Using thin provisioned virtual disks can provide many benefits. Not only do they allow over-provisioning, but with the prevalence of flash storage, performance degradation really isn’t a concern like it used to be.
I recently ran into a situation in my home lab where my Windows jump box ran out of disk space. I had downloaded a bunch of OVA and ISO files and had forgotten to move them over to a shared drive that I use for archiving. I expanded the disk by 10GB to take it from 40GB to 50GB, and moved off all the large files. After this, I had about 26GB used and 23GB free – much better.
Because that jump box is sitting on flash storage – which is limited in my lab – I had thin provisioned this VM to conserve as much disk space as possible. Despite freeing up lots of space, the VM’s VMDK was still consuming a lot more than 26GB.
Notice below that doing a normal directory listing displays the maximum possible size of a thin disk. In this case, the disk has been expanded to 50GB:
[root@esx0:/vmfs/volumes/58f77a6f-30961726-ac7e-002655e1b06c/jump] ls -lha
drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3.0K Feb 12 21:50 .
drwxr-xr-t 1 root root 4.1K Feb 16 16:13 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 41 Jun 16 2017 jump-7a99c824.hlog
-rw------- 1 root root 13 May 29 2017 jump-aux.xml
-rw------- 1 root root 4.0G Nov 25 18:47 jump-c49da2be.vswp
-rw------- 1 root root 3.1M Feb 12 21:50 jump-ctk.vmdk
-rw------- 1 root root 50.0G Feb 16 17:55 jump-flat.vmdk
-rw------- 1 root root 8.5K Feb 16 15:26 jump.nvram
-rw------- 1 root root 626 Feb 12 21:50 jump.vmdk
Using the ‘du’ command – for disk usage – we can see the flat file containing the data is still consuming over 43GB of space:
[root@esx0:/vmfs/volumes/58f77a6f-30961726-ac7e-002655e1b06c/jump] du -h *flat*.vmdk
10Gbps from a 10Mbps NIC? Why not? Debunking the VM link speed myth once and for all!
** Edit on 11/6/2017: I hadn’t noticed before I wrote this post, but Raphael Schitz (@hypervisor_fr) beat me to the debunking! Please check out his great post on the subject as well here. **
I have been working with vSphere and VI for a long time now, and have spent the last six and a half years at VMware in the support organization. As you can imagine, I’ve encountered a great number of misconceptions from our customers but one that continually comes up is around VM virtual NIC link speed.
Every so often, I’ll hear statements like “I need 10Gbps networking from this VM, so I have no choice but to use the VMXNET3 adapter”, “I reduced the NIC link speed to throttle network traffic” and even “No wonder my VM is acting up, it’s got a 10Mbps vNIC!”
I think that VMware did a pretty good job documenting the role varying vNIC types and link speed had back in the VI 3.x and vSphere 4.0 era – back when virtualization was still a new concept to many. Today, I don’t think it’s discussed very much. People generally use the VMXNET3 adapter, see that it connects at 10Gbps and never look back. Not that the simplicity is a bad thing, but I think it’s valuable to understand how virtual networking functions in the background.
Today, I hope to debunk the VM link speed myth once and for all. Not with quoted statements from documentation, but through actual performance testing.
Over the years, I’ve been on quite a few network performance cases and have seen many reasons for performance trouble. One that is often overlooked is the impact of CPU contention and a VM’s inability to schedule CPU time effectively.
Today, I’ll be taking a quick look at the actual impact CPU scheduling can have on network throughput.
To demonstrate, I’ll be using my dual-socket management host. As I did in my recent VMXNET3 ring buffer exhaustion post, I’ll be testing with VMs on the same host and port group to eliminate bottlenecks created by physical networking components. The VMs should be able to communicate as quickly as their compute resources will allow them.
VMXNET3 Adapter (1.1.29 driver with default ring sizes)
Debian Linux 7.4 x86 PAE
The VMs I used for this test are quite small with only a single vCPU and 1GB of RAM. This was done intentionally so that CPU contention could be more easily simulated. Much higher throughput would be possible with multiple vCPUs and additional RX queues.
The CPUs in my physical host are Xeon E5 2670 processors clocked at 2.6GHz per core. Because this processor supports Intel Turbo Boost, the maximum frequency of each core will vary depending on several factors and can be as high as 3.3GHz at times. To take this into consideration, I will test with a CPU limit of 2600MHz, as well as with no limit at all to show the benefit this provides.
To measure throughput, I’ll be using a pair of Debian Linux VMs running iperf 2.0.5. One will be the sending side and the other the receiving side. I’ll be running four simultaneous threads to maximize throughput and load.
I should note that my testing is far from precise and is not being done with the usual controls and safeguards to ensure accurate results. This said, my aim isn’t to be accurate, but rather to illustrate some higher-level patterns and trends.
ESXi is generally very efficient when it comes to basic network I/O processing. Guests are able to make good use of the physical networking resources of the hypervisor and it isn’t unreasonable to expect close to 10Gbps of throughput from a VM on modern hardware. Dealing with very network heavy guests, however, does sometimes require some tweaking.
I’ll quite often get questions from customers who observe TCP re-transmissions and other signs of packet loss when doing VM packet captures. The loss may not be significant enough to cause a real application problem, but may have some performance impact during peak times and during heavy load.
After doing some searching online, customers will quite often land on VMware KB 2039495 and KB 1010071 but there isn’t a lot of context and background to go with these directions. Today I hope to take an in-depth look at VMXNET3 RX buffer exhaustion and not only show how to increase buffers, but to also to determine if it’s even necessary.
Not unlike physical network cards and switches, virtual NICs must have buffers to temporarily store incoming network frames for processing. During periods of very heavy load, the guest may not have the cycles to handle all the incoming frames and the buffer is used to temporarily queue up these frames. If that buffer fills more quickly than it is emptied, the vNIC driver has no choice but to drop additional incoming frames. This is what is known as buffer or ring exhaustion.
Today I’ll be looking at a feature I’ve wanted to examine for some time – Beacon Probing. I hope to take a fresh look at this often misunderstood feature, explore the pros, cons, quirks and take a bit of a technical deep-dive into its inner workings.
According to the vSphere Networking Guide, we see that Beacon Probing is one of two available NIC failure detection mechanisms. Whenever we’re dealing with a team of two or more NICs, ESXi must be able to tell when a network link is no longer functional so that it can fail-over all VMs or kernel ports to the remaining NICs in the team.
Beacon probing takes network failure detection to the next level. As you’ve probably already guessed, it does not rely on NIC link-state to detect a failure. Let’s have a look at the definition of Beacon Probing in the vSphere 6.0 Network guide on page 92:
“[Beacon Probing] sends out and listens for beacon probes on all NICs in the team and uses this information, in addition to link status, to determine link failure.”
This statement sums up the feature very succinctly, but obviously there is a lot more going on behind the scenes. How do these beacons work? How often are they sent out? Are they broadcast or unicast frames? What do they look like? How do they work when multiple VLANs are trunked across a single link? What are the potential problems when using beacon probing?
Today, we’re going to answer these questions and hopefully give you a much better look at how beacon probing actually works.
Are you tired of seeing SSH and Shell warnings on your ESXi hosts? If you are at all like me, it’s maddening to see yellow warnings and banners on hosts in the vCenter Server inventory – especially when it’s for something as simple as the ESXi Shell and SSH service being enabled.
Granted, what’s a minor annoyance in a lab environment might be a warning that’s taken seriously in a locked down production environment. In these sorts of environments, administrators will need to enable/disable SSH and Shell access on an as-needed basis. Without the alarms and banners, services may be left turned on accidentally.
If you are using vSphere 6.0 or later, there is a nifty new ‘Suppress Warning’ option in the vSphere Web client. It can be found on the summary page of an ESXi host with an ESXi Shell or SSH warning currently triggered.
As you can see in the above screenshot, there are separate alerts for both the ESXi Shell and for SSH as well as an option to ‘Suppress Warning’ on each. Although it may appear that each can be suppressed independently, clicking one of the ‘Suppress Warning’ links will disable both ESXi Shell and SSH warnings on the host.