Yellow Bricks

by Duncan Epping

Storage

Does a Site Takeover work with a 2-node configuration?

· · 3 Comments

I got a question last week if vSAN Site Takeover also works with a 2-node configuration, and my answer was: yes, it should work. However, I had never tested it, so I figured I would build a quick lab environment and see if I was right. I recorded the result, here it is! The demo is pretty straight forward, let me describe what you will see:

  • 2-node vSAN environment
  • 1 VM named “photon-001”
  • Photon-001 VM is “stretched” across both hosts and has a witness component on the witness host
  • Host “.245” and the witness will fail and the components on those hosts will go “absent”
  • Photon-001 VM becomes inaccessible
  • We run the site-takeover command, which will reconfigure the Photon-001 VM
  • The Photon-001 VM becomes available again and it automatically restarted

What do I do after a vSAN Stretched Cluster Site Takeover?

· · 4 Comments

Over the last couple of months, various new vSAN features were announced. Two of those features are around the Stretched Cluster configuration, and have probably been the number 1 feature request for a few years. Now that we have Site Takeover and Site Maintenance functionality available, I am starting to get some questions about the impact of them, and in particular, the Site Takeover functionality is raising some questions.

For those who don’t know what these features are, let me describe them briefly:

Site Maintenance = The ability to place a full vSAN stretched cluster Fault Domain into maintenance mode at once. This ensures that all hosts within the fault domain have consistently stored the data, and all hosts will go into maintenance mode at the same time.

Site Takeover = This provides the ability when a Witness and a Data Site has failed to bring back the remaining site through a command line interface. This will reconstruct the remaining “site local” RAID configuration, making the objects available again, which will then allow vSphere HA to restart the VMs.

Now, the question that the above typically raises is what happens to the Witness and the Data Site that failed when you do the Site Takeover? If you look at the VMs RAID configuration, you will notice that both the Witness and the Data Site components of the sites that failed will completely disappear from the RAID configuration.

But what do you do next, because even after you run the Site Takeover, you still see your hosts and the witness in vCenter Server, and you still see a stretched cluster configuration in the UI. Now at first I thought that if the environment was completely up and running again, you had to go through some manual effort to reconstruct the stretched cluster. Basically, remove the failed hosts, wipe the disks, and recreate the stretched cluster. This is, however, not the case.

In the example above, if the Preferred site and the Witness site return for duty, vSAN will automatically discard the stale components in those previously failed sites. It will recreate new components for all objects, and it will do a full resync of the data.

If you end up in a situation where your hosts are completely gone (let’s say as a result of a fire), then you will have to do some kind of manual cleanup as follows, before you rebuild and add hosts back:

  • Remove the failed hosts from the vCenter inventory
  • Remove the witness from the vCenter inventory
    • Delete the witness from the vCenter Server it is running, a real delete!
  • Delete the surviving Fault Domain, this should be the only Fault Domain still listed in the vCenter interface
  • You now have a normal cluster again
  • Rebuild hosts and recreate the stretched cluster

I hope that helps,

vSAN Stretched Cluster vs Fault Domains in a “campus” setting?

· · 2 Comments

I got this question internally recently: Should we create a vSAN Stretched Cluster configuration or create a vSAN Fault Domains configuration when we have multiple datacenters within close proximity on our campus? In this case, we are talking about less than 1ms latency RTT between buildings, maybe a few hundred meters at most. I think it is a very valid question, and I guess it kind of depends on what you are looking to get out of the infrastructure. I wrote down the pros and cons, and wanted to share those with the rest of the world as well, as it may be useful for some of you out there. If anyone has additional pros and cons, feel free to share those in the comments!

vSAN Stretched Clusters:

  • Pro: You can replicate across fault domains AND protect additionally within a fault domain with R1/R5/R6 if required.
  • Pro: You can decide whether VMs should be stretched across Fault Domains or not, or just protected within a fault domain/site
  • Pro: Requires less than 5MS RTT latency, which is easily achievable in this scenario
  • Con/pro: you probably also need to think about DRS/HA groups (VM-to-Host)
  • Con: From an operational perspective, it also introduces a witness host, and sites, which may complicate things, and at the various least requires a bit more thinking
  • Con: Witness needs to be hosted somewhere
  • Con: Limited to 3 Fault Domains (2x data + 1x witness)
  • Con: Limited to 20+20+1 configuration

vSAN Fault Domains:

  • Pro: No real considerations around VM-to-host rules usually, although you can still use it to ensure certain VMs are spread across buildings
  • Pro: No Witness Appliance to manage, update or upgrade. No overhead of running a witness somewhere
  • Pro: No design considerations around “dedicated” witness sites and “data site”, each site has the same function
  • Pro: Can also be used with more than 3 Fault Domains or Datacenters, so could even be 6 Fault Domains, for instance
  • Pro: Theoretically can go up to 64 hosts
  • Con: No ability to protect additionally within a fault domain
  • Con: No ability to specify that you don’t want to replicate VMs across Fault Domains
  • Con/Pro: Requires sub-1ms RTT latency at all times, which is low, but will be achievable in a campus cluster, usually

#099 – Introducing vSAN 9.0 featuring Pete Koehler

· · Leave a Comment

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0 was recently launched, and that means vSAN 9.0 is also available. There are many new features introduced in 9.0, so a perfect time to ask Pete Koehler to join the podcast once again and go over some of these key enhancements. Below, you can find the links we discussed during the episode, as well as the embedded player to listen to the episode. Alternatively, you can also listen to the episode via Spotify, Apple, or any other podcast app you may use. Make sure to like and subscribe!

Does vSAN support a Franken cluster configuration?

· · Leave a Comment

It is funny that this has come up a few times now, actually for the third time in a month. I had a question if you can mix AMD and Intel hosts in the same cluster. Although nothing stops you from doing this, and vSAN supports this configuration, you need to remember that you cannot live migrate (vMotion) between those hosts, which means that if you have DRS enabled you are seriously crippling the cluster as it makes balance resource much more complex.

You are creating a Franken cluster when mixing AMD and Intel. You may ask yourself, why would anyone want to do this in the first place? Well, you could do this for migration purposes for instance. If you use vSAN iSCSI Services for instance, this could be a way to migrate those iSCSI LUNs from old hosts to new host. How? Well, simply add the new hosts to the cluster, place the old hosts into maintenance, and make sure to migrate storage. Do note, all the VMs (or containers) will have to be powered off, and powered on again manually on the new hosts, as a result of moving from Intel to AMD (or the other way around).

If you do end up doing this for migration purposes, please ensure it is for the shortest time possible. Please avoid running with a Franken cluster for multiple days, weeks, or, god forbid, months. Nothing good will come out of it, and your VMs may become little monsters!

Does vSAN support a Franken cluster configuration?