Maximum bandwidth in Hyper-V storage QoS policies


In a previous blog post Hyper-V Storage QoS in Windows Server 2016 Works on SOFS and on LUNs/CSV I have discussed Storage QoS Policies in Windows Server 2016. I have also demonstrated this in a lab setup at VEEAMON 2015 in one of my talks at the Microsoft presentation area. It’s one of those features where a home lab will do the job. There is no need for special storage hardware. It’s all in box functionality. Cool!

Maximum bandwidth in Hyper-V storage QoS policies

Now that was in the Technical Preview 2 and 3 era, where it all revolved around minimum and maximum QoS. In Windows Server 2016 Technical Preview 4 we got some new features in regards to storage QoS policies. One of those is that we can now also set the Maximum bandwidth on a policy using the parameter MaximumIOBandwidth. This parameter, which is set in bytes per second determines the maximum bandwidth that any flow assigned to the policy is allowed to consume.


We use that policy ID to assign it to the 2 shared virtual disks of our cluster nodes. You’ll need to do this for all of the guest cluster nodes.image

You can copy the PoSh demo script below

#Create a Storage Policies
$DemoVMPolicy = New-StorageQosPolicy -Name DemoVMPolicy -PolicyType MultiInstance `
-MinimumIops 250 -MaximumIops 500 -MaximumIOBandwidth 100MB

#Look at our storage Policies
Get-StorageQosPolicy -name DemoVMPolicy

#Grab our policy ID
$DemoVMPolicy = (get-StorageQosPolicy -Name DemoVMPolicy).PolicyId 

#Look at our VMs policy setting before and after assigning a storage policy.
#We assign the storage policy to the 2 shared virtual disks
#that are located a location 1 and 2 on SCSI controller 0

Get-VM -Name GuestClusterNode1 | Get-VMHardDiskDrive |
ft Path,MinimumIOPS, MaximumIOPS, MaximumIOBandwidth, QoSPolicyID -AutoSize

Get-VM -Name GuestClusterNode1 | Get-VMHardDiskDrive | Where-Object {$_.controllerlocation -ge 1}|
Set-VMHardDiskDrive  -QoSPolicyID $DemoVMPolicy

Get-VM -Name GuestClusterNode1 | Get-VMHardDiskDrive | 
ft Path, MinimumIOPS, MaximumIOPS, MaximumIOBandwidth, QoSPolicyID -AutoSize

You can use MaximumIOBandwidth by itself or you can combine it with the maximum IOPS setting. When both of these parameter are set in a storage QoS policy they are both active. The one that is reached first by a flow assigned to this policy will be the limiting factor in the I/O of that flow.

As an example. Let’s say you specify 500 IOPS and 100Mbps bandwidth as maxima. Your workload hits 500 IOPS but only consumes 58 Mbps it’s the IOPS that are limiting the flow.

A first look at shared virtual disks in Windows Server 2016

Introduction to shared virtual disks in Windows Server 2016

Time to take a first look at shared virtual disks in Windows Server 2016 and how they are set up. Shared VHDX was first introduced in Windows Server 2012 R2. It provides shared storage for use by virtual machines without having to “break through” the virtualization layer. This way is still available to us in Windows Server 2016. The benefit of this is that you will not be forced to upgrade your Windows Server 2012 R2 guest clusters when you move them to Windows Server 2016 Hyper-V cluster hosts.

The new way is based on a VHD Set. This is a vhds virtual hard disk file of 260 MB and a fixed or dynamically expanding avhdx which contains the actual data. This is the “backing storage file” in Microsoft speak. The vhds file is used to handle the coordination of actions on the shared disk between the guest cluster nodes?

Note that an avhdx is often associated with a differencing disk or checkpoints. But the “a” stands for “automatic”. This means the virtual disk file can be manipulated by the hypervisor and you shouldn’t really do anything with it. As a matter of fact, you can rename this off line avhdx file to vhdx, mount it and get to the data. Whether this virtual disk is fixed or dynamically expanding doesn’t matter.

You can create on in the GUI where it’s just a new option in the New Virtual Hard Disk Wizard.

Or via PowerShell in the way you’re used to with the only difference being that you specify vhds as the virtual disk extension.

In both cases both vhds and avhdx are created for you, you do not need to specify this.

You just add it to all nodes of the guest cluster by selecting a “Shared Drive” to add to a SCSI controller …

… browsing to the vhds , selecting it and applying the settings to the virtual machine. Do this for all guest cluster nodes

Naturally PowerShell is your friend, simple and efficient.

Rules & Restrictions

As before shared virtual disk files have to be attached to a vSCSI controller in the virtual machines that access it and it needs to be stored on a CSV. Both block level storage or a SMB 3 file share on a Scale Out File Server will do for this purpose. If you don’t store the shared VHDX or VHD Set on a CSV you’ll get an error.

Sure for lab purposes you can use an non high available SMB 3 share “simulating” a real SOFS share but that’s only good for your lab or laptop.

The virtual machines will see this shared VHDX as shared storage and as such it can be used as cluster storage. This is an awesome concept as it does away with iSCSI or virtual FC to the virtual machines in an attempt to get shared storage when SMB 3 via SOFS is not an option for some reason. Shared VHDX introduces operational ease as it avoids the complexities and drawbacks of not using virtual disks with iSCSI or vFC.

In Windows Server 2012 R2 we did miss some capabilities and features we have come to love and leverage with virtual hard disks in Hyper-V. The reason for this was the complexity involved in coordinating such storage actions across all the virtual machines accessing it. These virtual machines might be running on different hosts and, potentially the shared VHDX could reside on different CSVs. The big four limitations that proved to be show stopper for some use cases are in my personal order of importance:

  1. No host level backup
  2. No on line dynamic resize
  3. No storage live migration
  4. No checkpoints
  5. No Hyper-V Replica support

I’m happy to report most of these limitations have been taken care of in Windows Server 2016. We can do host level backups. We can online resize a shared VHDX and we have support for Hyper-V replica.

Currently in 2016 TPv4 storage live migration and checkpoints (both production and standard checkpoints) are still missing in action but who knows what Microsoft is working on or has planned. To the best of my knowledge they have a pretty good understanding of what’s needed, what should have priority and what needs to be planned in. We’ll see.

Other good news is that shared VHDX works with the new storage resiliency feature in Windows Server 2016. See Virtual Machine Storage Resiliency in Windows Server 2016 for more information. Due to the nature of clustering when a virtual machine loses access to a shared VHDX the workload (role) will move to another guest cluster node that still has access to the shared VHDX. Naturally if the cause of the storage outage is host cluster wide (the storage fabric or storage array is toast) this will not help, but other than that it provides for a good experience. The virtual machine guest cluster node that has lost storage doesn’t go into critical pause but keeps polling to see if it regains access to the shared VHDX. When it does it’s reattached and that VM becomes a happy fully functional node again.

It also supports the new Storage Qos Policies in Windows Server 2016, which is something I’ve found during testing.

Thanks for reading!

Musings On Switch Embedded Teaming, SMB Direct and QoS in Windows Server 2016 Hyper-V

When you have been reading up on what’s new in Windows Server 2016 Hyper-V networking you probably read about Switch Embedded Teaming (SET). Basically this takes the concept of teaming and has this done by the vSwitch. Which means you don’t have to team at the host level. The big benefit that this opens up is the RDMA can be leveraged on vNICs. With host based teaming the RDMA capabilities of your NICs are no longer exposed, i.e. you can’t leverage RDMA. Now this has become possible and that’s pretty big.


With the rise of 10, 25, 40, 50 and 100 Gbps NICs and switches the lure to go fully converged becomes even louder. Given the fact that we now don’t lose RDMA capabilities to the vNICs exposed to the host that call sounds only louder to many.  But wait, there’s even more to lure us to a fully converged solution, the fact that we now do no longer lose RSS on those vNICs! All good news.

I have written an entire whitepaper on convergence and it benefits, drawback, risks & rewards. I will not repeat all that here. One point I need to make that lossless traffic and QoS are paramount to the success of fully converged networking. After all we don’t want lossy storage traffic and we need to assure adequate bandwidth for all our types of traffic. For now, in Technical Preview 3 we have support for Software Defined Networking (SDN) QoS.

What does that mean in regards to what we already use today? There is no support for native QoS  and vSwitch QoS in Windows Server 2016 TPv3. There is however the  mention of DCB (PFC/ETS ), which is hardware QoS in the TechNet docs on Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) and Switch Embedded Teaming (SET). Cool!

But wait a minute. When we look at all kinds of traffic in a converged Hyper-V environment we see CSV (storage traffic), live migration (all variations), backups over SMB3 all potentially leveraging SMB Direct. Due to the features and capabilities in SMB3 I like that. Don’t get me wrong about that. But it also worries me a bit when it comes to handling QoS on the hardware side of things.

In DCB Priority Flow Control (PFC) is the lossless part, Enhanced Transmission Selection (ETS) is the minimum bandwidth QoS part. But how do we leverage ETS when all types of traffic use SMB Direct. On the host it all gets tagged with the same priority. ETS works by tagging different priorities to different workloads and assuring minimal bandwidths out of a total of 100% without reserving it for a workload if it doesn’t need it. Here’s a blog post on ETS with a demo video DCB ETS Demo with SMB Direct over RoCE (RDMA .

Does this mean a SDN QoS only approach to deal with the various type of SMB Direct traffic or do they have some aces up their sleeves?

This isn’t a new “concern” I have but with SET and the sustained push for convergence it does has the potential to become an issue. We already have the SMB bandwidth limitation feature for live migration. That what is used to prevent LM starving CSV traffic when needed. See Preventing Live Migration Over SMB Starving CSV Traffic in Windows Server 2012 R2 with Set-SmbBandwidthLimit.

Now in real life I have rarely, if ever, seen a hard need for this. But it’s there to make sure you have something when needed. It hasn’t caused me issues yet, but I’m a performance & scale first, in “a non-economies of scale” world compared to hosters. As such convergence is a tool I use with moderation. My testing when traffic competes without ETS is that they all get part of the cake but not super predictable/ consistent. SMB bandwidth limitation is a bit of a “bolted on” solution => you can see the perf counters push down the bandwidth in an epic struggle to contain it, but as said it’s a struggle, not a nice flat line.

Also Set-SmbBandwidthLimit is not a percentage, but hard max bandwidth limit, so when you lose a SET member the math is off and you could be in trouble fast. Perhaps it’s these categories that could or will be used but it doesn’t seem like the most elegant solution/approach. That with ever more traffic leveraging SMB Direct make me ever more curious. Some switches offer up to 4 lossless queues now so perhaps that’s the way to go leveraging more priorities … Interesting stuff! My preferred and easiest QoS tool, get even bigger pipes, is an approach convergence and evolution of network needs keeps pushing over. Anyway, I’ll be very interested to see how this is dealt with. For now I’ll conclude my musings On Switch Embedded Teaming, SMB Direct and QoS in Windows Server 2016 Hyper-V

High performance live migration done right means using SMB Direct

I  saw people team two 10GBps NICs for live migration and use TCP/IP. They leveraged LACP for this as per my blog Teamed NIC Live Migrations Between Two Hosts In Windows Server 2012 Do Use All Members . That was a nice post but not a commercial to use it. It was to prove a point that LACP/Static switch dependent teaming did allow for multiple VMs to be live migrated in the same direction between two node. But for speed, max throughput & low CPU usage teaming is not the way to go. This is not needed as you can achieve bandwidth aggregation and redundancy with SMB via Multichannel. This doesn’t require any LACP configuration at all and allows for switch independent aggregation and redundancy. Which is great, as it avoids stacking with switches that don’t do  VLT, MLAG,  …

Even when your team your NICs your better off using SMB. The bandwidth aggregation is often better. But again, you can have that without LACP NIC teaming so why bother? Perhaps one reason, with LACP failover is faster, but that’s of no big concern with live migration.

We’ll do some simple examples to show you why these choices matter. We’ll also demonstrate the importance of an optimize RSS configuration. Do not that the configuration we use here is not a production environment, it’s just a demo to show case results.

But there is yet another benefit to SMB.  SMB Direct.  That provides for maximum throughput, low latency and low CPU usage.

LACP NIC TEAM with 2*10Gbps with TCP

With RSS setting on the inbox default we have problems reaching the best possible throughput (17Gbps). But that’s not all. Look at the CPU at the time of live migration. As you can see it’s pretty taxing on the system at 22%.


If we optimize RSS with 8 RSS queues assigned to 8 physical cores per NIC on a different CPU (dual socket, 8 core system) we sometimes get better CPU overhead at +/- 12% but the throughput does not improve much and it’s not very consistent. It can get worse and look more like the above.


LACP NIC TEAM with 2*10Gbps with SMB (Multichannel)

With the default RSS Settings we still have problems reaching the best possible throughput but it’s better (19Gbps). CPU wise, it’s pretty taxing on the system at 24%.


If we optimize RSS with 8 RSS queues assigned to 8 physical cores per NIC on a different CPU (dual socket, 8 core system) we get better over CPU overhead at +/- 8% but the throughput actually declined (17.5 %). When we run the test again we were back to the results we saw with default RSS settings.


Is there any value in using SMB over TCP with LACP for live migration?

Yes there is. Below you see two VMs live migrate, RSS is optimized. One core per VM is used and the throughput isn’t great, is it. Depending on the speed of your CPU you get at best 4.5 to 5Gbps throughput per VM as that 1 core per VM is the limiting factor. Hence see about 9Gbps here, as there’s 2 VMs, each leveraging 1 core.


Now look at only one VM with RSS is optimized with SMB over an LACP NIC team. Even 1 large memory VM leverages 8 cores and achieves 19Gbps.


What about Switch Independent Teaming?

Ah well that consumes a lot less CPU cycles but it comes at the price of speed. It has less CPU overhead to deal with in regards to LACP. It can only receive on one team member. The good news is that even a single VM can achieve 10Gbps (better than LACP) at lower CPU overhead. With SMB you get better CPU distribution results but as the one member is a bottle neck, not faster. But … why bother when we have …better options!? Read on Smile!

No Teaming – 2*10Gbps with SMB Multichannel, RSS Optimized

We are reaching very good throughput but it’s better (20Gbps) with 8 RSS queues assigned to 8 physical cores. The CPU at the time of live migration is pretty good at 6%-7%.


Important: This is what you want to use if you don’t have 10Gbps but you do have 4* 1Gbps NICs for live migration. You can test with compression and LACP teaming if you want/can to see if you get better results. Your mirage may vary Smile. If you have only one 1Gbps NIC => Compression is your sole & only savior.

2*10Gbps with SMB Direct

We’re using perfmon here to see the used bandwidth as RDMA traffic does not show up in Task Manager.


We have no problems reaching the best possible throughput but it’s better (20Gbps, line speed). But now look at the CPU during live migration. How do you like them numbers?

Do not buy non RDMA capable NICs or Switches without DCB support!

These are real numbers, the only thing is that the type and quality of the NICs, firmware and drivers used also play a role an can skew the results a bit. The onboard LOM run of the mill NICs aren’t always the best choice. Do note that configuration matters as you have seen. But SMB Direct eats them all for breakfast, no matter what.

Convinced yet? People, one of my core highly valuable skillsets is getting commodity hardware to perform and I tend to give solid advice. You can read all my tips for fast live migrations here in Live Migration Speed Check List – Take It Easy To Speed It Up

Does all of this matter to you? I say yes , it does. It depends on your environment and usage patterns. Maybe you’re totally over provisioned and run only very small workloads in your virtual machines. But it’s save to say that if you want to use your hardware to its full potential under most circumstances you really want to leverage SMB Direct for live migrations. What about that Hyper-V cluster with compute and storage heavy applications, what about SQL Server virtualization? Would you not like to see this picture with SMB RDMA? The Mellanox  RDMA cards are very good value for money. Great 10Gbps switches that support DCB (for PFC/ETS) can be bought a decent prices. You’re missing out and potentially making a huge mistake not leveraging SMB Direct for live migrations and many other workloads. Invest and design your solutions wisely!