Nutanix X-Ray Benchmarking tool – Extended Node Failure Scenario

In the first part of this series, I introduced Nutanix X-Ray benchmarking tool which has been designed very differently to traditional benchmarking tools as the performance of the app is the control and the variable is the platform,not the other way around.

In the second part, I showed how Nutanix AHV & AOS could maintain the performance while utilising snapshots to achieve the type of recovery point objective (RPO) that is expected in production environments, especially with business critical workloads whereas a leading hypervisor and SDS platform could not.

In this part, I will cover the Extended Node Failure Scenario in X-Ray and again compare Nutanix AOS/AHV and a leading hypervisor and SDS platform in another real world scenario.

Let’s start by reviewing what the description of the X-ray Extended node failure scenario.


I really like that X-ray has a scenario which shows a simulated node failure as this is bound to happen regardless of the platform you choose, and with hyperconverged platforms the impact of a node failure is arguably higher than traditional 3-tier as the nodes contain some data which needs to be recovered.

As such, it is critical before choosing a HCI platform to understand how it behaves in a failure scenario which is exactly what this scenario demonstrates.


Here we can see the impact on the performance of the surviving VMs following the power being disconnected via the out of band management interface.

The Nutanix AOS/AHV platform continues to run at a very steady rate, virtually without impact to the VMs. On the other hand we see that after 1 hour the other platform has a high impact with significant degradation.

This clearly shows the Acropolis Distributed Storage Fabric (ADSF) to be a superior platform from a resiliency perspective, which should be a primary consideration when choosing a platform for any production environment.

Back in 2014, I highlighted the Problems with RAID and Object Based Storage for data protection and in a follow up post I discussed how Nutanix Acropolis Distributed Storage Fabric (ADSF) compares with traditional SAN/NAS RAID and hyper-converged solutions using Object storage for data protection.

The above results clearly demonstrate the problems I discussed back in 2014 are still applicable to even the most recent versions of a leading hypervisor and SDS platform. This is because the problem is the underlying architecture and bolting on new features is at best masking the constraints of the original architectural decision which has proven to be significantly flawed.

This scenario clearly demonstrates the criticality of looking beyond peak performance numbers and conducting a thorough evaluation of a platform prior to purchase as well as comprehensive operational verification prior to moving any platform into production.

Related Articles:

Nutanix X-Ray Benchmarking tool Part 1 – Introduction

Nutanix X-Ray Benchmarking tool Part 2 -Snapshot Impact Scenario

How to Architect a VSA , Nutanix or VSAN solution for >=N+1 availability.

How to architect a VSA, Nutanix or VSAN solution for the desired level of availability (i.e.: N+1 , N+2 etc) is a question I am asked regularly by customers and contacts throughout the industry.

This needs to be addressed in two parts.

1. Compute
2. Storage

Firstly, Compute level resiliency, As a cluster grows, the chances of a failure increases so the percentage of resources reserved for HA should increase with the size of the cluster.

My rule of thumb (which is quite conservative) is as follows:

1. N+1 for clusters of up to 8 hosts
2. N+2 for clusters of >8 hosts but <=16
3. N+3 for clusters of >16 hosts but <=24
4. N+4 for clusters of >24 hosts but <=32

The above is discussed in more detail in : Example Architectural Decision – High Availability Admission Control Setting and Policy

The below table highlights in Green my recommended HA percentage configuration based on the cluster size, up to the current vSphere limit of 32 nodes.


Some of you may be thinking, if my Nutanix or VSAN cluster is only configured for RF2 or FT1 for VSAN, I can only tolerate one node failure, so why am I reserving more than N+1.

In the case of Nutanix, after a node failure, the cluster can restore itself to a fully resilient state and tolerate subsequent failures. In fact, with “Block Awareness” a full 4 node block can be lost (so an N-4 situation) which if this is a requirement, needs to be considered for HA admission control reservations to ensure compute level resources are available to restart VMs.

Next lets talk about the issue perceived to be more complicated, Storage redundancy.

Storage redundancy for VSA, Nutanix or VSAN is actually not as complicated as most people think.

The following is my rule of thumb for sizing.

For N+1 , Ensure you have enough capacity remaining in the cluster to tolerate the largest node failing.

For N+2, Ensure you have enough capacity remaining in the cluster to tolerate the largest TWO nodes failing.

The examples below discuss Nutanix nodes and their capacity, but the same is applicable to any VSA or VSAN solution where multiple copies of data is kept for data protection, as opposed to RAID.

Example 1 , If you have 4 x Nutanix NX3060 nodes configured with RF2 (FT1 in VSAN terms) with 2TB usable per node (as shown below), in the event of a node failure, 2TB is no longer available. So the maximum storage utilization of the cluster should be <75% (6TB) to ensure in the event of any node failure, the cluster can be restored to a fully resilient state.


Example 2 , If you have 2 x Nutanix NX3060 nodes configured with RF2 (FT1 in VSAN terms) with 2TB usable per node and 2 x Nutanix NX6060 nodes with 8TB usable per node (as shown below), in the event of a NX6060 node failure, 8TB is no longer available. So the maximum storage utilization of the cluster should be 12TB to ensure in the event of any node failure (including the 8TB nodes), the cluster can be restored to a fully resilient state.


For environments using Nutanix RF3 (3 copies of data) or VSAN (FT2) the same rule of thumb applies but the usable capacity per node would be lower due to the increased capacity required for data protection.

Specifically for Nutanix environments, the PRISM UI shows if a cluster has sufficient capacity available to tolerate a node failure, and if not the following is displayed on the HOME screen and alerts can be sent if desired.


In this case, the cluster has suffered a node failure, and because it was sized suitably, it shows “Rebuild Capacity Available” as “Yes” and advises an “Auto Rebuild in progress” meaning the cluster is performing a fully automated self heal. Importantly no admin intervention is required!

If the cluster status is normal, the following will be shown in PRISM.


In summary: The smaller the cluster the higher the amount of capacity needs to remain unused to enable resiliency to be restored in the event of a node failure, the same as the percentage of resources reserved for HA in a traditional compute only cluster.

The larger the cluster from both a storage and compute perspective, the lower the unused capacity is required for HA, so as has been a virtualization recommended practice for years….. Scale-out!

Related Articles:

1. Scale Out Shared Nothing Architecture Resiliency by Nutanix

2. PART 1 – Problems with RAID and Object Based Storage for data protection

3. PART 2 – Problems with RAID and Object Based Storage for data protection

Scale Out Shared Nothing Architecture Resiliency by Nutanix

At VMware vForum Sydney this week I presented “Taking vSphere to the next level with converged infrastructure”.

Firstly, I wanted to thank everyone who attended the session, it was a great turnout and during the Q&A there were a ton of great questions.

I got a lot of feedback at the session and when meeting people at vForum about how the Nutanix scale out shared nothing architecture tolerates failures.

I thought I would summarize this capability as I believe its quite impressive and should put everyone’s mind at ease when moving to this kind of architecture.

So lets take a look at a 5 node Nutanix cluster, and for this example, we have one running VM. The VM has all its data locally, represented by the “A” , “B” and “C” and this data is also distributed across the Nutanix cluster to provide data protection / resiliency etc.


So, what happens when an ESXi host failure, which results in the Nutanix Controller VM (CVM) going offline and the storage which is locally connected to the Nutanix CVM being unavailable?

Firstly, VMware HA restarts the VM onto another ESXi host in the vSphere Cluster and it runs as normal, accessing data both locally where it is available (in this case, the “A” data is local) and remotely (if required) to get data “B” and “C”.


Secondly, when data which is not local (in this example “B” and “C”) is accessed via other Nutanix CVMs in the cluster, it will be “localized” onto the host where the VM resides for faster future access.

It is importaint to note, if data which is not local is not accessed by the VM, it will remain remote, as there is no benefit in relocating it and this reduces the workload on the network and cluster.

The end result is the VM restarts the same as it would using traditional storage, then the Nutanix cluster “curator” detects if any data only has one copy, and replicates the required data throughout the cluster to ensure full resiliency.

The cluster will then look like a fully functioning 4 node cluster as show below.


The process of repairing the cluster from a failure is commonly incorrectly compared to a RAID pack rebuild. With a raid rebuild, a small number of disks, say 8, are under heavy load re striping data across a hot spare or a replacement drive. During this time the performance of everything on the RAID pack is significantly impacted.

With Nutanix, the data is distributed across the entire cluster, which even with a 5 node cluster will be at least 20 SATA drives, but with all data being written to SSD then sequentially offloaded to SATA.

The impact of this process is much less than a RAID rebuild as all Nutanix controllers in the cluster participate and take a portion of the workload as a result the impact per disk, per controller ,per node and importantly for production VMs running in the cluster, is greatly reduced.

Essentially, the larger the cluster, the faster the cluster can repair itself, and the lower the impact on production workloads.

Now lets talk about a subsequent ESXi host failure, now we have two failed nodes, and three surviving nodes, and only one copy of data “A” , “B” and “C” as shown below.


Now the Nutanix “Curator” detects only one copy of data “A”, “B” and “C” exists and starts to replicate copies of “A”, “B” and “C” across the cluster. This results in the below which is a fully functional and redundant cluster, capable of surviving yet another failure as shown below.


Even in this scenario, where two ESXi hosts are lost, the environment still has 60% of its storage controllers (and performance), as compared to a typical traditional storage product where the loss of just two (2) controllers can have your environment completely offline, and even if you only lost a single controller, you would only have 50% of the storage controllers (and performance) available.

I think this really highlights what VMware and players like Google, Facebook & Twitter have been saying for a long time, scaling out not up, and shared nothing architecture is the way of the future. The only question is who will be dominant in bringing this technology to the mass market, and I think you know who I have my money on.