader organization.

Related Articles:

  1. SQL and Exchange performance in a virtual machine
  2. How to successfully virtualize Microsoft Exchange
  3. MS support for SQL on NFS datastores

SQL & Exchange performance in a Virtual Machine

The below is something I see far to often: An SQL or Exchange virtual machine using a single LSI Logic SAS virtual SCSI controller.


What is even worse is a virtual machine using a single LSI controller and a single virtual disk for one or more databases and logs (as shown above).

Why is this so common?

Probably because the LSI Logic SAS controller is the default for Windows 2008/2012 virtual machines and additional SCSI controllers are not automatically added until you have more than 16 virtual disks for a single VM.

Why is this a problem?

The LSI controller has a queue depth limit of 128, compared to the default limit for PVSCSI which is 256, however it can be tuned to 1024 for higher performance requirements.

As a result, the a configuration with a single LSI controller and/or a limited number of virtual disks can artificially significantly constrain the underlying storage from delivering the performance it is capable of.

Another problem with the LSI controller is the amount of CPU it uses is higher than the PVSCSI controller for the same IO levels. This means you’re wasting virtual machine (and the underlying hosts) CPU resources unnecessarily.

Using more CPU could lead to other problems such as CPU Ready which can also lead to reduced performance.

A colleague and friend of mine, Michael Webster wrote a great post titled: Performance Issues Due To Virtual SCSI Device Queue Depths where he shows the performance difference between SATA, LSI and PVSCSI controllers. I highly recommend having a read of this post.

What is the solution?

Using multiple Paravirtual (PVSCSI) adapters with virtual disks evenly spread over the four controllers for Windows virtual machines is a no brainer!

This results in:

  1. Higher default queue depth
  2. Lower CPU overheads
  3. Higher potential performance

How do I configure this?

It’s fairly straight forward, but don’t just change the LSI Controller too PVSCSI as the Guest OS may not have the driver installed which will result in the VM failing to boot.

Too avoid this, simply edit the virtual machine and add a new Virtual Disk of any size and for the virtual device node, select SCSI (1:0) and follow the prompts.


Once the new virtual disk is added you should see a new LSI Logic SAS SCSI controller is added as shown below.


Next highlight the adapter and select “Change Type” in the top right hand corner of the window and select Paravirtual. Once this is complete you should see similar to the below:


Next hit “Ok” and the new Controller and virtual disk will be added to the VM.

Now we open the console of the VM and open Compute Management and goto Device Manager. Under Storage Controllers you should now see VMware PVSCSI Controller as shown below.


Now we are safe to Shutdown the VM.

Once the VM is shutdown, Edit the VM setting and highlight the SCSI Controller 0 and select Change Type as we did earlier and select Paravirtual. Once this is done you will see the original controller is replaced with a new controller.


Now that we have the boot drive change to PVSCSI, we can now balance the data drives across up to four PVSCSI controllers for maximum performance.

To do this, simply highlight a Virtual Disk and drop down the Virtual Device Node and select SCSI (1:0) or any other available slot on the SCSI (1:x) controller.


After doing this you will see new SCSI controllers appear and you need to change these to Paravirtual as we have done to the first controller.


For each of the virtual disks, ensure they are placed evenly across the PVSCSI controllers. For example, if you have a VM with eight virtual disks plus the OS disk, it should look like this:

Virtual Disk 1 (OS) : SCSI (0:0)
Virtual Disk 2 (OS) : SCSI (0:1)
Virtual Disk 3 (OS) : SCSI (1:0)
Virtual Disk 4 (OS) : SCSI (1:1)
Virtual Disk 5 (OS) : SCSI (2:0)
Virtual Disk 6 (OS) : SCSI (2:1)
Virtual Disk 7 (OS) : SCSI (3:0)
Virtual Disk 8 (OS) : SCSI (3:1)
Virtual Disk 9 (OS) : SCSI (0:2)

This results in two data virtual disks per PVSCSI controller which evenly distributes IO across all controllers with the exception being first controller (SCSI 0) also hosting the OS drive.

What if I have problems?

On occasions I have seen problems with this process which has resulted in VMs not booting, however these issues are easy to fix.

If your VM fails to boot with a message like “Operating System not found”, I suggest you panic! Just kidding, this is typically just the boot order of the Virtual machine has been screwed up. Just go into the bios and check the boot order has the PVSCSI controller showing and the correct virtual disk in first priority.

If the VM boots and BSOD or crashes and goes into a continuous reboot loop then power off the VM and set the first SCSI controller where the boot disk is running back to LSI. Then reboot the VM and make sure the PVSCSI driver is showing up (if its not you didn’t follow the above instructions) so go back and follow them so the PVSCSI driver is loaded and working, then shutdown and change the SCSI controller back to PVSCSI and you should be fine.

If the VM boots and one or more drives do not show up in my computer, go into Disk Manager and you may see the drives are marked as offline. Simply right click the drive and mark it as online and reboot and you’re good to go.


If you have made the intelligent move to virtualize your business critical applications, firstly congratulations! However as with physical hardware, Virtual machines also have optimal configurations so make sure you use PVSCSI controllers with multiple virtual disks and have your DBA span the database across multiple virtual disks for maximum performance.

The following post shows how to do this in detail:

Splitting SQL datafiles across multiple VMDKs for optimal VM performance

If the DBA is not confident doing this, you can also just add multiple virtual disks (connected via multiple PVSCSI controllers) and create a stripe in guest (via Disk Manager) and this will also give you the benefit of multiple vdisks.

Related Articles:

1. Peak Performance vs Real World Performance

2. Enterprise Architecture & Avoiding tunnel vision

3. Microsoft Exchange 2013/2016 Jetstress Performance Testing on Nutanix Acropolis Hypervisor (AHV)

Being called out on Exchange performance & scale. Close (well not really), but no cigar.

*UPDATE March 30th 6am EST*

Following an email from Howard Marks, the author of the Atlantis document, I would like to confirm a few points, but overall the feedback and this response from Howard, simply confirmed my original comments found in this post but it also raised new concerns.

  1. It has been confirmed that the 60,000k Exchange user solution could not be supported on the hardware as described in the Atlantis document.
  2. The performance (IOPS) claims are based on a non DAG configuration. This then is clearly not a real world solution as nobody would deploy a 60,000 user Exchange solution without a DAG configuration.
  3. The testing was purely storage based and did not take into account the requirements (such as CPU/RAM/Capacity) for a real world 60,000 user Exchange deployment.
  4. The Nutanix ESRP is not based on hero numbers. Its a solution sized and tested for a real world solution, thus the original claim and the latest claim from Howard’s response being “Hero numbers vs Hero Numbers” and the original claim of “2.5 times the mailboxes and 5 times the IOPS” are both incorrect.
  5. Nutanix ESRPs are 1GB and 1.5GB respectively. The Atlantis product tested “would be stressed to hold the data for 60,000 mailboxes at 800MB each. Perhaps we should have set the mailbox size to 200MB”. This confirms the comparison is not Apples/Apples (or even tangerines and clementines).
  6. The industry standard for Exchange virtualization is to deploy no more than one DAG instance per host (or HCI node). Howard responded by stating “If I were trying to deploy Exchange on a four-node HCI appliance, as opposed to Jetstress, I would use twelve virtual Exchange servers, so each host would run three under normal conditions and four in the event of a node failure.” – This would mean if a DAG configuration was used (which it should be for any real world deployment, especially at this scale) then a single node failure would bring down three Exchange instances, and as a result, the entire DAG. This is Exchange virtualization 101 and I would never recommend multiple Exchange servers (within a DAG) per host/node. I describe this in more detail in How to successfully Virtualize MS Exchange – Part 4 – DRS where I explain”Setup a DRS “Virtual Machines to Hosts” rule with the policy “Should run of hosts in group” on a 1:1 basis with Exchange MSR or MBX VMs & ESXi hosts” and summarized by saying the DRS configuration described “Ensures two or more DAG members will not be impacted in the event of a single ESXi host failure.
  7. Howard mentions “My best understanding of Nutanix’s and Atlantis’ pricing is that the all-flash Atlantis and the hybrid Nutanix will cost a customer about the same amount of cash. The Nutanix system may offer a few more TB of capacity but not a significant amount after Atlantis’ data reduction.” In the original document he states “Atlantis is assuming a very conservative data reduction factor of 1.67:1 when they pitch the CX-12 as having 12TB of effective capacity.”. This is 12TB across 4 nodes, which equates to 3TB per node. The Nutanix NX-8150 can support ~16.50TB usable per node with RF2 without data reduction which is above the CX-12 capacity including data reduction. The Nutanix usable capacity is obviously a lot more with In-Line compression and EC-X enabled which is what we recommend for Exchange. Assuming the same compression ratio, the NX-8150 usable capacity jumps to 27.5TB with further savings available when enabling EC-X. This usable capacity even eclipses the larger Atlantis CX-24 product. As such, the claim (above) by Howard is also incorrect.

My final thoughts on this topic would be that Atlantis should take down the document, as it is misleading to customers and only provides Jetstress performance details without the context of the CPU/RAM requirements.The testing performed was essentially just an IOPS drag race, which as I quoted in “Peak Performance vs Real World Performance“…

“Don’t perform Absurd Testing”.  (Quote Vaughn Steward and Chad Sakac)

As a result the document has nothing which could realistically be used to help design an Exchange environment for a customer on Atlantis,

As such it would make sense to redo the testing to a standard where it could be deployed in the real world, update the document and republish.

Remember: Real world Exchange solutions are typically constrained by RAM, then CPU, then Capacity. As a result it all but negates the need for IOPS (per node) beyond that which was achieved in the Nutanix ESRP report being 671.631. This level of IOPS would support 5535 users per node using Howard’s calculation being “(for 150 messages/day, that’s 0.101) multiply by 1.2 to provide 20% headroom”. However as Exchange is constrained by CPU/RAM first, the solution would have to scale out and use many more servers, meaning the IOPS requirement per node (which is what matters as opposed to “total iops” which is what Howard provides), would be in the mid/high hundreds range (~600), not thousands as the RAM constraint would prevent more users running per server and therefore as I said earlier, negate the need for IOPS at the level Howard is talking.


So Nutanix has been called out by Atlantis on Twitter and via an Atlantis document recently released regarding our MS Exchange ESRP. Atlantis, a little known company who are not listed in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Integrated Systems, or the IDC marketscape for HCI, attempted to attack Nutanix regarding our Exchange ESRP (or should I say multiple ESRPs) in what I found to be a highly amusing way.

I was reading the document published by Atlantis which is titled “Atlantis HyperScale Supports 60,000 Mailboxes With Microsoft Jetstress” and I honestly thought it was an April Fools joke, but being that its only March 25 (at least here in Australia), I concluded they must be serious.

I’ve got to be honest and say I don’t see Atlantis in the field, but one can only speculate they called Nutanix out to try and get some attention. Well, they have succeeded, I’m just not sure this exposure will be beneficial to them.

Lets look at the summary for their document:


  1. Deduping Exchange DAGs
    This is widely not recommended by Microsoft and Exchange MVPs.
  2. (Update) Claiming support for 60k mailboxes at 200 150 message/day/mailbox
    No issue here, large-ish environment and reasonably high messages/per/day.
  3. 2.5x the mailboxes of a leading HCI providers ESRP (i.e.: Nutanix)
    Had a good chuckle here as ESRP is not a competition to see what vendor has the most hardware lying around the office to perform benchmarks. But I appreciate that Atlantis want to be associated with Nutanix so go you ankle biter you!
  4. Five times the IOPS of Nutanix
    This was even more of a laugh as Nutanix has never published “peak” IOPS for Exchange as IOPS is almost never a limiting factor in the real world as I have explained in Peak performance vs Real World – Exchange on Nutanix Acropolis Hypervisor (AHV) but hey, the claim even though its not true makes for a good marketing.

Problem #1 – Atlantis document is not an ESRP, it’s a (paid for?) analysts report.

The article claims:

“2.5 times the mailboxes of a leading HCI provider’s ESRP report”

Off the bat, this is an Apples/Oranges comparison as Atlantis doesn’t have an ESRP validated solution. This can be validated here: Exchange Solution Reviewed Program (ESRP) – Storage

More importantly the number of mailboxes is irrelevant as Nutanix scales linearly, so our ESRP validates 30,000 users, simply double the number of nodes, scale out the DAG and you can support 60,000 users with the same performance. In fact, as the 30,000 user solution already has N+1, you don’t even need to double the number of nodes to get 60,000 users.

Nutanix ESRP is also a configuration which can (and has been) deployed in the real world. As I will explain further in this post, the Atlantis solution as described in the document could not be successfully deployed in the real world.

Problem #2 – Five times more IOPS… lol!

The article claims:

“Five times the IOPS of that HCI provider’s system”

Another apples/oranges comparison as Nutanix uses a hybrid deployment (SSD + SATA) whereas Atlantis used an All-Flash configuration. Atlantis also used deduplication and compression, which I have previously blogged about in Jetstress Testing with Intelligent Tiered Storage Platforms where I conclude by saying:

No matter what any vendor tells you, 8:1 dedupe for Exchange (excluding DAG copies) is not realistic for production data in my experience. As such, it should never be used for performance testing with Jetstress.

Solution: Disable dedupe when using Jetstress (and in my opinion for production DAGs)

So any result (including this one from Atlantis) achieved with Dedupe or Compression enabled is not realistic regardless of if its more/less IOPS than Nutanix.

But regarding Nutanix All-Flash performance, I have previously posted YouTube videos showing Nutanix performance which can be found here: Microsoft Exchange 2013/2016 Jetstress Performance Testing on Nutanix Acropolis Hypervisor (AHV)

In Part 1 of the series “The Baseline Test” I explained:

Note: This demonstration is not showing the peak performance which can be achieved by Jetstress on Nutanix. In fact it’s running on a ~3 year old NX-3450 with Ivy Bridge processors and Jetstress is tuned (as the video shows) to a low thread count.

So lets look at Nutanix performance on some 3yo old hardware as a comparison.

At the 4:47 mark of the video in Part 1 we can see the Jetstress latency for Read and Write I/O was between 1.3 and 1.4ms for all 4 databases. This is considerably lower and critically much more consistent than the latency Atlantis achieved (below) which varies significantly across databases.


As you can see above, DB read latency varies between 3ms and 16ms, DB writes between 14ms an 105ms and Log Writes between 2ms and 5ms. In 2013 when I joined Nutanix, we had similar (poor) performance for Exchange that the Atlantis Jetstress results show, and this was something I was actively involved with addressing, and by early 2014 we had a fantastic platform for Exchange deployments as we did a lot of work in the back end to deal with very large working sets which exceeded SSD tier.

In contrast, Nutanix NX-8150, which is a hybrid (SSD + SATA) node, achieved very consistent performance as shown below from our official ESRP which has been validated by Microsoft.


Obviously being Nutanix is hybrid, the average latency for reads which the bulk of are served from SATA are higher than an all flash configuration, but interestingly, Nutanix latencies are much more consistent and the difference between peak and minimal latency is low, compared to Atlantis which varies in some cases by 90ms!

In the real world, I recently visited a large customer who runs almost the exact same configuration as our ESRP and they average <5ms latency across their 3 Nutanix clusters running MS Exchange for 24k users (Multi-site DAG w/ 3 Copies).

At the 4:59 mark of the Baseline Test video we can see the Nutanix test achieved 2342 IOPS using just 8 threads, compare this to Atlantis, where they achieved 2937.191 IOPS but required 3x the threads (24). For those of you not familiar with Jetstress, more threads = more potential IOPS. I have personally tested Nutanix with 64 threads and performance continues to increase.

Using more threads I have previously blogged about how Nutanix outperformed VSAN for Jetstress which showed the following Jetstress summary showing 4381 IOPS using more threads. So actually, Nutanix comfortably outperforms Atlantis even back in June 2015 when I wrote that post. With the release of AOS 4.6 performance has improved significantly.

So Nutanix Exchange performance isn’t limited by IOPS as I explained in Peak performance vs Real World – Exchange on Nutanix Acropolis Hypervisor (AHV).

Exchange scale/performance is always constrained by RAM first (96GB), then CPU (20vCPUs) and typically in HCI environments, Storage Capacity, and a distant fourth, potentially being IOPS.

Problem #3 The solution could not be deployed in the real world

Tony Redmond a well known Microsoft Exchange MVP has previously blogged about unrealistic ESRP submissions such as: Deficient IBM and Hitachi 120,000 mailbox configurations

Tony rightly points out:

“The core problem in IBM’s configuration is that the servers are deficient in memory”

The same is true for the Atlantis document, With just 3 servers, that’s 20,000 users per server. In the configuration they published, that would mean the mailbox servers would vastly exceed the recommended sizing for an Exchange instance of 20vCPUs and 96GB RAM.

The servers Atlantis are using have Intel E5-2680 v3 processors which have a Spec base rate of between ~57 and 61 depending on the exact server vendor, so lets use the higher number to give Atlantis the benefit of the doubt: So Intel E5-2680 v3 processors have 12 cores, in a 2 socket host thats 24 x 61 = A maximum SpecIntRate of 1464.

Again to give Atlantis the benefit of the doubt, lets assume their VSA uses zero resources and see if we have enough compute available for the 20,000 users they tested in the real world.

The first issue is the Exchange 2013 Server Role Requirements Calculator reports the following error:


I solved this by adding a fourth server to the sizing since I’m a nice guy.

The second issue is the Exchange 2013 Server Role Requirements Calculator reports the following error (even with the fourth server being added).


Ok, not the end of the world I guess, Oh wait… then comes the third issue:


Each of the four mailbox servers vastly exceed the recommended maximums for Exchange 2013 servers (physical or virtual) being 20vCPUs and 96GB RAM.

Reference: Exchange 2013 Sizing and Configuration Recommendations

The below is a screenshot from the above link highlighting the recommendation from MS as at the time/date this article was published. (Friday 25th 2015 AEST)


In fact, they exceed the resources of the tested equipment as well. The testing was performed on Atlantis HyperScale CX-12 systems which have only 256GB RAM each  384GB each.

The below is from page 6 of the Atlantis document:

We performed our testing remotely on a HyperScale CX-12 system, with 256GB of RAM per node, in Atlantis’ quality-control lab.

Update: The solution has 384Gb RAM, which is still insufficient for the number of users and messages per day in the real world.

In this case, Atlantis, even with the benefit of the doubt of a fourth server and maximum SpecIntRate, would be running 332% utilisation on CPU even when using over 3 times the recommended maximum number of pCores and requiring almost 1TB of RAM per Exchange Server. That’s almost 10x the recommended RAM per instance!

So as if the first three weren’t enough, the fourth issue is kind of funny.

The required capacity for the solution (60k users @ 800MB Mailboxes w/ 2 DAG copies) is shown below. If you look at the Database Volume Space Required line item, it shows ~46TB required capacity per server not including restore volume.


Let’s keep giving Atlantis the benefit of the doubt and accept their claim (below) relating to data reduction.

Atlantis is assuming a very conservative data reduction factor of 1.67:1

So that’s 46TB / 1.67 = ~27.54TB required usable capacity per Exchange server. So that’s ~110TB for the 4 Exchange servers.

The HyperScale CX-24 system is guaranteed to provide up to 24TB according to the document on Page 6, screenshot below.


With a requirement for 27.54TB per node (and that’s with 4 servers, not 3 as per the document), the solution tested has insufficient capacity for the solution even when giving Atlantis the benefit of the doubt regarding its data reduction capabilities.

Prior to publishing this blog, I re-read the document several times and it turns out I made a mistake. On further analysis I discovered that the Hyperscale CX-24 system provides just 24TB across ALL FOUR NODES, not one node as per the document on Page 8.


So in reality, my above comments were actually in favour of Atlantis, as the actual nodes have (24/4) just 6TB usable each, which is just under 5x LESS storage capacity than is required assuming 100% capacity utilisation.

The fifth issue however takes the cake!

The solution requires 4824 IOPS for the Databases and 1029 IOPS for Logs as shown by the sizing calculator.


Now the Atlantis document shows they achieved 2937.191 IOPS on Page 10, so they are not achieving the required IOPS for the 60000 users even with their all Flash configuration and 24 threads!

I would have thought a storage company would at least get the storage (capacity and IOPS) sizing correct, but both capacity and IOPS have not been sized for correctly.

Too harsh?

Ok, maybe i’m going a little honeybadger on Atlantis, so lets assume they meant 150 messages/day per mailbox as the document says both 200 messages (Page 4) and then the following on Page 11.


If I change the messages per day to 150 then the IOPS requirement drops to 3618 for DBs and 773 for Logs as shown below.


So… they still failed sizing 101, as they only achieved 2937 IOPS as per Page 10 of their document.

What about CPU/RAM? That’s probably fine now right? Wrong. Even with the lower messages per day, each of the 4 Exchange instances are still way over utilized on CPU and 8x oversized on RAM.


Let’s drop to 50 messages per day per user. Surely that would work right? Nope, we’re still 3x higher on RAM and over the recommended 80% CPU utilisation maximum for Exchange.


What about IOPS? We’ve dropped the user profile by 4x. Surely Atlantis can support the IOPS now?

Woohoo! By dropping the messages per day by 4x Atlantis can now support the required IOPS. (You’re welcome Atlantis!)


Too bad I had to include 33% more servers to even get them to this point where the Mailbox servers are still oversized.

Problem #4 – Is it a supported configuration?

No details are provided about the Hypervisor storage protocol used for the tests, but Atlantis is known to use NFS for vSphere, so if VMDK on NFS is used, this configuration is not supported by MS (as much as I think VMDK on NFS should be). Nutanix has two ESRP validated solutions which are fully supported configurations using iSCSI.

UPDATE: I have been informed the testing was done using iSCSI Datastores (not In-Guest iSCSI)

However, this only confirms this is not a supported configuration (at least not by VMware) as Atlantis are not certified for iSCSI according to the VMware HCL as of 5 mins ago when I checked (see below which shows only NFS).


Problem #5 – Atlantis claims this is a real world configuration


The only positive that comes out of this is that Atlantis follow Nutanix recommendations and have an N+1 node to support failover of the Exchange VM in the event of a node failure.

As I have stated above, unfortunately Atlantis have insufficient CPU,RAM,storage capacity and storage performance for the 60000 user environment described in their document.

As the testing was actually on Hyperscale CX-12 nodes the usable capacity is 12TB for the four node solution. The issue is we need ~110TB in total for the 4 Exchange servers (~27TB per instance), so with only 4 nodes it means Atlantis has insufficient capacity for the solution (actual guaranteed usable is 12TB or almost 10x less than what is required) OR they are are assuming >10x data reduction.

If this is what Atlantis recommends in the real world, then I have serious concerns for any of their customers who try to deploy Exchange as they are in for a horrible experience.

Nutanix ESRP assumes ZERO data reduction, as we want to show customers what they can expect in the worst case scenario AND not cheat ESRP by deduping and compressing data which results in unrealistic data reduction and increased performance.

Nutanix compression and Erasure Coding provide excellent data reduction, in a customer environment I reviewed recently which is 24k users, they had >2:1 data reduction using just In-Line compression. As they are not capacity constrained EC-X is currently not in use but this would also provide further savings and is planned to be enabled as they continue putting more workloads into the Nutanix environment.

However Nutanix size assuming no data reduction and the savings from data reduction are considered a bonus. In cases where customers have limited budget I give customers estimates on data reduction. But typically we just start small, size for smaller mailbox capacities and allow the customer to scale capacity as required with additional storage only nodes OR additional compute+storage nodes where additional messages/day or users are required.

Rule of Thumb: Use data reduction savings as a bonus and not for sizing purposes. (Under promise, over deliver!)

Problem #6 – All Flash (or should I say, All Tier 0/1) for Exchange?

To be honest, I think a hybrid (or tiered) storage solution (HCI or otherwise) is the way to go as its only a small percentage of workloads which require the fastest performance. Lots of applications like Exchange require high capacity and low IOPS, so lower cost, high capacity storage is better suited for this kind of workload. Using a small persistent write/read buffer for hot data gives the Tier 0/1 type performance without the cost, all while having much larger capacity for larger mailboxes/archiving and things like LAGGED copies or snapshot retention on primary storage for fast recovery (but not backup of course since snapshots on primary storage are not backups).

As SSD prices come down and technology evolves, I’m sure we’ll see more all SSD solutions, but with faster technology such as NVMe as the persistent read/write buffers and commodity SSD for capacity tier. But having the bulk of the data from workloads like Exchange on Tier 0/1 doesn’t make sense to me. The argument that data reduction makes the $/GB comparable to lower tier storage will fluctuate over time while the fact remains, storage IOPS are of the least concern when sizing for Exchange.

Problem #7 – $1.50 per mailbox… think again.

The claim of $1.50 per mailbox us just simply wrong. With correct sizing, the Atlantis solution will require significantly more nodes and the price will be way higher. I’d do the math exactly, but its so far fetched its not worth the time.


I would be surprised if anyone gets to this summary, as even after Problem #1 or #2 Atlantis have been knocked out faster than Jose Aldo at UFC194 (13 seconds). But none the less, here are a few key points.

  1. Atlantis solution has insufficient CPU for the 60000 users even with 4x less messages per day than the document claims
  2. Atlantis solution has insufficient RAM for the solution, again even with 4x less messages per day than the document claims
  3. Atlantis can only achieve the required IOPS by reducing the messages per day by 4x down to 50 messages per day (funnily enough that’s lower than the Nutanix ESRP)
  4. The nodes tested do not have sufficient storage capacity for the proposed 60,000 users w/ 800MB mailboxes and 2 DAG copies even with the assumption of 1.67:1 data reduction AND a fourth node.
  5. Atlantis does not have a supported configuration on VMware vSphere (Nutanix does using “Volume Groups” over iSCSI)
  6. Atlantis does not have an ESRP validated solution. I believe this would be at least in part due to their only supporting NFS and their configuration not being valid for ESRP submission due to having all DAG copies on the same underlying storage failure domain. Note: Nutanix supports iSCSI which is fully supported and our ESRP uses two failure domains (seperate Nutanix ADSF clusters for each DAG copy).
  7. As for the $/Mailbox claim on twitter of $1.50 per mailbox, think again Atlantis.