As mentioned before the distinction between each of the allocation models is how resources are consumed. Depending on the chosen allocation model reservations and limits will be set on resource pool, virtual machine level, or both. One of the most interesting allocation model is the Allocation Pool model as it sets reservations on both resource pool level and virtual machine level simultaneously. During configuration of the allocation pool model, an amount of guaranteed resources can be specified. (Guaranteed is the vCloud term for vSphere reservation). The question I was given is will lowering the default value of 100% guaranteed memory result in an increase of more virtual machines inside the Organization vCD? And the answer lies within the working of vSphere admission control.

Allocation Pool model settings
By default the Allocation Pool model sets a 100% memory reservation on both resource pool level and virtual machine level. By lowering the default guarantee, it allows for opportunistic memory allocation on both resource pool level and virtual machine level. Creating this burstable space (resources available for opportunistic access) usually provides an higher consolidation ratio of virtual machines, however due to the simultaneous configuration of reservation on both resource pool and virtual machine level, this is not the case.

Virtual machine level reservation
During power-on operation admission control checks if the resource pool can satisfy the virtual machine level reservation. Because expandable reservation is disabled in this model, the resource pool is not able to allocate any additional resources from the provider vDC. Therefor the virtual machine memory reservation can only be satisfied by the resource pool level reservation of the organization vDC itself. When a virtual machine is using memory protected by a virtual machine level reservation, this memory is withdrawn from the resource pool-level reservation. If the resource pool does not have enough available memory to guarantee the virtual machine reservation, the power-on operation fails. Let’s use a scenario to visualize the process a bit better.

Scenario
An organization vCD is created with the Allocation Pool model and the memory allocation is set to 20GB; the memory guarantee is set to 50%. These settings result in a resource pool memory limit of 20GB and a memory reservation of 10GB. When powering up a 2GB virtual machine, 1GB of reserved resources will be allocated to that virtual machine and withdrawn from the available reserved memory pool.

Admission control allows to power-on virtual machines until the reserved memory pool is reduced to zero. Following the previous example, virtual machine 2 is powered on. The resource pool providing resources to the organization vDC has 9 GB available in its pool of reserved memory. Admission control allows the power-on operation of the virtual machine as this pool can provide the reserved resources specified by the virtual machine level reservation.
 

During each power-on operation 1GB of reserved memory is withdrawn from the reserved memory pool available to the organization vDC. Resulting in admission control allowing to power on ten virtual machines. When attempting to deploy virtual machine 11, admission controls fails the power-on operation as the organization vDC has no available reserved memory to satisfy the virtual machine level reservation.
 

Note: This scenario excludes the impact of memory overhead reservation of each virtual machine. Under normal circumstances, the number of virtual machines that could be powered on would be close to 8 instead of 10 as the reserved pool available to the organization vDC is used to satisfy the memory overhead reservation of each virtual machine as well.

Because the guarantee setting of the Allocation Pool model configures resource pool and virtual machine memory reservation settings simultaneously, the supply and demand of reserved memory resources are always equal regardless of the configured percentage setting. Therefore offering opportunistic access to resources inside the organization vDC does not allow an increase of the number of virtual machines inside the organization vDC.
The next question arises, why should you lower the percentage of guaranteed resources? Providing burstable space increases the number of Organization vCDs inside the Provider vDC.

Resource pool memory reservation
Upon creation resource pools claim and withdraw the configured reserved resources from their parent instantaneously. This memory cannot be provided or distributed to other organization vDCs regardless of utilization of these resources.

Although new resource constructs are introduced in a vCloud environment, consolidation ratios and resource management still leverage traditional vSphere resource management constructs and rules. Chris Colotti and I are currently working on a technical paper describing the allocation models in details and the way they interact with vSphere resource management. We hope to see this published soon.

Admission control and vCloud Allocation Pool model is a post from: frankdenneman.nl

http://labs.vmware.com/flings/io-analyzer

I/O Analyzer is a virtual appliance tool for measuring storage performance. This version of I/O Analyzer adds the ability to run trace replay – a function which allows a user to replay an I/O trace that was captured elsewhere (with vscsistats) on the target test system. This version also has cool data visualization charts, both for the characteristics of an imported trace, and performance results on the test system.

This is really cool stuff, go check it out.

I/O Analyzer v1.1 is a post from: frankdenneman.nl

US – ebook – $ 4.99
UK – ebook – £ 3.99
DE – ebook – € 3.99
FR – ebook – € 3.99

Pick it up, tell your friends / colleagues / family about it… Here are some snippets from Amazon reviews, but with 15 extremely positive reviews, all of them 5 out of 5, you know you can’t go wrong:

“If you’re serious about VMware virtualization this book is a must have. Regardless of you responsibilities with a virtual infrastructure administrative, or from a architecture design stand point this book is for you. The level of knowledge and depth which Frank and Duncan cover in this book about the new clustering changes in vSphere 5 is priceless. The design tips and illustrations through the book are truly invaluable. There is no other book that gets into the core of all the different vSphere 5 cluster technologies like this one, ”

“Whether you are longing to know about the transition from AAM to FDM, best practices for DRS and DPM, or are just curious to know what those acronyms are this is a great book! The technical detail, practical advice, and comparative analysis throughout make this book one of the most thorough yet concise technical books available.”

“The book is clearly written, a special emphasis has been made on making it understandable even for professionals like me who use vSphere daily yet do not manage huge production environments. The book goes to great lengths to explain all possible scenarios and I found answers to all my questions. Not only sections cover HOW the technology works, but the authors go as far as explaining the way the algorithms are working, which will satisfy the curiosity of everyone.”

“The complete explanations provide the reader all of the information needed to make informed decisions about their environment with excellent diagrams to provide strong visual reinforcements.”

Please remember that we are offering the book for the price listed above, depending on your location Amazon might charge an additional cost!

Cyber Monday deal! is a post from: frankdenneman.nl

Starting December I will focus on resource management and disaster avoidance technologies. My new role allows me to collaborate with the Product managers and the R&D organization on products such as DRS, Storage DRS, vMotion, Storage vMotion and FT. My main tasks will be developing best practices, white-papers, documentation and technical presentations, educating field organizations and of course the customers.

Although I enjoyed working within the PSO organization, I can’t wait to get started. Thanks to all the people who made my move possible and offering me such an opportunity!

New job role is a post from: frankdenneman.nl

The FDM agent will be pushed to each hosts, even if the cluster contains identically configured hosts, for example a cluster containing only vSphere 4.1 update 1 will still be upgraded to the new HA version. The only time vCenter will not push the new FDM agent to a host if the host in question is a 3.5 host without the required patch.

When using clusters containing 3.5 hosts, it is recommended to upgrade the ESX host to ESX350-201012401-SG PATCH (ESX 3.5) or ESXe350-201012401-I-BG PATCH (ESXi) patch first before upgrading vCenter to vCenter 5.0. If you still get the following error message:

Host ‘‘ is of type ( ) with build , it does not support vSphere HA clustering features and cannot be part of vSphere HA clusters.

Visit the VMware knowledgebase article: 2001833.

FDM in mixed ESX and vSphere clusters is a post from: frankdenneman.nl

All joking aside, we (Duncan and I) thought it would a cool idea to see how you guys are preparing for VMworld 2011 in Copenhagen. Share you picture on Facebook and tag it (+like) VMware vSphere 5 clustering technical deepdive plus the tag VMworld. The three funniest and/or coolest photo’s receive a copy of the vSphere 5 clustering deepdive book.

The road to VMworld Europe 2011 is a post from: frankdenneman.nl

At this stage we do not have plans to produce any other formats. As this is self-publishing release we developed, edited and created everything from scratch. Writing and publishing a book based on new technology has serious impact on one’s life, reducing every social contact to a minimum even family life. As of this, our focus is not on releasing additional formats such as ibooks or Nook at this moment. Maybe at a later stage but VMworld is already knocking on our doors, so little time is left to spend some time with our families.

When producing the book, the page count rapidly exceeded 400 pages using the 4.1 HA and DRS layout. As many readers told us they loved the compactness of the book therefor our goal was to keep the page count increase to a minimum. Adjusting the inner margins of the book was the way to increase the amount of space available for the content. A tip for all who want to start publishing, start with getting accustomed to publisher jargon early in the game, this will save you many failed proof prints! We believe we got the right balance between white-space and content in the book, reducing the amount of pages while still offering the best reading experience. Nevertheless the number of pages grew from 219 to 348.

While writing the book, we received a lot of help and although Duncan listed all the people in his initial blog, I want to use take a moment to thank them again.

First of all I want to thank my co-author Duncan for his hard work creating content, but also spending countless hours on communication with engineering and management.

Anne Holler – DRS and SDRS engineer – Anne really went out of her way to help us understand the products. I frequently received long and elaborate replies regardless of time and day. Thanks Anne!

Next up is Doug – its number Frank not amounts! – Baer. I think most of the time Doug’s comments equaled the amount of content inside the documents. Your commitment to improve the book impressed us very much.

Gabriel Tarasuk-Levin for helping me understand the intricacies of vMotion.

A special thanks goes out to our technical reviewers and editors: Keith Farkas and Elisha Ziskind (HA Engineering), Irfan Ahmad and Rajesekar Shanmugam (DRS and SDRS Engineering), Puneet Zaroo (VMkernel scheduling), Ali Mashtizadeh and Doug Fawley and Divya Ranganathan (EVC Engineering). Thanks for keeping us honest and contributing to this book.
I want to thank VMware management team for supporting us on this project. Doug “VEEAM” Hazelman thanks for writing the foreword!

Availability
This weekend Amazon made both the black and white edition and the full color edition available. Amazon list the black and white edition as: VMware vSphere 5 Clustering Technical Deepdive (Volume 2) [Paperback], whereas the full color edition is listed with Full Color in its subtitle.
Or select the following links to go the desired product page:

Black and white paperback $29.95

Full Color paperback $49.95

For people interested in the ebook: VMware vSphere 5 Clustering Technical Deepdive (price might vary based on location)

If you prefer a European distributor, ComputerCollectief has both books available:

Black and White edition: http://www.comcol.nl/detail/74615.htm
Full Color edition: http://www.comcol.nl/detail/74616.htm

Pick it up, leave a comment and of course feel free to make those great mugshots again and ping them over via Facebook or our Twitter accounts! For those looking to buy in bulk (> 20) contact clusteringdeepdive@gmail.com.

VMware vSphere 5 Clustering Technical Deepdive is a post from: frankdenneman.nl

We received a lot of feedback about the vSphere 4.1 book, one of the main themes was the lack of color in the diagrams. We plan to use a more suitable grayscale color combination in the next version, but we wondered if our readers would be interested in a full color copy of the upcoming book.

Obviously printing costs increase with full color printing and in addition, low volume cost of color printing can be quite high. We expect the price of the full color version to cost around $50 USD – $55 USD.

Full color version of the new book? is a post from: frankdenneman.nl

Reserved failover capacity
The HA Deepdive page explains in detail how the “percentage resources reserved” policy works, but to summarize; the CPU or memory capacity of the cluster is calculated as followed;The available capacity is the sum of all ESX hosts inside the cluster minus the virtualization overhead, multiplied by (1-percentage value).

For instance; a cluster exists out of 8 ESX hosts, each containing 70GB of available RAM. The percentage of cluster resources reserved is set to 20%. This leads to a cluster memory capacity of 448GB (70GB+70GB+70GB+70GB+70GB+70GB+70GB+70GB) * (1 – 20%). 112GB is reserved as failover capacity. Although the example zooms in on memory, the percentage set applies both CPU and memory resources.

Once a percentage is specified, that percentage of resources will be unavailable for active virtual machines, therefore it makes sense to set the percentage as low as possible. There are multiple approaches for defining a percentage suitable for your needs. One approach, the host-level-approach is to use a percentage that corresponds with the contribution of one or host or a multiplier of that. Another approach is the aggressive approach which sets a percentage that equals less than the contribution of one host. Which approach should be used?

Host-level
In the previous example 20% was used to be reserved for resources in an 8-host cluster. This configuration reserves more resources than a single host contributes to the cluster. High Availability’s main objective is to provide automatic recovery for virtual machines after a physical server failure. For this reason, it is recommended to reserve resource equal to a single host or a multiplier of that.

When using the per-host level of granularity in an 8-host cluster (homogeneous configured hosts), the resource contribution per host to the cluster is 12.5%. However, the percentage used must be an integer (whole number). Using a conservative approach it is better to round up to guarantee that the full capacity of one host is protected, in this example, the conservative approach would lead to a percentage of 13%.

Aggressive approach
I have seen recommendations about setting the percentage to a value that is less than the contribution of one host to the cluster. This approach reduces the amount of resources reserved for accommodating host failures and results in higher consolidation ratios. One might argue that this approach can work as most hosts are not fully loaded, however it eliminates the guarantee that after a failure all impacted virtual machines will be recovered.

As datacenters are dynamic, operational procedures must be in place to -avoid or reduce- the impact of a self-inflicted denial of service. Virtual machine restart priorities must be monitored closely to guarantee that mission critical virtual machines will be restarted before virtual machine with a lower operational priority. If reservations are set at virtual machine level, it is necessary to recalculate the failover capacity percentage when virtual machines are added or removed to allow the virtual machine to power on and still preserve the aggressive setting.

Expanding the cluster
Although the percentage is dynamic and calculates capacity at a cluster-level, when expanding the cluster the contribution per host will decrease. If you decide to continue using the percentage setting after adding hosts to the cluster, the amount of reserved resources for a fail-over might not correspond with the contribution per host and as a result valuable resources are wasted. For example, when adding four hosts to an 8-host cluster while continue using the previously configured admission control policy value of 13% will result in a failover capacity that is equivalent to 1.5 hosts. The following diagram depicts a scenario where an 8 host cluster is expanded to 12 hosts; each with 8 2GHz cores and 70GB memory. The cluster was originally configured with admission control set to 13% which equals to 109.2 GB and 24.96 GHz. If the requirement is to be able to recover from 1 host failure 7,68Ghz and 33.6GB is “wasted”.

Maximum percentage
High availability relies on one primary node to function as the failover coordinator to restart virtual machines after a host failure. If all five primary nodes of an HA cluster fail, automatic recovery of virtual machines is impossible. Although it is possible to set a failover spare capacity percentage of 100%, using a percentage that exceeds the contribution of four hosts is impractical as there is a chance that all primary nodes fail.

Although configuration of primary agents and configuration of the failover capacity percentage are non-related, they do impact each other. As cluster design focus on host placement and rely on host-level hardware redundancy to reduce this risk of failing all five primary nodes, admission control can play a crucial part by not allowing more virtual machines to be powered on while recovering from a maximum of four host node failure.

This means that maximum allowed percentage needs to be calculated by summing the contribution per host x 4. For example the recommended maximum allowed configured failover capacity of a 12-host cluster is 34%, this will allow the cluster to reserve enough resources during a 4 host failure without over allocating resources that could be used for virtual machines.

Setting Correct Percentage of Cluster Resources Reserved is a post from: frankdenneman.nl

http://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-14548

‘Draft’ of the vSphere 4.1 Hardening guide released is a post from: frankdenneman.nl