Sunday, September 12, 2010

Keeping the vMotion Tiger in the 10GB Cage - Part One

I had a light bulb moment as I was sitting in fellow ePlus employee Don Mann's session at VMworld.

A little background is needed first.  In vSphere version 4.0 we didn't really have a need to control the traffic in 10GB connections.  Even if all the traffic types were combined into a single connection with no traffic management, you rarely ran into contention on the link.  vMotion was the most likely to act up due to the "bursty" nature of the traffic pattern (hit the connection really hard for a few seconds until the vMotion is complete and then settle down) but this was limited because vMotion in vSphere 4.0 was capped at two concurrent vMotions at about 2.6 Gbps each for a total of 5(ish) Gbps maximum for vMotion.  If you assume a little over 9 Gbps usable capacity (the rest lost to protocol overhead) on a 10GB link you still have room for other traffic and you never burst high enough to saturate the network.

Then, along came vSphere 4.1....

vSphere 4.1 introduced significant performance enhancements to vMotion over 4.0.  vSphere 4.1 increases the number of concurrent vMotions to eight in a 10GB environment and the speed has been increased to 8 Gbps.


When I heard this, a light bulb went off in my head and I've been poking at this idea with a stick for awhile now.  I've asked around in the community over the last few days and there seems to be confusion over the numbers.  Does that mean eight vMotions, each one at 8Gbps for a total of 64 Gbps maximum or does that mean eight concurrent vMotions consuming a total of 8Gbps maximum.  I don't have a definitive answer to this question but tests I have seen conducted point to EACH vMotion consuming up to 8Gbps each.  If this is true, anything above ONE vMotion at a time without some form of traffic control may not be a good thing!

Does it matter if I'm utilizing 64 Gbps for vMotion or 8Gbps for vMotion??


The more I think about it, it really doesn't.  Let's assume best case for a second and say that eight vMotions will consume a total of 8Gbps (I don't think it works this way but I'm being an optimist).  If vMotion can consume a maximum of 8Gbps of a 10GB pipe, you will need to design around this fact.  Some form of Traffic Shaping and/or Quality of Service to manage the traffic will be necessary in 4.1 when it was often considered optional previously.

I did a little digging and the issue is confirmed in VMware's NetIOC Best Practices document.  To summarize, your results may vary (and not in a good way) if you aren't putting some form of control on your vMotion traffic in conjunction with 10GB links.

Oh, before I get a bunch of comments telling me this: I'm picking on vMotion here but you could just as easily perform a global replace in this article with (your favorite chatty and/or spikey traffic type) for vMotion in this article.  The concepts to solve network congestion are the same.

How do we solve this issue?

There are two main ways to solve bandwidth contention.  One is to place a cap on the amount of traffic vMotion can use.  This is often referred to as rate limiting the links.  The second is to give priority based on a weighted system that kicks in when contention takes place.  This is called Quality of Service or QoS.  With QoS, everyone gets some bandwidth, but no one is allowed to take over completely and priority is given to critical traffic.  I wrote an article on the concepts in the past here and Brad Hedlund wrote a great article on the concepts with cool Flash animations here.  Don't get hung up that we both wrote about HP and Cisco, the concept of rate limits vs QoS still stands.

In my opinion a QoS or shares based priority model is much more effective to control this traffic.  This allows for better utilization of the bandwidth and provides a more flexible alternative to rate limiting.

How do Rate Limits and QoS fit into vSphere?

Here is a simple graphic to illustrate the virtual switch options in vSphere today:



This concludes the first article in this series.  I will explore the rate limiting options (vSS and vDS with 4.0) in the next article and conclude with the QoS based options (vDS with 4.1 and Cisco 1000v).

Lastly, a big Thank You!! to the following people for their help on the article and for allowing me to bounce questions off them: Don MannRon FullerJoe Onisick, Sean McGee, Brad Hedlund & Stevie Chambers

Do you any information to add?  What are your thoughts?  Please leave a comment!

9 comments:

Ken said...

Good post Aaron. The nature of vMotion is that while you want it to be fast, it's also somewhat low priority, so QoS rather than throttling seems to make more sense. Let the traffic have the bandwidth when it's available, but slow it down if it's needed by more important traffic.

Aaron Delp said...

I couldn't agree more - perfect summary Ken!

Brad Hedlund said...

Aaron,
There are some clear advantages Cisco UCS and the Cisco VIC (Palo) bring to this conversation. One advantage is that you can also employ QoS with the standard vSwitch or vDS. I know you are aware of these capabilities (you and I have discussed them), but perhaps you wanted to keep this initial discussion as vendor neutral as possible, which is understandable, and frankly, its a good way to get this conversation started.

Great post and thanks for the shout outs!

Cheers,
Brad

Aaron Delp said...

Brad - You are correct, I'm trying to keep this series as vendor neutral as possible and instead focus on the differences between vSS, vDS, and 1kv. But, I am thinking more and more to also add a Cisco UCS specific section highlighting the things you mentioned. I haven't written parts 2 and 3 yet, we'll see. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Great post Aaron.

One of the things I would love to understand better is how well vMotion can handle the "packet drops" that will happen when you apply any form of QOS/rate limiting. I have actually discussed this with several people before, but that was on ESX4.0.

How about the other things that you may want to rate limit?

Thanks,
AndyS

Aaron Delp said...

Hey Andy - Great questions! We'll have to dig into this one together! I admit I don't have all the answers by far on this subject. I'm throwing out what i know (which may not be much) and hoping others fill in the gap. Just trying to bring some issues to light. Thank you!

Don Mann said...

Andy - I have tested both NetIOC and other options extensivly in our lab. I have never seen vMotion have any issues w/ being deprioritized - even upon network saturation. It will just slow down the vMotion - but it runs on TCP (syn/ack) as well as has its own checks and balances. In addition - I have talked w/ many @ VMworld in prepping for my presentation regarding this prioritization and no one questioned/cautioned this method at all. I'm refreshing our ePlus lab config around this and will work with Aaron to get some graphs up in the near future.

chadwick said...

Hi Aaron,
This is really a great thing to know about and bring up. I look forward to learning more as being relatively new I now see the value of being involved in this community. It has been a lot of fun. I just thought it would be a good idea to post the link from the forums here. It also seems that Vmware may be trying to put together a KB regarding this? Cannot wait to see more!

http://communities.vmware.com/thread/284191?tstart=0

Aaron Delp said...

Chadwick - Thank you very much! I will update the article with the link when I publish Part Two, probably tomorrow morning.

Thanks again!