I noticed this new SuperMicro VSAN Ready Node being published last week. The configuration is potentially a nice solution for ROBO deployments, primarily due to the cost of the system.

When I did the math it came in around $ 3800,-. This is the configuration:

  • SuperMicro SuperServer 1018D-73MTF
  • 1 x Intel E3-1270 V3 3.5GHz- Quadcore
  • 32GB Memory
  • 5 x 1TB 7200 RPM NL-SAS HDD
  • 1 x 200GB Intel S3700 SSD
  • LSI 2308 Disk controller
  • 4 x 1GbE NIC port

It is a nice configuration that will allow for roughly fifteen 1 vCPU Virtual Machines with 3GB of memory and 60GB disk capacity per host. Personally I would use a different CPU and some more memory probably as that gives you a bit more headroom, especially during maintenance. The cost from a software point of view is socket based so you can increase memory and change the type of CPU with relative low cost impact. The SuperMicro server listed however is limited to the E3 CPU family and to 32GB but there are alternatives out there. (For instance the Dell R320 or maybe even the R210 etc)

From a software point of view the cost of this configuration is limited to 3 x VSAN license and 3 x vSphere. As VSAN even works with Essentials Plus and Standard you could leverage that to keep the cost down, but keep in mind that you won’t have DRS if you drop down to Standard or lower. Still sounds like a nice ROBO package to me, especially when you have many sites this could be a great way to create a standardized packaged solution.

ESXi DCUI Shutdown vs vCenter Shutdown of a host

Today on the community forums someone mentioned he had shutdown his host and that he expected vSphere HA to restart his virtual machines. For whatever reason he got in a situation where all of his VMs were still running but he couldn’t do much anymore with them and as such he wanted to kill the host so that HA could safely restart the virtual machines. However when he shutdown his host nothing happened, the VMs remained powered off. Why did this happen?

I had seen this before in the past, but it never really sunk in until I saw the questions from this customer. I figured I would test it just to see what happened and if I could spot a difference in the vSphere HA logs. I powered on a VM on one of my hosts and moved off all other VMs. I then went to the DCUI of the host and gave a “shutdown” using F12. I tailed the FDM log on one of my hosts and spotted the following log message:

2014-04-04T11:41:54.882Z [688C2B70 info 'Invt' opID=SWI-24c018b] [VmStateChange::SavePowerChange] vm /vmfs/volumes/4ece24c4-3f1ca80e-9cd8-984be1047b14/New Virtual Machine/New Virtual Machine.vmx curPwrState=unknown curPowerOnCount=0 newPwrState=powered off clnPwrOff=true hostReporting=host-113

In the above scenario the virtual machine was not restarted even though the host was shutdown. I did the exact same exercise again, but only this time I did the shutdown using the vCenter Web Client. After I witnessed the VM being restarted I also noticed a difference in the FDM log:

2014-04-04T12:12:06.515Z [68040B70 info 'Invt' opID=SWI-1aad525b] [VmStateChange::SavePowerChange] vm /vmfs/volumes/4ece24c4-3f1ca80e-9cd8-984be1047b14/New Virtual Machine/New Virtual Machine.vmx curPwrState=unknown curPowerOnCount=0 newPwrState=powered on clnPwrOff=false hostReporting=host-113

The difference is the power-off state that is reported by vSphere HA. In the first scenario the virtual machine is marked as “clnPwrOff=true” which basically tells vSphere HA that an administrator has powered off the virtual machine, this is what happened when “shutdown” was initiated through the DCUI and hence no restart took place. (It seems that ESXi initiates a shutdown of all running virtual machines.) In the second scenario vSphere HA reported that the VM was not cleanly powered off (“clnPwrOff=false”), and as such it restarted the virtual machine as it assumed something bad had happened to it.

So what did we learn? If you, for whatever reason, want vSphere HA to restart your virtual machines which are currently running on a host that you want to shutdown, make sure that you use the vCenter Web Client instead of the DCUI!

Disclaimer: my tests were conducted using vSphere 5.5 Update 1. I believe that at some point in the past “shutdown” via the DCUI would also allow HA to restart the VMs. I am now investigating why this has changed and when. When I find out I will update this post.

30K for a VSAN host @theregister? I can configure one for 2250 USD!

I’ve been following the posts from the Register on VSAN and was surprised when they posted the cost of the hosts they configured: 30K each. With 3 at a minimum they concluded that for 90K you could buy yourself a nice legacy storage system. I don’t disagree with that to be honest… for 90K you can buy a nice legacy storage system. I guess you need to ask yourself first though what you will do with that 90K storage system by itself? Not much indeed, as you would need compute resources sitting next to it in order to do anything. So if you want to make a comparison, do not compare a full VSAN environment (or any other hyper-converged solution out there) to just a storage system at it just doesn’t make sense.

Now that still doesn’t make these hosts cheap I can hear you think, and again I agree with that. Although I have absolutely no clue where the 30K came from, and judging by the tweets this morning most people don’t know and feel it probably was overkill. Call me crazy, but I can configure a fully supported VSAN configuration for about 2250 USD (just HW) on the Dell website.

  • Dell T320
  • Intel Xeon E5-2420 1.90GHz 6 Core
  • Perc H310 Disk Controller
  • 32GB Memory
  • 1 x 7200RPM 1TB NL-SAS
  • 1 x 100GB Intel S3700 SSD (or dell equal drive)
  • 5 x 1GbE NIC Port

I would like to conclude that VSAN would be a lot cheaper than those legacy solutions, less than 7500 USD for 3 hosts is peanuts right?!? Yes I know, the above configuration wouldn’t fit many use cases (except for maybe a ROBO deployment where only a couple of VMs are needed) and that was the whole point of the exercise showing how pointless these exercises can be. You can twist these numbers anyway you like, and you can configure your VSAN hosts any way you like as long as the components (HDD/SSD/Controller) are on the VSAN HCL and the system is on the vSphere HCL. PS: Dear Register, next time you run through the exercise, you may want to post the configuration you selected… It makes things a bit clearer.

VSAN – Misconfiguration Detected

Although Cormac Hogan already wrote about this I figured I would repeat some of his work. It seems like various folks are hitting this issue where an error is thrown while configuring VSAN: Misconfiguration Detected. The misconfiguration in this case refers to how the physical network has been configured. In order for VSAN to be successfully configured your layer 2 VSAN network will need to be enabled for multicast traffic. (below a screenshot of the error which I borrowed from Cormac… thanks Cormac)

In order to successfully configure VSAN you can do two things, now lets be clear that I am not the networking expert and personally I would always advise to discuss with your networking team what the best option is. Here are your two options:

  • Enable IGMP Snooping for your VSAN network (VLAN) and define an IGMP Snooping Querier. Default setting on most Cisco switches is IGMP Snooping enabled but without an IGMP Snooping Querier. In this configuration VSAN will not be able to configure correctly!
  • Disable IGMP Snooping for your VSAN network (VLAN). Please note that you can typically disable IGMP Snooping globally and per VLAN, in this case if you want to disable it… disable it on your VLAN!

Please consult your network vendor documentation on how to do this.

VSAN – The spoken reality

Yesterday Maish and Christian had a nice little back and forth on their blogs about VSAN. Maish published a post titled “VSAN – The Unspoken Truth” which basically talks about how VSAN doesn’t fit blade environments, and how many enterprise environments adopted blade to get better density from a physical point of view. With that meaning increase the number of physical servers to the number of rack U(nits) consumed. Also there is the centralized management aspect of many of these blade solutions that is a major consideration according to Maish.

Christian countered this with a great article titled “VSAN – The Unspoken Future“. I very much agree with Christian’s vision. Christian’s point basically is that when virtualization was introduced IT started moving to blade infrastructures as that was a good fit for the environment they needed to build. Christian then explains how you can leverage for instance the SuperMicro Twin architecture to get a similar (high physical) density while using VSAN at the same time. (See my Twin posts here) However, the essence of the article is: “it shows us that Software Designed Data Center (SDDC) is not just about the software, it’s about how we think, manage AND design our back-end infrastructure.”

There are three aspects here in my opinion:

  • Density – the old physical servers vs rack units discussion.
  • Cost – investment in new equipment and (potential) licensing impact.
  • Operations – how do you manage your environment, will this change?

First of all, I would like to kill the whole density discussion. Do we really care how many physical servers you can fit in a rack? Do we really care you can fit 8 or maybe even 16 blades in 8U? Especially when you take in to consideration your storage system sitting next to it takes up another full rack. Than on top of that there is the impact density has in terms of power and cooling (hot spots). I mean if I can run 500 VMs on those 8 or 16 blades and that 20U storage system, is that better or worse than 500 VMs on 12 x 1U rack mounted with VSAN? I guess the answer to that one is simple: it depends… It all boils down the total cost of ownership and the return on investment. So lets stop looking at a simple metric like physical density as it doesn’t say much!

Before I forget… How often have we had those “eggs in a basket” discussions in the last two years? This was a huge debate 5 years back, in 2008/2009 did you really want to run 20 virtual machines on a physical host? What if that host failed? Those discussions are not as prevalent any longer for a good reason. Hardware improved, stability of the platforms increased, admins became more skilled and less mistakes are made… chances of hitting failures simply declined. Kind of like the old Microsoft blue screen of death joke, people probably still make the joke today but ask yourself how often does it happen?

Of course there is the cost impact. As Christian indicated, you may need to invest in new equipment… As people mentioned on twitter: so did we when we moved to a virtualized environment. And I would like to add: and we all know what that brought us. Yes there is a cost involved. The question is how do you balance this cost. Does it make sense to use a blade system even for VSAN when you can only have a couple of disks at this point in time? It means you need a lot of hosts, and also a lot of VSAN licenses (+maintenance costs). It may be smarter, from economical point of view, to invest in new equipment. Especially when you factor in operations…

Operations, indeed… what does it take / cost today to manage your environment “end to end”? Do you need specialized storage experts to operate your environment? Do you need to hire storage consultants to add more capacity? What about when things go bad, can you troubleshoot the environment by yourself? How about my compute layer, most blade environments offer centralized management for those 8 or 16 hosts. But can I reduce the number of physical hosts from 16 or 8 to for instance 5 with a slightly larger form factor? What would the management overhead be, if there is any? Each of these things need to be taken in to considerations and somehow quantified to compare.

Reality is that VSAN (and all other hyper-converged solutions) brings something new to the table, just like virtualization did years ago. These (hyper-converged) solutions are changing the way the game is played, so you better revise your play book!

VSAN and the AHCI controller (hint: not supported!)

I have seen multiple people reporting this already so I figured I would write a quick blog post. Several folks are going from Beta to GA release for VSAN and so far people have been very successful, except for those using disk controllers which are not on the HCL like the on-board AHCI controller. For whatever reason it appeared on the HCL for a short time during the beta, but it is not supported (and not listed) today. I have had similar issues in my lab, and as far as I am aware there is no workaround at the moment. The errors you will see appear in the various logfiles have the keywords: “APD”, “PDL”, “Path lost” or “NMP device <xyz> is blocked”.

Before you install / configure Virtual SAN I highly want to recommend validating the HCL: http://vmwa.re/vsanhcl (I figured I will need this URL a couple of times in the future so I created this nice short url)

Rebuilding your Virtual SAN Lab? Wipe the disks first!

Are you ready to start rebuilding your Virtual SAN lab from beta builds to GA code, vSphere 5.5 U1? One thing I noticed is that the installer is extremely slow when there are Virtual SAN partitions on disk. It sits there at “VSAN: successfully initialized” for a long time and when you get to the “scanning disks” part it takes equally as long. Eventually I succeeded, but it just took a long time. Could be because I am running with an uncertified disk controller of course, either way if you are stuck in the following screen there is a simple solution.

Just wipe ALL disks first before doing the installation. I used the Gparted live ISO to wipe all my disks clean, just delete all partitions and select “apply”. Takes a couple of minutes, but saved me at least 30 minutes waiting during the installation.