Dell Compellent SCOS 6.7 ODX Bug Heads Up

UPDATE 3: Bad and disappointing news. After update 2 we’ve seen DELL change the CSTA (CoPilot Services Technical Alert)  on the customer website to “’will be fixed” in a future version. No according to the latest comment on this blog post that would be In Q1 2017. Basically this is unacceptable and it’s a shame to see a SAN that was one of the best when in comes to Hyper-V Support in Windows Server 2012 / 2012 R2 decline in this way. If  7.x is required for Windows Server 2016 Support this is pretty bad as it means early adopters are stuck or we’ll have to find an recommend another solution. This is not a good day for Dell storage.

UPDATE 2: As you can read in the comments below people are still having issues. Do NOT just update without checking everything.

UPDATE: This issue has been resolved in Storage Center 6.7.10 and 7.Ximage

If you have 6.7.x below 6.7.10 it’s time to think about moving to 6.7.10!

No vendor is exempt form errors, issues, mistakes and trouble with advances features and unfortunately Dell Compellent has issues with Windows Server 2012 (R2) ODX in the current release of SCOS 6.7. Bar a performance issue in a 6.4 version they had very good track record in regards to ODX, UNMAP, … so far. But no matter how good your are, bad things can happen.


I’ve had to people who were bitten by it contact me. The issue is described below.

In SCOS 6.7 an issue has been determined when the ODX driver in Windows Server 2012 requests an Extended Copy between a source volume which is unknown to the Storage Center and a volume which is presented from the Storage Center. When this occurs the Storage Center does not respond with the correct ODX failure code. This results in the Windows Server 2012 not correctly recognizing that the source volume is unknown to the Storage Center. Without the failure code Windows will continually retry the same request which will fail. Due to the large number of failed requests, MPIO will mark the path as down. Performing ODX operations between Storage Center volumes will work and is not exposed to this issue.

You might think that this is not a problem as you might only use Compellent storage but think again. Local disks on the hosts where data is stored temporarily and external storage you use to transport data in and out of your datacenter, or copy backups to are all use cases we can encounter.  When ODX is enabled, it is by default on Windows 2012(R2), the file system will try to use it and when that fails use normal (non ODX) operations. All of this is transparent to the users. Now MPIO will mark the Compellent path as down. Ouch. I will not risk that. Any IO between an non Compellent LUN and a Compellent LUN might cause this to happen.

The only workaround for now is to disable ODX on all your hosts. To me that’s unacceptable and I will not be upgrading to 6.7 for now. We rely on ODX to gain performance benefits at both the physical and virtual layer. We even have our SMB 3 capable clients in the branch offices leverage ODX to avoid costly data copies to our clustered Transparent Failover File Servers.

When a version arrives that fix the issue I’Il testing even more elaborate than before. We’ve come to pay attention to performance issues or data corruption with many vendors, models and releases but this MPIO issue is a new one for me.

ReFS vNext Block Cloning and ODX


With Windows Server 2016 we also get a new version of ReFS, which I’ll designate aptly as ReFS vNext. It offers a few new abstractions that allow applications and virtualization to control how files are created, copied and moved. The features that are crucial to this are block cloning and data tiering.

Block cloning allows to clone any block of a file into any other block of another file. These operations are based on low cost metadata actions. Block cloning remaps logical clusters (physical locations on a volume) form the source region to the destination region. It’s important to note that this works within the same file or between files. This combined with “allocate on write” ensures isolation between those regions, which basically means files will not over write each other’s data if they happen to reference the same region and one of them writes to that region. Likewise, for a single file, if a region is written to, that changed data will not pop up in the other region. You can learn more about it on this MSDN page on block cloning which explains this further.

ReFS vNext does not do this for every workload by default. It’s done on behalf of an application that calls block cloning, such as Hyper-V for example when merging VHDX files. For these purposes the meta data operations counting references to regions make data copies within a volume fast as it avoids reading and writing of all the data when creating a new file from an existing one, which would mean a full data copy. It also allows reordering data in a new file as with checkpoint merging and it also allows for “data projection” where data can be projected form one area in to another without an actual copy. That’s how speed is achieved.

Now some of the benefits of ReFS vNext are tied into Storage Space Direct. Such as the tiering capability in relation to the use of erasure encoding / parity to get the best out of a fast tier and a slower tier without losing too much capacity due to multiple full data copies. See Storage Spaces Direct in Technical Preview 4 for more information on this.

I’m still very much a student of all this and I advise you to follow up via blogs and documentation form Microsoft as they become available.

What does it mean?

In the end it’s all about making the best use of available resources. The one that you already have and the one that you will own in the future. This lowers TCO and increases ROI. It’s not just about being fast but also optimizing the use of capacity while protecting data. There is one golden rule in storage: “Thou shalt not lose data”.

For now, even when you’re not yet in a position to evaluate Storage Space Direct, ReFS vNext on existing storage show a lot of promise as well. I have blogged about file creation speeds (VHDX files) in this blog post: Lightning Fast Fixed VHDX File Creation Speed With ReFS vNext on Windows Server 2016. In another blog post, Accelerated Checkpoint merging with ReFS vNext in Windows Server 2016 you can read about the early results I’ve seen with Hyper-V checkpoint merging in Windows Server 2016 Technical Preview 4. These two examples are pretty amazing and those results are driven by ReFS metadata operations as well.

Does it replace ODX?

While the results so far are impressive and I’m looking forward to more of this, it does not replace ODX. It complements it. But why would we want that you might ask, as we’ve seen in some early testing that it seems to beat ODX in speed? It’s high time to take a look at ReFS vNext Block Cloning and ODX in Windows Server 2016 TPv4.

The reality is that sometimes you’ll probably don’t want ODX to be used as the capabilities of ReFS vNext will provide for better (faster) results. But sometimes ReFS vNext cannot do this. When? Block cloning for all practical purposes works within a volume. That means can only do its magic with data living on the same volume. So when you copy data between two volumes on the same LUN or between volumes on a different LUNs you will not see those speed improvements. So for deploying templates stored on another LUN/CSV fast it’s not that useful. Likewise, if for space issues or performance issues you were storing your checkpoints on a different LUN you will not see the benefits of ReFS vNext block cloning when merging those checkpoints. So you will have to revise certain design and deployment decisions you made in the past. Sometimes you can do this, sometime you can’t. But as ODX works at the array level (or beyond in certain federated systems) you can get excellent speeds wile copying data between volumes / LUNs on the same server, between volumes / LUNs on different servers. You can also leverage SMB 3.0 to have ODX kick in when it makes sense to avoid senseless data copies etc. So ODX has its own strengths and benefits ReFS vNext cannot touch and vice versa. But they complement each other beautifully.

So as ReFS vNext demonstrates ODX like behavior, often outperforming ODX, you cannot just compare those two head on. They have their own strengths. Just remember and realize that ReFS vNext actually does support ODX so when it’s applicable it can be leveraged. That’s one thing I did not understand form the start. This is beginning to sound like an ideal world where ReFS vNext shines whenever its features are the better choice while it can leverage the strengths of ODX – if the underlying storage array provides it – for those scenarios where ReFS vNext cannot do its magic as described above.

The Future

I’m not the architect at Microsoft working on ReFS vNext. I do know however, that a bunch of very smart people is working on that file system. They see, hear and listen to our experiments, results, and requests. ReFS is getting a lot of renewed attention in Windows Server 2016 as the preferred file system for Storage Space Direct and as such for CSVs. Hyper-V is clearly very much on board with leveraging the capabilities of ReFS vNext. The excellent results of that, which we can see in speeding up VHDX creation/ extending and checkpoint merges, are testimony to this. So I’m guessing this file system is far from done and is going places. I’m expecting more and more workloads to start leveraging the ReFS vNext capabilities. I can see ReFS itself also become more and more feature complete and for example Microsoft has now stated that they are working on deduplication for ReFS, although they do not yet have any specifics on release plans. It makes sense that they are doing this. To me, a more feature complete ReFS being leveraged in ever more uses cases is the way forward. For now, we’ll have to wait and see what the future holds but I am positive albeit a bit impatient. As always I’m providing Microsoft with my feedback and wishes. If and when they make sense and are feasible they probably have them on their roadmap or I might give them an idea for a better product, which is good for me as a customer or partner.

Lightning Fast Fixed VHDX File Creation Speed With ReFS on Windows Server 2016

In this blog post we’re going to take a quick look at the lightning fast fixed VHDX file creation speed with ReFS on Windows Server 2016. We’ll compare it to creating fixed VHDX files On NTFS with a SAN that supports ODX. Both the NTFS and the CSV volume are CSV disk in a Hyper-V cluster and the test is run on the same node. The ODX cabale SAN is a Dell Compellent with Storage Center 6.5.20.

We create on  a selection of fixed VHDX files sizes (50GB, 100GB, 500GB and 1TB) on NTFS volume Windows Server 2016 host You can see the quite excellent results in file creation speeds with ODX.


These results are very good (DELL Compellent always did a great job implementing ODX) and the time to create a 1TB fixed VHDX is just over 5 seconds consistently. Impressive by any standard I would say! When we start using CSVs we can see that times double for the larger VHDX sizes but still +/- 12seconds for a 1TB disk is impressive by any standard. There is little difference whether the node where the script runs owns the CSV or not.



Can things be more impressive? Let’s do the same exercise on a ReFS volume on a Windows Server 2016 host. Same server, same SAN with ODX enabled but note that ReFS does not even support ODX, so it cannot be leveraged.


No matter what the file size of our fixed VHDX files they are created in just over 1 second consistently. This is very impressive.


When we use a CVS LUN we still see the same impressive results. On CSV LUNS not owned by the node where we execute the test script we see a creation time of 2 seconds for VHDX sizes of 1TB. Still lightning fast.

If you do not have a SAN that supports ODX you can see why ReFS might become a very attractive choice for the file system for your Hyper-V virtual machine data volumes in Windows Server 2016. I can see why they mentioned it as the preferred option for Storage Spaces Direct. Do note that ReFS does not support deduplication and/or UNMAP (I see no dedupe support yet for virtual server workloads on the horizon either yet?). If you move large amounts of data around ODX does provide significant assistance with this. So with ReFS go for a large SSD tier. Flash only without deduplication or erasure coding might be cost prohibitive I’m afraid.

But let this not put you off ReFS. It has many benefits in combination with storage spaces and these new VHDX operation capabilities just add to that. So for many environments with commodity based storage this has become an even more interesting choice.

SMB 3, ODX, Windows Server 2012 R2 & Windows 8.1 perform magic in file sharing for both corporate & branch offices

SMB 3 for Transparent Failover File Shares

SMB 3 gives us lots of goodies and one of them is Transparent Failover which allows us to make file shares continuously available on a cluster. I have talked about this before in Transparent Failover & Node Fault Tolerance With SMB 2.2 Tested (yes, that was with the developer preview bits after BUILD 2011, I was hooked fast and early) and here Continuously Available File Shares Don’t Support Short File Names – "The request is not supported" & “CA failure – Failed to set continuously available property on a new or existing file share as Resume Key filter is not started.”


This is an awesome capability to have. This also made me decide to deploy Windows 8 and now 8.1 as the default client OS. The fact that maintenance (it the Resume Key filter that makes this possible) can now happen during day time and patches can be done via Cluster Aware Updating is such a win-win for everyone it’s a no brainer. Just do it. Even better, it’s continuous availability thanks to the Witness service!

When the node running the file share crashes, the clients will experience a somewhat long delay in responsiveness but after 10 seconds the continue where they left off when the role has resumed on the other node. Awesome! Learn more bout this here Continuously Available File Server: Under the Hood and SMB Transparent Failover – making file shares continuously available.

Windows Clients also benefits from ODX

But there is more it’s SMB 3 & ODX that brings us even more goodness. The offloading of read & write to the SAN saving CPU cycles and bandwidth. Especially in the case of branch offices this rocks. SMB 3 clients who copy data between files shares on Windows Server 2012 (R2) that has storage an a ODX capable SAN get the benefit that the transfer request is translated to ODX by the server who gets a token that represents the data. This token is used by Windows to do the copying and is delivered to the storage array who internally does all the heavy lifting and tell the client the job is done. No more reading data form disk, translating it into TCP/IP, moving it across the wire to reassemble them on the other side and write them to disk.


To make ODX happen we need a decent SAN that supports this well. A DELL Compellent shines here. Next to that you can’t have any filter drives on the volumes that don’t support offloaded read and write. This means that we need to make sure that features like data deduplication support this but also that 3rd party vendors for anti-virus and backup don’t ruin the party.


In the screenshot above you can see that Windows data deduplication supports ODX. And if you run antivirus on the host you have to make sure that the filter driver supports ODX. In our case McAfee Enterprise does. So we’re good. Do make sure to exclude the cluster related folders & subfolders from on access scans and schedules scans.

Do not run DFS Namespace servers on the cluster nodes. The DfsDriver does not support ODX!


The solution is easy, run your DFS Namespaces servers separate from your cluster hosts, somewhere else. That’s not a show stopper.

The user experience

What it looks like to a user? Totally normal except for the speed at which the file copies happen.

Here’s me copying an ISO file from a file share on server A to a file share on server B from my Windows 8.1 workstation at the branch office in another city, 65 KM away from our data center and connected via a 200Mbps pipe (MPLS).


On average we get about 300 MB/s or 2.4 Gbps, which “over” a 200Mbps WAN is a kind of magic. I assure you that they’re not complaining and get used to this quite (too) fast Winking smile.

The IT Pro experience

Leveraging SMB 3 and ODX means we avoid that people consume tons of bandwidth over the WAN and make copying large data sets a lot faster. On top of that the CPU cycles and bandwidth on the server are conserved for other needs as well. All this while we can failover the cluster nodes without our business users being impacted. Continuous to high availability, speed, less bandwidth & CPU cycles needed. What’s not to like?

Pretty cool huh! These improvements help out a lot and we’ve paid for them via software assurance so why not leverage them? Light up your IT infrastructure and make it shine.

What’s stopping you?

So what are your plans to leverage your software assurance benefits? What’s stopping you? When I asked that I got a couple of answers:

  • I don’t have money for new hardware. Well my SAN is also pré Windows 2012 (DELL Compellent SC40 controllers. I just chose based on my own research not on what VARs like to sell to get maximal kickbacks Winking smile. The servers I used are almost 4 years old but fully up to date DELL PowerEdge R710’s, recuperated from their duty as Hyper-V hosts. These server easily last us 6 years and over time we collected some spare servers for parts or replacement after the support expires. DELL doesn’t take away your access to firmware &drivers like some do and their servers aren’t artificially crippled in feature set.
  • Skills? Study, learn, test! I mean it, no excuse!
  • Bad support from ISV an OEMs for recent Windows versions are holding you back? Buy other brands, vote with your money and do not accept their excuses. You pay them to deliver.

As IT professionals we must and we can deliver. This is only possible as the result of sustained effort & planning. All the labs, testing, studying helps out when I’m designing and deploying solutions. As I take the entire stack into account in designs and we do our due diligence, I know it will work. The fact that being active in the community also helps me know early on what vendors & products have issues and makes that we can avoid the “marchitecture” solutions that don’t deliver when deployed. You can achieve this as well, you just have to make it happen. That’s not too expensive or time consuming, at least a lot less than being stuck after you spent your money.