VMware Metro Storage Cluster Explained – Part 1: The Challenge
What is a Metro Storage Cluster?
First and foremost, vMSC stands for vSphere Metro Storage Cluster, that is, a vSphere HA/DRS cluster stretched over distance. After attending Duncan Epping & Lee Dilworth’s presentation at VMworld 2013 on vSphere Metro Storage Clusters (Session BCO4872, see above video), it got me thinking about writing this article.
The use case for vMSC is pretty clear….to provide VM mobility and resilience across data centers. As a storage practitioner for 12 years, one of the achilles heels of Inter-Data Center Failover has been not only the Ethernet network, but also the storage replication mechanism used. Maintaining consistent IP connectivity during and after failover events can present complications, but these can be surmounted using Layer-2 LAN extensions, DNS and other technology.
Meeting the challenge using (pretty dumb) array-based replication just doesn’t cut it, in terms of making for seamless failover/failback of the compute function. Software like SRM is a great solution for meeting the challenge of planned failover with some downtime in an orchestrated manner.
Most would acknowledge there is a big difference between disaster recovery and fault tolerance. To recap, Fault Tolerance is not about N+1, N+2, or N+anything. It requires a solution that ensures zero disruption, with zero operational intervention. That applies to any system, either hardware or software. It also applies to solutions.
Data center FT is the ability to withstand the failure of the entire data center (a term to describe a single set of systems in a single place) and not experience a blip, or notice anything discernible.
When we talk about stretch clusters, there are two consumable resources that need to be stretched:
- In order to continue to seamlessly present the logical IP address (virtual IP) of the application, we need to stretch the Layer-2 network between the sites. This means no “magic” needs to be used, such as logical IP address masking/NAT. There are solutions like Cisco OTV in use today to do this, and as we have seen how NSX and NVGRE accomplish similar results.
- This is normally the problem. How can you have storage that is available at both sites in the correct state that doesn’t require careful consideration of all the pitfalls in different failure scenarios.
The Picture Today
Let’s evaluate a scenario to illustrate the challenges. We have the following topology:
- Two Data Centers called “Dublin North” and “Dublin South”, 8.5 km apart.
- A vSphere 5 cluster with Layer-2 extension between sites.
- A customer using Dark Fibre as a physical transport so latency is less than 1ms for the Ethernet network.
- Two separate Fibre Channel fabrics, stretched using long wave GBICs.
- vCenter is running in a VM with “should” DRS affinity to the Dublin North vSphere Host group.
- Two ESXi hosts in each site.
- Array based replication is being used – in this case synchronous.
- One side of each device pairing is Read-Write for each LUN/Volume. The other side is Write-Disabled (these will be referred to as RW and WD).
- The solution has been fully qualified by the storage vendor.
This is what it looks like:
The deployment model is well understood. At all times a LUN in each device group is served from a single array, where it is only ever RW on one side. The LUN state changes when a failure occurs, or a planned failover migration is carried out. This is obviously a messy situation when a single site or interconnect between sites disappears. We can enter a split-brain scenario, where there is potential for data loss or data corruption. That’s a longer discussion for another day, possibly in a future post.
It’s very surprising that this type of thing still goes on. But then this is the only way this setup can work.
Is there a better way ? Yes. In the Software Defined Data Centre anything is possible.
The Alternative to Using Software RAID
Let’s go back in time. While vSphere was gaining prominence, Veritas was a mainstay in Enterprise Software, particularly in mission-critical UNIX environments. Veritas Volume Manager was a product used widely in SAN environments. It’s primary role was to provide Software Raid, but it had a lot of features that were used for managing in-array, and intra-array replication and LUN presentation.
It was used in my experience to create a different, fault tolerant architecture that was simpler to manage.
When partnered with Veritas Cluster Server (VCS), it made for simple scalable clusters that could be stretched over distance. Back in the early 2000’s, it was possible to deploy up to a 32–node VCS cluster. This was mainly due to the proprietary cluster communication protocols that imposed a lower overhead.
So I’m going to use a this example to show what might be possible. Let’s turn off array-based replication and in a way, treat the Storage Array like a JBOD device. This is a similar model to that being followed by VMware VSAN, bringing the capability back into the software.
In part 2 of the series I’m going to talk about how using an approach like this can solve many of these challenges and further demonstrate the benefits of the Software Defined DataCenter (SDDC).