September 2011

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2011.

Hidden VAAI Command

As some of you are probably already aware, one of the storage-related features added to vSphere 5 is support for the SCSI UNMAP command. While you would normally want this functionality enabled, there could be instances where you might want to disable this functionality. Unfortunately, there’s no option in the user interface to enable or disable SCSI UNMAP support.

However, you can use esxcli to enable or disable UNMAP support:

esxcli system advcfg setvalue --int-value [0|1] --option /VMFS3/EnableBlockDelete

Setting this value to 0 disables SCSI UNMAP support; setting the value to 1 enables it.

Many thanks to Cormac Hogan of VMware and Cody Hosterman of EMC for their help with this command.

Update: I received word back from Cormac that the syntax above was lifted from a beta build; the correct syntax (thanks Nick T!) is as follows:

esxcli system settings advanced set --int-value [0|1] --option /VMFS3/EnableBlockDelete

You can use this command to list the current status:

esxcli system settings advanced list --option /VMFS3/EnableBlockDelete

Thanks for all the comments and additional information!

Tags: , ,

In case you haven’t heard already, the registration page for Spousetivities at VMworld EMEA 2011 is live and open for sign-ups! Crystal made the announcement about Spousetivities at VMworld EMEA on her site already, but I wanted to include it here as well so that everyone knew. Most of the activities sold out at VMworld US in Las Vegas, and Crystal’s hoping for similar success this year in Copenhagen. If you are going to be attending VMworld EMEA in Copenhagen and bringing your spouse/partner/significant other/family member, here are some of the things that are planned:

  • Castle tour
  • Tour of City Hall Square
  • Canal tour
  • Visit to Malmo, Sweden

Full details are available on the registration page.

Tags: , ,

Exclusion or Not?

A couple days ago I read Stephen Foskett’s article “Alas, VMware, Whither HDS?”, and I felt like I really needed to respond to this growing belief—stated in Stephen’s article and in the sources to his article—that VMware is, for whatever reason, somehow excluding certain storage vendors from future virtualization-storage integration development. From my perspective, this is just bogus.

As far as I can tell, Stephen’s post—which is just one of several I’ve seen on this subject—is based on two sources: my session blog of VSP3205 and an article by The Register. I wrote the session blog, I sat in the session, and I listened to the presenters. Never once did one of the presenters indicate that the five technology partners that participated in this particular demonstration were the only technology partners with whom they would work moving forward, and my session blog certainly doesn’t state—or even imply—that VMware will only work with a limited subset of storage vendors. In fact, the thought that other storage vendors would be excluded never even crossed my mind until the appearance of The Register’s post. That invalidates my VSP3205 session blog as a credible source for the assertion that VMware would be working with only certain storage companies for this initiative.

The article at The Register cites my session blog and a post by Wikibon analyst David Floyer as a source. I’ve already shown how my blog doesn’t support the claim that some vendors will be excluded, but what about the other source? The Wikibon article states this:

Wikibon understands that VMware plans to work with the normal storage partners (Dell, EMC, Hewlett Packard, IBM, and NetApp) to provide APIs to help these traditional storage vendors add value, for example by optimizing the placement of storage on the disks.

This statement, however, is not an indication that VMware will work only with the listed storage vendors. (Floyer does not, by the way, cite any sources for that statement.)

Considering all this information, the only place that is implying VMware will limit the storage vendors with whom they will work is Chris Mellor at The Register. However, even Chris’ article quotes a VMware spokesperson who says:

“Note that we’re still in early days on this and none of the partners above have yet committed to support the APIs – and while it is our intent to make the APIs open, currently that is not the case given that what was demo’d during this VMworld session is still preview technology.”

In other words, just because HDS or any other vendor didn’t participate (which might indicate that the vendor chose not to participate) does not mean that they are somehow excluded from future inclusion in the development of this proposed new storage architecture. In fact, participation—or lack thereof—at this stage really means nothing, in my opinion. If this proposed storage architecture gets its feet under it and starts to run, then I’m confident VMware will allow any willing storage vendor to participate. In fact, it would be detrimental to VMware to not allow any willing storage partner to participate.

However, it gets more attention if you proclaim that a particular storage vendor was excluded; hence, the title (and subtitle) that The Register used. I have a feeling the reality is probably quite different than the picture painted in some of these articles.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

I had an interesting e-mail conversation last week with fellow EMC vSpecialist Clint Kitson. Now, if you’ve never met Clint, he’s a super-sharp fellow, no questions about it. I love conversations with super-sharp folks as they invariably lead to new thoughts and new ideas, and this conversation was no different. The topic of the conversation, in generalized terms, was this: when crafting designs for customers, what defines an “optimal design”?

Allow me to share a few details from our conversation, and perhaps that question will make a bit more sense. Clint and I were discussing storage array designs and the various types of utilization that exist within a storage array. In this particular case, we were discussing a scenario in which an array—any type of array, not just an EMC array—could be configured in one of two ways:

  1. You could configure the array with fewer drives than the storage controllers are actually capable of driving. Thus, there is a certain amount of storage controller capacity left unused, even if all the drives are fully utilized.
  2. You could configure the array with more drives than the storage controllers are capable of driving. Thus, even if the storage controllers are fully utilized, there are some unused drive resources (IOPS and capacity, but mostly IOPS) left unused.

In either configuration, there is a resource (either storage controller capacity or drive capacity in IOPS) that is not fully utilized. So what’s the optimal design in this sort of scenario? Either way, something is going to be under-utilized.

If you think about it, this same question could be asked of a VMware vSphere design. In almost every vSphere design, there is at least one resource that is not fully utilized. So what is an optimal design? Which resource should be left under-utilized? How does an architect—be it a storage architect creating storage array configurations or a virtualization architect creating virtualized infrastructure designs—determine which resources should be left under-utilized in order to create an optimal design?

If you attended my VMworld session (VSP1926), you probably already know what I think the answer is: functional requirements. Which approach best satisfies the customer’s functional requirements? In the example that Clint and I were discussing, which approach will best meet the customer’s needs and requirements?

“But Scott,” you say, “either approach could satisfy the functional requirements.”

That might be true (it’s hard to say here since we were discussing this in a very abstract sort of way), but I’m almost certain that in every one of these situations one approach is more cost-effective than the others, and every project I’ve ever seen has a financial functional requirement (more commonly referred to as a “budget”). Can you still say all approaches meet the functional requirements equally?

This is a bit of an academic discussion, but an interesting one (in my mind, at least). What do you think? Share your thoughts, rants, and ideas in the comments below.

Tags: , , ,

I was on a conference call the other day where the topic of the call was VMware View 5.0. If you attended VMworld—or even if you didn’t, it’s been kind of hard to miss—you know already that VMware made significant improvements to PCoIP in View 5. For one reason or another, the topic of the Teradici PCoIP offload card came up on the call, and other participants in the call were immediately asking about the availability of the card in mezzanine card format for blade server implementations. (Continue reading, and at the end I’ll tell you the answer I received to that question.)

There are lots of blade server implementations on the market; I’ve had direct hands-on experience with two of the leading implementations, Cisco UCS and HP BladeSystem C-Class. Both are excellent products, and both products have strengths and weaknesses. However, the one (relative) weakness they both share is a lack of expansion options. The HP BladeSystem blades are a bit better here, as they have onboard NICs (10Gb as well as 1Gb) without using an expansion slot. Either way, though, let’s face it—mezzanine card slots in a blade environment aren’t exactly plentiful. Now you want to go and use one of these slots for an offload card? This is especially true with Cisco UCS, where the half-width B series blades require a mezzanine card in order to have network connectivity.

In my mind, this really underscores the need to view vSphere designs—including designs that incorporate “upper layer” products like View, vCloud Director, and/or Site Recovery Manager—with a broad lens. Even in a dedicated VDI environment, where the ESXi hosts are used only to host virtual desktops, is the trade-off between network connectivity and offloaded PCoIP processing worth it? If adding a PCoIP offload card means you have to move from a half-width/half-height blade to a full-width/full-height blade (thus cutting your compute density in half), was it really worth it? Was it worth the extra rack space, extra power, extra network drops, and extra expense? This is why, as vSphere architects, we sometimes have to “take a step back” to look at things in a broader perspective. Otherwise, you could find yourself adding some piece of technology to your design and crippling the overall design.

<aside>This is not, by the way, a rant against the PCoIP offload card—I can definitely see some value in it for dedicated VDI environments. The offload card just happened to be the catalyst that triggered this post.</aside>

The answer, by the way, to the availability of the PCoIP offload card in mezzanine card format is “It’s up to the OEM.” Not much of an answer, I know, but the only answer that’s available right now.

If you have additional thoughts you’d like to share, I encourage you to add your thoughts in the comments below.

Tags: , , ,

Is the age of the infrastructure engineer over? While I was at VMworld 2011, I listened to a speaker talk about how people like me—people who are conversant in virtualization, networking, storage, servers, and data center hardware—are going to have to evolve/migrate into the application development space in order to survive in the “new cloud world” (my phrase, not the speaker’s). This speaker isn’t the only one, either. This started me thinking. Are infrastructure engineers really a relic of the past, like punch cards?

I think we can all agree that the heavily-specialized infrastructure teams of the past—the networking team, the server team, the storage team—are no longer sufficient in the brave new world of converged infrastructure that blends networking, virtualization, and storage all together. I’d agree, in general terms, that IT infrastructure folks need to broaden beyond their core strengths into adjacent technologies in order to remain relevant. Storage engineers need to learn some networking and some virtualization. Virtualization engineers absolutely need to know storage, and networking is becoming a necessity as well. Networking engineers need to embrace virtualization and understand the impact of storage on their networks. Whether or not the silos ever come down fully or whether we’ll just “install sliding partitions,” as one colleague of mine said, isn’t yet clear. It is clear, though, that some blurring of the lines between these teams is a given.

Is it a given, though, that infrastructure engineers have to move up the stack into the application layer(s)? From an awareness perspective—meaning becoming more aware of the applications running on their infrastructure—I’d agree. Application development, though? That one I’m not so sure about. Yes, it will be/is helpful to understand what goes into application development and the infrastructure dependencies that are the result of the development choices. Again, that’s awareness, and yes—infrastructure engineers need enhanced awareness of adjacent technologies and the relationships with their core technology strengths. Awareness, though, is fundamentally different than being well-versed in application development.

Maybe I’m just being naive or ignorant, but regardless of how many layers of abstraction are inserted into the stack—and virtualization, in its simplest form, is another layer of abstraction—someone still has to manage the infrastructure. OK, so you’ve built a “private cloud” and you have highly virtualized infrastructure, pooled resources, self-service provisioning, etc. Someone still has to manage it. Someone still has to ensure that there is sufficient capacity, and that someone needs to understand the core technologies that make the private cloud tick. If we’re all moving “up the stack,” who’s left behind to manage the infrastructure?

This is why I’m not yet convinced that the age of the infrastructure engineer is over. Even if you have virtualized your servers, virtualized your network, and virtualized your storage, management of this infrastructure is still necessary. People who understand this infrastructure—both virtual and physical—are still necessary. Engineers who know the relationships among the virtualization layers and the various technologies are still necessary. Yes, the infrastructure engineer will change, grow, and evolve, but I think that the death of the infrastructure engineer is greatly exaggerated. We can’t all move up the stack into application development; someone has to stay behind and make sure everything runs the way it’s expected to run.

What do you think? Speak up and share your thoughts in the comments.

Tags: , ,

Welcome to Technology Short Take #14, another collection of links and tidbits of information I’ve gathered over the last few weeks. Let’s dive right in!

Networking

Much of my focus in the networking space recently has been around virtualization-centric initiatives, so the items on this list might seem a bit skewed in that direction. Sorry!

  • I’ve been doing some reading on 802.1Qbg (Edge Virtual Bridging). I still have a long way to go, but I think that I’m starting to better understand this draft and the problem(s) it’s attempting to address. As usual when I’m dealing with networking-related technologies, especially data center-focused networking technologies, I’m finding some of Ivan Pepelnjak’s articles useful. For example, he wrote an article on how EVB should ease VLAN configuration pains; this article is helpful in translating the terms the IEEE uses (like “virtual station interface” and “EVB station”) into terms virtualization-friendly folks like me can understand (like “vNIC” and “Hypervisor supporting EVB”, respectively). Ivan also provides a rough comparison of 802.1Qbh/FEX and 802.1Qbg, which I also found helpful in better understanding both technologies. There is still much that I want/need to understand, such as how 802.1Qbg affects or is affected by VXLAN, the recent darling of the cloud networking space.
  • Speaking of VXLAN, a number of articles have emerged since the announcement of VXLAN last week at VMworld 2011 in Las Vegas. Jon Oltsik of Network World called it “Cloud Network Segmentation at Layer 2.5″, which is catchy but doesn’t really delve into the details of VXLAN and how it plays into/with related data center protocols. Of course, there’s also the obligatory VMware post on the technology, talking about how great it is—naturally—but failing to again provide substantive information on the relationships between VXLAN and other, related data center technologies. If anything, Allwyn’s post made VXLAN seem even more proprietary and linked to vCloud Director and vShield Edge than I’d understood it to be. Fortunately, Ivan weighed in on the proposed new standard and also provided some information on the relationship between VXLAN, OTV, and LISP. I’m still digging into VXLAN myself and I plan to post an article within the next week or so (I’ve been a bit busy with moving halfway across the United States).
  • Ivan also has a post with more details on the Brocade VCS fabric load-balancing behaviors that’s worth having a look.

Servers

  • This article on AES-NI in the newer Intel CPUs is a great look at the benefits of adding symmetric encryption support at the CPU level. Almost makes me want to go out and buy a new MacBook Pro so that I could use File Vault 2 with hardware encryption support…

Storage

  • One cool find recently is this series of “hands-on” posts by Henri Hamalainen (aka @henriwithani) on the EMC VNXe 3300. I had the pleasure of meeting Henri in person at VMworld this year, and he mentioned that he’d started a series of posts on the VNXe 3300. His posts are here: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6. (Part 7 hasn’t yet been written.)
  • There’s been quite a hubbub going on in the FCoE space, with so many articles flashing back and forth from various contributors I’m still having a hard time deciphering all of it. From what I can tell, it all started with an article by a VP at Juniper about FCoE over TRILL. That sparked Ivan Pepelnjak to coin some new terms: “dense-mode FCoE” (in which FCFs exist at every hop) and “sparse-mode FCoE” (in which LAN switches may forward FCoE frames without any FCoE awareness). That, in turn, sparked an article by Tony Bourke in which he creates more new modes of operation: single hop FCoE (SHFCoE), dense-mode FCoE (DMFCoE), and sparse-mode FCoE (SMFCoE). A fantastic (and very informative) discussion ensued in the comments to that article and the follow-up article. Ivan also responded to Tony’s post as well with a post on FCoE network elements classification. I’m not sure that all the contributors ever came to a consensus, but you’ll learn a lot about FCoE and related technologies just following along, that’s for sure.
  • By the way, this transcript of questions and answers from a live FCoE webcast has some great information buried in it as well.
  • This is an older article, but Stephen Foskett does a good job with discussing FCoE vs. iSCSI. Like so many other IT-related decisions, it’s not an “either-or” discussion—it’s about finding the right tool to do the job.
  • This article provides one suggestion for handling zoning with multiple storage arrays, and provides some good information on EMC CLARiiON/VNX arrays in the process.

Virtualization

  • The idea of stretched clusters and interconnecting data centers continues to be an idea many people are interested in exploring. Rawley Burbridge, of IBM, discusses how this might be done using IBM SVC and VMware vSphere in this three-part series (part 1, part 2, and part 3).
  • Kendrick Coleman, in conjunction with a collection of folks from both VMware and VCE, recently published an article on design considerations for vCloud Director on a Vblock. I haven’t yet read the full document, primarily because it appears to require a Facebook login in order to download. (I don’t use Facebook.)
  • Andre Leibovici—who I had the pleasure of meeting in person at VMworld—has an article on how to modify the Windows Registry settings (or apply Group Policy) for the VMware View Client in order to integrate self-service password reset.
  • The VMware vCloud Architecture Toolkit (vCAT) version 2.0 is now available; get it here (via Beaker).
  • Forbes Guthrie—the lead author with whom I worked on VMware vSphere Design, published earlier this year—posted some great 10Gb Ethernet-related information from VMworld session SPO3040.
  • This is a slightly older post from Hany Michael, but a good one nevertheless; he posts information on how to publish the vCloud Director portal on the Internet.

I guess that will wrap things up for this time around. Thanks for reading, and I hope that you found something useful in this varied mix of links. Feel free to share more in the comments below!

Tags: , , , , ,

Switching to EagleFiler

Over the last month or so, I’ve taken a strong interest in moving a fair number of my files that are predominantly text-based back to “standards-based” formats such as RTF and plain text. I’ve started using Markdown as a means of storing formatting information in plain text files, and then using tools like Pandoc to convert these Markdown files into the desired destination format. I’ll likely discuss this in more detail in a future post, but what I wanted to discuss here was the affect of this decision on my software usage.

If you’ve read any of the posts I’ve published on my Getting Things Done setup, you’ll know that I used an application called Yojimbo as my “anything bucket.” Yojimbo is a native Mac OS X application that operated as part of the consumption phase of my workflow and provided a way for me to collect and organize all the various bits of information that pass in front of me. Yojimbo is a pretty handy application, and I made it even more handy with some home-grown AppleScripts that made it easier and faster to get information into and then back out of the application.

However, I recently started examining other applications in the same space as Yojimbo, in an effort to ensure that I was using the most effective tools possible. (Consider this a “sharpening the saw” exercise.) I evaluated DEVONthink Pro and EagleFiler, testing each of them within my workflow to see if either of them added some value above and beyond what I currently had with Yojimbo. This was occurring at the same time that I started shifting my text-based formats back to plain text, RTF, and Markdown, and so part of the evaluation process was testing how well those applications fit into this new way of managing my text-based data.

What I found, surprisingly, was that EagleFiler was a great fit for this new workflow. One of my long-time complaints of Yojimbo was that I couldn’t use my preferred applications (Skim for PDFs or TextMate for text-based files), an issue that was even more of a problem now that I was making greater use of TextMate with plain text files and Markdown. I explored ways of using AppleScript to modify Yojimbo’s behavior, but it was beyond my simple AppleScript skills. EagleFiler, on the other hand, simply leveraged the default applications I used with Mac OS X. PDFs opened in Skim, text files opened in TextMate (where I could then use TextMate bundles to convert formats between HTML, plain text, and Markdown), and RTF documents opened in Bean (which I’d adopted as a lightweight editor over the oh-so-bulky Microsoft Word). This made it a great fit for the new way I was working with documents. In addition, EagleFiler came with some useful capture functionality built-in, eliminating the need for some of my home-grown AppleScripts. Finally, EagleFiler used an “open” library format that stored my items as files in the file system. If, for whatever reason, I ever decided to ditch EagleFiler, all my information would be easily accessible. This was a real attraction for me.

So, after only a week or so of testing, I switched completely away from Yojimbo and started using EagleFiler instead. Thus far, I’ve been quite pleased with the results. While it seems simple, I like the ability to mark items as unread (something I couldn’t do in Yojimbo, so I had to approximate that functionality with certain tags). I still prefer the way Yojimbo displays metadata about bookmarks in the same window (in EagleFiler you have to open the Inspection window), but this has not been a significant problem.

I also anticipate that the use of the file system will make integrating tools like Pandoc into my workflow possible; it didn’t seem possible before with Yojimbo. Because EagleFiler’s library is file system-based, it should be possible to use AppleScript to manipulate records by manipulating the underlying files in the file system. This will be an area of exploration for me over the next few months as I also refine my Markdown-Pandoc workflows for document generation.

In my opinion, if you’re considering an “anything bucket” for your Mac to help keep your information organized, EagleFiler should definitely be on your list of applications to consider.

Tags: , , ,

The Move to Colorado: Day 3

Day 3 of our road trip to Colorado completes our trip and puts us in Denver. The trip today was pretty straightforward. We left Kansas City this morning and just followed I-70 across Kansas into Colorado. When it was all said and done, it took about 9 hours of driving to go from Kansas City to Denver.

Now that we’ve arrived in Denver, we’re in a hotel for the next few days until our house in Castle Pines North is ready for us to move in. In the meantime, I’ll be handling all the various move-related issues that need to be addressed—change of address forms, insurance, driver’s licenses, etc. That also includes buying some furniture, a task we got started on tonight with a quick trip to the new Ikea store here in Denver.

I have a couple of blog posts in the works that I’ll try to get published over the next few days, but with all the move-related tasks that need to be handled I’m not sure I’ll actually be able to get them finished and posted. I’ll do my best!

Tags:

The Move to Colorado: Day 2

I’ve just wrapped up Day 2 of my road trip to Colorado. I started the day in Nashville, TN and ended the day in Kansas City, KS (actually Overland Park). If I had two words to describe today, those words would be windy and corn.

Why those two words? Well, if you’ve ever driven across Missouri, you’ll understand why I chose “corn” because you’ve already seen the fields upon fields of corn, as far as the eye can see. And why “windy”? Well, simply put: it was very windy today. Yesterday we had to deal with some pretty heavy rainfall getting to Nashville; today, we had to deal with lots of wind as we made our way out of Tennessee into Kentucky and across Illinois and Missouri. Fortunately, the wind died down as we approached Kansas City, and driving became a lot easier.

Those of us who live in the US have a pretty good idea of how far the distance is between Raleigh, NC, and Denver, CO, but for readers outside the US I thought a few comparisons might be handy. The driving distance between the two cities is about 1,677 miles, or approximately 2,700 kilometers. That distance is:

  • roughly comparable to driving from London to Edinburgh and back again—twice
  • about the same as the driving distance between Gibraltar on the southern edge of Europe and Amsterdam, The Netherlands on the northern side of Europe
  • greater than the driving distance from Alice Springs in the Northern Territory of Australia to Melbourne, on the southern coast of the continent
  • about the same as the driving distance from Cape Town, South Africa to Johannesburg and back again

Hopefully this gives the readers an idea of the distance we have to cover. All in all, it’s quite a road trip (and quite a move). Granted, not as significant a move as some international relocations of which I’ve heard, but significant nevertheless.

Tomorrow, we’ll leave Kansas City bound for Denver, shooting to make the entire distance in a single day. If all goes well, we will arrive in Denver tomorrow evening around dinner time or shortly thereafter. From there, we’ll have a couple of days to prepare, then we move into the new house on Friday.

I’ll have more updates tomorrow!

Tags:

« Older entries