Monthly Archives: January 2015

How to successfully Virtualize MS Exchange – Part 9 – Raw Device Mappings (RDMs)

Posted on by
7

A Raw Device Mapping or “RDM” allows a VM to access a volume (or LUN) on the physical storage via either Fibre Channel or iSCSI.

When discussing Raw Device Mappings, it is important to highlight there are two types of RDM modes, Virtual Compatability Mode and Physical Compatibility Mode.

See the following article for a detailed breakdown of the Difference between Physical compatibility RDMs and Virtual compatibility RDMs(2009226).

So how does an RDM compare to a VMDK on a Datastore?

VMware released a white paper called Performance Characterization of VMFS and RDM Using a SAN in 2008, which debunked the myth that RDMs gave significantly higher performance than VMDKs on datastores.

So RDMs have NO performance advantage over VMDKs on a Datastore.

With that in mind, what advantages (if any) do RDMs have today?

VMware released their Microsoft Exchange 2010 on VMware
Best Practices Guide which has the following Table on page 14 showing the trade-offs between VMFS and RDMs.

RDMsvsVMDKs

I have highlighted one advantage that RDMs still have over VDMKs on datastore style deployments which is the ability to migrate from a physical Exchange server using centralized SAN storage to a VM without data migration.

However, I find the most common way to migrate from a physical deployment to a virtual deployment is by performing Mailbox migrations to virtualized Exchange servers in an ESXi environment. This avoids the complexities of RDMs and ensures no capacity on the shared storage is wasted (i.e.: Siloed).

The table also lists one other advantage for RDMs, being support for up to 64TB drives whereas Virtual Disks were limited to 2TB for VMFS but this limitation has since been lifted to 62TB in vSphere 5.5.

Recommendation: Do not use RDMs for MS Exchange deployments.

As with Local Storage discussed in Part 7, RDM deployments have more downsides (mainly around inefficiency and complexity) than upsides and I would recommend considering other storage options for Virtualized Exchange deployments.

Other options along with my recommended options will be discussed in the next 2 parts of this series and in upcoming posts on Storage performance and resiliency.

Back to the Index of How to successfully Virtualize MS Exchange.

Cloning VMs – Why less (I/O & throughput) is better!

Posted on by
5

I’ve seen the picture below floating around Twitter and LinkedIn which shows a 32GB VM being cloned in just 7 seconds on an All Flash Array (AFA) and has got a lot of attention.

The AFA peaked at over 7000MB/s during this time showing the AFA is capable of some serious throughput!345363bf-bbb3-4389-aafa-71c81f182de3-large

At this stage some people may be thinking im talking about Nutanix, so I would like to point out the above AFA is not a Nutanix NX-9000 All Flash Node.

So why did I write this post?

I am still surprised that technical people find this sort of test and result impressive, because to me the fact the AFA used 7000MB/s of bandwidth to perform the clone means it has not intelligently performed the clone and the process has used additional capacity while potentially having a high impact on the other workloads using the storage.

At this stage I guess I should explain what I mean by intelligently clone.

An intelligent clone in my mind is where:

a) The clone takes a few seconds to occur
b) The clone is offloaded to the storage layer
c) Uses almost zero I/O & bandwidth to perform the clone
d) Uses almost zero additional space

So in the above example, the solution has cloned the VM in a few seconds, so a) has been satisfied, and since there is no information provided I’m going to give it the benefit of the doubt and say the clone was offloaded to the storage layer, so im assuming (rightly or wrongly) that b) is also satisfied.

But what about c) and d).

If the clone uses 7000MB/s of bandwidth that must have some impact (if not a significant impact) on other workloads running on the storage, even if it is only for 7 seconds.

The clone was also writing data throughout the 7 seconds, so its also duplicating the data.

So the net result is a fast yet high impact (capacity / performance) clone.

Back in 2012, when I worked at IBM, I wrote this post (Netapp Edge VSA – Rapid Cloning Utility) about intelligent cloning, as a customer was suffering terrible VDI recompose times due to using a big dumb storage solution which had no inteligent cloning capabilities. The post shows even on an old IBM x3850 M2 with slow old 4 core processors running a Virtual Storage Appliance running on 3 peices of spinning rust (146GB SAS disks) and it still completes the task in just 4.73 seconds per clone in full compliance with the 4 items I identified as aspects of intelligent cloning (below).

a) The clone takes a few seconds to occur
b) The clone is offloaded to the storage layer
c) Uses almost zero I/O & bandwidth to perform the clone
d) Uses almost zero additional space

The reason intelligent cloning is so much faster is because there is no need to duplicate a VM, the intelligent cloning process simply creates pointers back to the original file (which remains Read Only) and only uses I/O & capacity when new data is created.

The process is actually mostly dependant on vCenter to register the new VM which is why the process takes a couple of seconds as the process takes almost no time at the storage layer. The size of the VM being cloned is irrelevant. (Note: In my post from 2012 it was a 10Gb VM although again the size has no impact on the speed of an intelligent clone)

In the post from 2012, I made the following observation:

Even if you have the worlds fastest array (insert you favorite vendor here), storage connectivity and the biggest and most powerful ESXi hosts the process of cloning a large number of virtual machines will still;

1. Take more time to complete than an intelligent cloning process like RCU

2. Impact the performance of your ESXi hosts and more than likley production VMs

3. Impact the performance of your storage network & array (and anything that uses it , physical or virtual).

So fast forward to 2015, we have lots of really fast All-Flash storage solutions, but for tasks like cloning, even these super fast all-flash solutions can’t outperform a single controller (2vCPU) Virtual Storage appliance running on an old IBM x3850 M2 server running in my test lab using intelligent cloning from back in 2012.

I also wrote this article (Is VAAI beneficial with Virtual Storage Appliance (VSA) based solutions ?) recently explaining the benefits of VAAI-NAS and how VAAI-NAS supports intelligent cloning even with Virtual Storage Appliance solutions.

In Summary:

I find a clone taking a few seconds and using next to no throughput and capacity to be impressive. This is a perfect example of less I/O and throughput (to perform the same task) being better!

Its great if a storage array has the capability to drive many GB/s of throughput, but its totally unnecessary for cloning and is only demonstrating the lack of intelligent cloning capabilities for the storage solution.

In my opinion its much better for a storage solutions to use its high performance capability for driving I/O to virtual machines servicing business applications than for tasks like cloning which can be done intelligently.

To show off more real world performance capabilities of a storage solution (especially an All-Flash array), the example really has to include multiple workloads with different I/O characteristics. This is something the storage industry (all vendors) continues to fail to provide and its something I would like to be a part of changing as things like “Peak” performance are no where near as important as “consistent” performance.

Back on topic though, If cloning is something you or your customers require, for say a VDI, Cloud deployment or just for rapid provisioning of testing & development VMs, consider a storage solution which has intelligent cloning capabilities such as VAAI-NAS which integrates with products like Horizon View (VCAI Clones) and vCloud Director (FAST Provisioning).

How to successfully Virtualize MS Exchange – Part 8 – Local Storage

Posted on by
Reply

As discussed in Part 7, Local Storage is probably the most basic form of storage we can present to ESXi and use for Exchange MBX/MSR VMs.

The below screen shot shows what local storage can look like to an ESXi host.

LocalStorage

As we can see above, the highlighted datastore is simply an SSD formatted with VMFS5. So in this case a single drive not running RAID, and therefore in the event of the drive failing, any data on the drive would be permanently lost.

Note: The above image is simply an example. In reality multiple drives most likely SAS or SATA would be used as SSD is unnecessary for Exchange.

In some ways this is very similar to a physical Exchange deployment on JBOD storage and I would like to echo the recommendations Microsoft give for JBOD deployments from the Exchange 2013 storage configuration options guide and say for JBOD deployments, I strongly recommend at least 3 database copies.

As per the recommendation in Part 4 (DRS), MS Exchange MBX/MSR VMs should always run on separate ESXi hosts to ensure a single host failure does not potentially cause an issue for the DAG. This is especially important because if two Exchange servers shared the same ESXi host and local storage, a single ESXi host outage could cause data loss and downtime for part or all of the Exchange environment.

The below is a screen shot from the Exchange 2013 storage configuration options guide showing the recommendations based on RAID or JBOD deployments. In my option these recommendations also apply to virtualized Exchange deployments on Local storage.

JBODexchange

Another option is to use Local Storage in a RAID configuration to eliminate the Single Point of Failure (SPOF) of a single drive failure.

Again, I agree with Microsoft’s recommendations and suggest at least two database copies when using a RAID configuration and again, each Exchange VM must run on its own ESXi host on dedicated physical disks.

Note: The RAID controller itself is still a SPOF which is why multiple copies is recommended from both an availability and data protection perspective.

Let’s now discuss the pros and cons for using Local Storage with JBOD for your Virtualized Exchange Deployment.

PROS

1. Generally lower cost per GB than centralized storage (e.g.: SAN)
2. Higher usable capacity per drive compared to RAID or centralized storage configurations using RAID or other propitiatory data protection techniques.
3. Local JBOD Storage formatted with VMFS is a fully supported configuration

CONS

1. No protection from data loss in the event of a JBOD drive failure. Note: For non DAG deployments, RAID and 3rd party backups should always be used!
2. Performance/Capacity in JBOD deployments is limited to the capabilities of a single drive.
3. Loss of Virtualization functionality such as HA / DRS and vMotion (without performing a Storage vMotion every time)
4. Can be difficult/costly to scale when nearing capacity.
5. Increased Management (Operational) overheads managing decentralized storage
6. At least 3 database copies are recommended, requiring more Exchange MBX/MSR servers.
7. Little/no protection against data corruption which may lead to all DAG copies suffering corruption. Note: If the corruption is not discovered in time, LAGGED copies can also be compromised.
8. Capacity cannot be shared between between ESXi hosts which may lead to inefficient use of the available capacity.

Next here are some pros and cons for using Local Storage with RAID for your Virtualized Exchange Deployment.

PROS

1. Generally lower cost per GB than centralized storage (e.g.: SAN)
2. A single drive failure will not cause data loss or a DAG failover
3. Performance is not limited to a single drives capabilities
4.Local Storage with RAID formatted with VMFS is a fully supported configuration
5. As there is no data loss with a single drive failure, less database copies are required (2 instead of >=3 for JBOD)

CONS

1. Increased Management (Operational) overheads managing decentralized storage
2. Performance/Capacity is limited to the capabilities of a single drive
3. Loss of Virtualization functionality such as HA / DRS and vMotion (without performing a Storage vMotion every time)
4. Little/no protection against data corruption which may lead to all DAG copies suffering corruption. Note: If the corruption is not discovered in time, LAGGED copies can also be compromised.
5. Capacity cannot be shared between ESXi hosts which may lead to inefficient use of the available capacity
6. Performance is constrained by a single RAID controller / set of drives and can be difficult/costly to scale when nearing capacity.

For more information about data corruption for JBOD or RAID deployments, see “Data Corruption“.

Recommendations:

1. When using local storage, (JBOD or RAID), as per Part 4, run only one Exchange MBX/MSR VM per ESXi host
2. Use dedicated physical disks for Exchange MBX/MSR VM (i.e.: Do not share the same disks with other workloads)
3. Store the Windows OS / Exchange application VMDK on local storage which is configured with RAID to ensure a single drive does not cause the VM an outage.
4. Ensure ESXi itself is install on local storage configured with RAID (and not a USB key) as the Exchange VM is dependant on that host and is not protected by vSphere HA. Nor is it easily/quickly portable due to the storage not being shared.

Summary:

Using Local Storage in either a JBOD or RAID configuration is fully supported by Microsoft and is a valid option for MS Exchange deployments.

In my opinion Local Storage deployments have more downsides than upsides and I would recommend considering other storage options for Virtualized Exchange deployments.

Other options along with my recommended options will be discussed in the next 3 parts of this series.

Back to the Index of How to successfully Virtualize MS Exchange.

~ Post Updated January 2nd 2015 Thanks to feedback from @zerszenyi ~