Example Architectural Decision – Host Isolation Response for FC Based storage

Problem Statement

What are the most suitable HA / host isolation settings where the environment uses Storage (IBM SVC) with FC connectivity via a dedicated highly available Storage Area Network (SAN) fabric where ESXi Management and Virtual Machine traffic run over a highly available data network?

Requirements

1. Ensure in the event of one or more hosts becoming isolated, the environment responds in an automated manner to recover VMs where possible

Assumptions

1.The Network is highly available (>99.999% availability)
2. The Storage is highly available (>99.999% availability)
3. vSphere 5.0 or later
4. ESXi hosts are connected to the network via two physical separate switches via two physical NICs

Constraints

1. FC (Block) based storage

Motivation

1. Meet/Exceed availability requirements
2. Minimize the chance of a false positive isolation event

Architectural Decision

Turn off the default isolation address by setting the below advanced setting

“das.usedefaultisolationaddress” = False

Configure three (3) isolation addresses by setting the below advanced settings

“das.isolationaddress1″ = 192.168.1.1 (Core Router)

“das.isolationaddress2″ = 192.168.1.2 (Core Switch 1 )

“das.isolationaddress3″ = 192.168.1.3 (Core Switch 2 )

Configure Datastore Heartbeating with “Select any of the clusters datastores”

Configure Host Isolation Response to: “Shutdown”

Justification

1. When using FC storage, it is possible for the Management and Virtual Machine Networks to be unavailable, while the Storage network is working perfectly. In this case Virtual machines may not be able to communicate to other servers, but can continuing reading/writing from disk. In this case, they will likely not be servicing customer workloads, as such, Shutting the VM down gracefully allows HA to restart the VM/s on host/s which are not isolated gives the VM a greater chance of being able to resume servicing workloads than remaining on an isolated host.
2. Datastore heartbeating will allow HA to confirm if the host is “isolated” or “failed”. In either case, Shutting down the VM will allow HA to recover the VM on a surviving host.
3. As all storage is presented via Active/Active IBM SVC controllers, there is no benefit is specifying specific datastores to be used for heartbeating
4. The selected isolation addresses were chosen as they are both highly available devices in the network which are essential for network communication and cover the core routing and switching components in the network.
5. In an environment where the Network is highly available an isolation event is extremely unlikely  as such, where the three (3) isolation addresses cannot be contacted, it is unlikely the network can be restored in a timely manner OR the host has suffered multiple concurrent failures (eg: Multiple Network Cards) and performing a controlled shutdown helps ensure when the network is recovered, the VMs are brought back up in a consistent state, OR in the event the isolation impacts only a subset of ESXi hosts in the cluster, the VM/s can be recovered by HA and resume normal operations.

Alternatives

1. Set Host isolation response to “Leave Powered On”
2. Do not use Datastore heartbeating
3. Use the default isolation address

Implications

1. In the event the host cannot reach any of the isolation addresses, virtual machines will be Shutdown
2.  Using “Shutdown” as opposed to “Power off” ensures a graceful shutdown of the guest operating system, however this will delay the HA restart of the VM for up to 5 mins (300 seconds) if VMware Tools is unable to do a controlled shutdown, in which case after 300 seconds a “Power Off” will be executed.
3. In the unlikely event of network instability, VMs may be Shutdown prematurely.

CloudXClogo

 

 

Example Architectural Decision – Number of paths per LUN for VMFS datastores

Problem Statement

In a vSphere environment hosting a large number of VMs,  Virtual machines I/O requirements range from small <100 IOPS to large business critical applications with tens of thousands of IOPS, the ESXi hosts have been configured with 4 x 8Gb FC HBAs.

What is the most suitable number of paths per LUN when using 4 x 8GB FC connections per Host, and how will they be presented in a highly available manner with two (2) SAN Fabrics connected to an Active/Active Enterprise Disk array?

Requirements

1. All LUNs are available on all FC Interfaces
2. The storage be highly available
3. The environment should be able to continue running production workloads in the unlikely event of a dual port HBA, or single Fabric failure.
4. The environment maintain a consistent level of performance

Assumptions

1. The Storage area network has two (2) fabrics each of which is highly available
2. The disk system is presented to both SAN fabrics
3. The number of VMs per host is >100
4. vSphere 4.0 or later
5. Storage array is Active/Active
6. ESXi hosts are large and are designed to drive significant I/O
7. VAAI is supported and enabled

Constraints

1. Maximum paths supported per ESXi host is 1024
2. Maximum number of datastores per ESXi host is 256

Motivation

1. Ensure optimal performance redundancy
2. Maximum the total capacity able to be presented to a cluster

Architectural Decision

Use a standard of 8 paths per LUN

Each LUN will be presented to each HBA via both Controller A and Controller B resulting in two paths per LUN per HBA.

With a total of 4 FC connections across two (2) physical dual port HBAs in a HA configuration with one (1) connection per HBA per Fabric, this equates to a total of 8 paths per LUN to the ESXi host (4 paths per Fabric)

Justification

1. This equates to 4 paths (1 per HBA interface per LUN) per Fabric
2. The use of VMware NMP with “Round Robin” will be used and having all LUNs presented via both fabrics and all HBAs will provide the maximum reducing in latency and the most consistent performance overall
3. 8 paths per LUN ensures up to 128 LUNs can be presented within the 1024 paths per ESXi host limit which will support sufficient capacity for the cluster
4. The solution is highly available as it uses two fabrics and both controllers are Active
5. In the event of a Fabric failure, the remaining Fabric serving 2 x 8Gb connections will provide connectivity to both Controller A and B, with a total of 4 paths
6. Ensures the cluster can have enough LUNs to balance workloads across which will assist keeping latency at a minimum

Alternatives

1. Have less paths per LUN which enabled the use of more LUNs
2. Have more paths per LUN and have less LUNs

Implications

1. LUN sizes will need to be sizes to ensure a maximum of 128 LUNs are sufficient from a capacity perspective to cater for the desired number of virtual machines

vmware_logo_ads