Accelerated Checkpoint merging with ReFS v2 in Windows Server 2016

Introduction

This blog post is a teaser where we show you some of the results we have seen with ReFS v2 in Windows 2016 (TPv4). In a previous blog post (Lightning Fast Fixed VHDX File Creation Speed With ReFS on Windows Server 2016) we have demonstrated the very fast VHDX file creation capabilities we got with ReFS v2. Now we look at another benefit of ReFS v2 in a Hyper-V environment, thanks to a feature or ReFS v2 called block cloning. We get accelerated checkpoint merging with ReFs v2 in Windows 2016

The Demo

For this short demo we have a virtual machine running Windows Server 2016. It resides on a CSV formatted with REFS (64K unit allocation size). Inside the virtual machine there is a second data disk. Our  VM called CheckPointReFS (64K unit allocation size) has this data volume formatted with ReFS (64K unit allocation size) and it runs on the ReFS formatted CSV. The disks in this test are fixed sized VHDX files.

On the data volumes we have about 30GB worth of ISO files. We checkpoint the VMs and then create a copy of those files on the data volume.

image

We then delete this checkpoint.

image

Via the events 19070 (start of a background disk merge) and 19080 (completion of a background disk merge) in the Microsoft-Windows-Hyper-V-VMMS/Admin logs we calculate the time this took: 5 seconds.

image_thumb76

image_thumb74

There are moments you just have to say “WAUW”. Really this rocks and it’s amazing. So amazing I figured I made a mistake and I ran it again … 4 seconds. WOEHOE!  What where the times you saw when you last deleted a large checkpoint?

I am really looking forward to do more testing with ReFS v2 capabilities with Hyper-V on Windows 2016.

RDMA Over RoCE With DCB Requires Tagged Non Default VLANs

It’s DCB That Requires This

For those of you who are experimenting with the RoCE variant of RDMA for SMB Direct in Windows Server 2012 (R2), make sure you have a VLAN tag in your configuration if this is more than a simple RDMA over two NICs. The moment you get DBC with PFC & ETS involved you’ll need non default tagged VLANs. Do note that PFC alone is good enough, ETS is strictly speaking not a requirement, but I’d consider doing it if you can.

With Enhanced Transmission Selection (ETS) the network traffic type is classified using the priority value in the VLAN tag of the Ethernet frame. The priority value is the Priority Code Point (PCP), which is described in the IEEE 802.1Q specification and uses a 3-bit field in the VLAN tag with eight possible priority values (0 to 7).

Priority-based Flow Control (PFC) allows to individually pause priorities of tagged traffic and helps to provide lossless or “no drop” behavior for a certain priority at the receiving port. As  above, each frame transmitted by a sending port is tagged with a priority value (0 to 7) in the VLAN tag. So for the traffic pause and resume functionality to work we need a VLAN tag to carry the priority value.

Does It Work Without?

But you’ll tell me that, as you may be lacking a DCB capable switch for lab purposes, you used a direct cable between your two RoCE NICs. And guess what RoCE, might have indeed worked for you without a VLAN tag. You can test & get a feel for what RoCE/RDMA can do for you with just the NICs. But as there is no switch involved you’re not using DCB for PFC/ETS and without that the need for the tagged VLAN isn’t there. Also see https://blog.workinghardinit.work/2013/05/03/smb-direct-roce-does-not-work-without-dcbpfc/.

So there you go. Design your RoCE/RDMA network based on DCB with PFC( and ETS) and not just on the tests with an direct cable or you might miss a few details that are quite important. Happy testing!

Learn & Evaluate Windows Server 2012 R2 Preview

If you are anything like a lot of people I know and myself you will be very eager to start testing the new features & capabilities of Windows Server 2012 R2 that is now available for testing purposes in preview. Now Microsoft has launched their IT Pro Summer Grand Prix campaign that might get you something extra next to the knowledge you will gain.

ITpro_banner_640x255

If you are going to do this why not surf to http://www.microsoft.com/nl-be/technet/summer-grandprix/#track1 and dive into Track 1 of the IT Pro Summer Grand Prix to download the public preview of Windows Server 2012 R2. image

When you do so, feel free to leave you contact information and be eligible to win a rather exclusive Windows Server headset.

Stay tuned because the next track will be all about System Center (June 15th) that holds even bigger benefits for being an early evaluator of the R2 wave.

Happy testing, learning and playing! One thing I found is that Windows 2012 R2 installations are that fast it feels like driving a race car Smile

ITpro_banner_728x90_metlogo

Teamed NIC Live Migrations Between Two Hosts In Windows Server 2012 Do Use All Members

Introduction

Between this blog NIC Teaming in Windows Server 2012 Brings Simple, Affordable Traffic Reliability and Load Balancing to your Cloud Workloads which states TCP/IP can recover from missing or out-of-order packets. However, out-of-order packets seriously impact the throughput of the connection. Therefore, teaming solutions make every effort to keep all the packets associated with a single TCP stream on a single NIC so as to minimize the possibility of out-of-order packet delivery. So, if your traffic load comprises of a single TCP stream (such as a Hyper-V live migration), then having four 1Gb/s NICs in an LACP team will still only deliver 1 Gb/s of bandwidth since all the traffic from that live migration will use one NIC in the team. However, if you do several simultaneous live migrations to multiple destinations, resulting in multiple TCP streams, then the streams will be distributed amongst the teamed NICsand other information out their such as support forum replies it is dictated that when you live migrate between two nodes in a cluster only one stream is active and you will never exceed the bandwidth of a single team member. When running some simple tests with a 10Gbps NIC team this seems true. We also know that you can consume near to all of the aggregated bandwidth of the members in a NIC Team for live migration if you these conditions are met:

1. The Live Migrations must not all be destined for the same remote machine. Live migration will only use one TCP stream between any pair of hosts. Since both Windows NIC Teaming and the adjacent switch will not spread traffic from a single stream across multiple interfaces live migration between host A and host B, no matter how many VMs you’re migrating, will only use one NIC’s bandwidth.

2. You must use Address Hash (TCP ports) for the NIC Teaming. Hyper-V Port mode will put all the outbound traffic, in this case, on a single NIC.

When we look at these conditions and compare them to the behavior we expect from the various forms of NIC teaming in Windows 2012 this is a bit surprising as one might expect all member to be involved. So let’s take a look at some of the different NIC Teaming setups.

Any form of NIC teaming with Hyper-V Port Mode

This one is easy as condition 2 above is very much true. In all my testing with any NIC team configuration in the Hyper-V Port mode traffic distribution algorithms I have not been able to exceed 10Gbps. I have seen no difference between dependent static of LACP mode or switch independent (active-active) for this condition. As you can see in the screenshot below, the traffic maxes out at 10Gbps.

clip_image002

clip_image004

This is also demonstrated in the following screenshots taking with the resource manager where you can see only half of the bandwidth of the Team is being used.

clip_image006

clip_image008

Exceeding a single NIC team member’s bandwidth when migrating between 2 nodes

The first condition of the previous heading doesn’t seem true. In some easy testing with a low number of virtual machines and not too much memory assigned you never exceed the bandwidth of one 10Gbps NIC team member. So on the surface, with some quick testing it might seem that way.

But during testing on a 2 node cluster with dual port 10Gbps cards and I have found the following

Switch Dependent LACP and Static

  1. Take a sufficient number of large memory virtual machines to exceed the capacity of a single 10Gbps pipe for a longer time (that way you’ll see it in the GUI).
  2. Live migrate them all from host A to host B (“Pause” with “Drain Roles” or “select all” + “Move”)
  3. Note that with a 2 node cluster there is no possibility to Live Migrate to multiple nodes simultaneous. It’s A to or B or B to A or both at the same time.

Basically it didn’t take long to see well over 10Gbpsbeing used. So the information out there seems to be wrong. Yes we can leverage the aggregated bandwidth when we migrate from host A to host B as long as we have enough memory assigned to the VMs and we migrate a sufficient number of them. Switch dependent teaming, whether it is static or LACP does its job as you would expect.

Let’s think about this. The number of VMs you need to lie migrate to see > 10Gbpss used is not fixed in stone. Could it be that there is some intelligence in the Live Migration algorithm where it decides to set up multiple streams when a certain number of virtual machines with sufficient memory are migrated as the sorting is mitigated by the amount of bandwidth that can leveraged? Perhaps he VMMS.EXE kicks off more streams when needed/beneficial? Further experimenting indicates that this is not the case. All you need is > 1 VM being live migrated. When looking at this in task manager you do need them to be of sufficient memory size and/or migrate enough of them to make it visible. I have also tried playing with the number of allowed simultaneous live migrations to see if this has an effect but I did not find one (i.e. 4, 6 or 12).

It looks like it is more like one TCP/IP connection per Live Migration that is indeed tied to one NIC member. So when you live migrate VMS between two hosts you see one VM live migration go over 1 member and the other the other as static/LACP switch dependent teaming did does its job. When you do enough live migrations of large VMs simultaneously you see this in Task Manager as shown below. In this case as each VM live migration stream sticks to a NIC team member you do not need to worry about out of order packets impacting performance.

clip_image010

But to make sure and to prevent falling victim to the fall victim to the limits of the task manger GUI during testing this behavior we also used performance monitor to see what’s going on. This confirms we are indeed using both 10Gbps NIC team member on both the target and the source host server. This is even the case with 2 virtual machines Live Migration. As long as it’s more than one and the memory assigned is enough to make the live migration last long enough you can see it in Task Manager; otherwise it might miss it. Performance Monitor however does not..clip_image012

clip_image002[4]

clip_image004[4]

This is interesting and frankly a bit unexpected as the documentation on this subject is not reflecting this. However it IS in agreement with the NIC teaming documented behavior for other tan Live Migration traffic. We took a closer look however and can reproduce this over and over again. Again we tested both switch dependent static and LACP modes and we found the behavior to be the same.

Switch Independent with Address Hash

Let’s test Live Migration over switch independent teaming with Address Hash. Here we see that the source server sends on the two member of the NIC team but that the target server receives on only one. This is normal behavior for switch independent teaming. But from the documentation we expect that one member on the source server would send and one member on the target server would receive. Not so.

Basically with Windows Server 2012 this doesn’t give you any benefit for throughput. You are limited to the bandwidth of one member, i.e. 10Gbps.

clip_image018

clip_image020

Red is Total Bytes received on the target host. It’s clear only one member is being used. Green is Bytes Sent/Sec on the source server. As you can see both team members are involved. In a switch independent scenario the receiving side limits the throughput. This is in agreement the documented behavior of switch independent NIC teaming with Address hash.

Helpful documentation on this is Windows Server 2012 NIC Teaming (LBFO) Deployment and Management (A Guide to Windows Server 2012 NIC Teaming for the novice and the expert).

Hope this helps sort out some of the confusion.