database | flashdba

The Biggest Gap In The Clouds? High Performance RDBMS

December 13, 2021 Leave a comment

Over the course of the last few blog posts, we’ve looked at how an increasing number of database workloads are migrating to the cloud, how there is more than one path to get there… and why overprovisioning is one of the biggest challenges to overcome.

We’re talking about business-critical application workloads here: big, complex, demanding, mission-critical, sensitive, performance-hungry… When on-prem, they are almost certainly running on dedicated, high-end infrastructure. And that’s a potential issue when you then migrate them to run on “someone else’s computer“.

As we’ve discussed before, the cloud is really a big pool of discrete resources and services, all of which are available on demand. You want a managed PostgreSQL instance? Click! It’s yours. You want three hundred virtual machines on which you can install your own software? Clickety-click! Off you go. If you’ve got the budget, the cloud has got a way for you to spend it. But underneath it all, whether you are using PaaS databases supplied by the cloud provider or installing the database software on IaaS systems, you are sharing that infrastructure – and the available performance – with the rest of the world.

Cloud Outcomes: Optimization versus Modernization

For some database workloads moving to the cloud, the modernization path will be the best fit, which means they will likely move to Platform-as-a-Service solutions where the day-to-day management of the database, operating system and infrastructure is taken care of by the cloud provider. Some examples of this path: on-prem SQL Server databases moving to Azure SQL Managed Instances; Oracle Databases moving to AWS’s Oracle RDS solution, etc.

But there is usually a certain class of database workload which doesn’t easily fit into these pre-packaged PaaS solutions: the big, the complex, the gnarly… the monsters of your data centre. And they inevitably end up in Infrastructure-as-a-Service… or stuck on-prem. For customers choosing the IaaS route (the “optimization path” in cloud-speak), the cloud provider manages the infrastructure but the customer is still responsible for the database and operating system.

Obviously, IaaS has a higher management overhead than PaaS, but often the journey to IaaS is simpler (essentially more of a lift and shift approach), while PaaS solutions often require a more complex migration. Especially with some cloud providers, where the recommended PaaS solution is actually a different database product entirely (for example, Oracle customers moving to Google Cloud or Microsoft Azure will be recommended by those cloud providers to move to Cloud SQL and Managed PostgreSQL respectively).

I/O Performance Is The Biggest Challenge

My view is that PaaS solutions are the best path for all appropriate workloads, but there will always be some outliers which need to move to IaaS. Almost by definition, those are the most high-profile, demanding, expensive, revenue-affecting… in fact… the most interesting workloads. And in all the cases I’ve seen*, I/O performance has been the limiting factor.

It’s relatively easy to get a lot of compute power in the cloud. But as soon as you start ramping up the amount of data you need to read and write, or demanding that those reads and writes have very fast, predictable response times, you hit problems. In other words, if latency, IOPS or throughput are your metrics of choice, you’d better be ready to start doing unnatural things.

And it’s not necessarily the case that your required level of performance cannot be achieved. Often, it’s more correct to say that your required levels of performance cannot be achieved at an acceptable cost. Because it turns out that the following statement is just as true in the cloud as it ever was on-prem:

Performance and Cost are two sides of the same coin…

This is why I believe that the biggest gap in the cloud providers’ product portfolios today is in the area of high performance relational databases: primarily Oracle Database and Microsoft SQL Server. The PaaS solutions are designed for the average workloads, not the high-end. A complex database running on, for example, Oracle Exadata will struggle to run on a vanilla IaaS deployment – while the refactoring required to take that database and migrate it to Managed PostreSQL is almost unimaginable.

And so, now, we have finally come to the point: the Silk Platform. I have spent the last few years at Silk bringing to market a solution specifically for this problem. Over the next few posts, I’m going to explain what Silk is and how we built our solution to deliver very high performance for databases in the cloud.

But you won’t have to rely on just my word for it. I have backup 🙂

* I work primarily with customers of Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud

Filed under Blog, Cloud, Database, Storage Tagged with Cloud, database, oracle, public cloud, sql

Cloud Compromises: Constrained and Optimized CPUs

August 17, 2021 Leave a comment

Imagine the scenario where you wonder into a clothing store to buy a t-shirt. You find a design you like in size “Medium” but it’s too tight (I guess #lockdown has been unkind to us all…) so you ask for the next size up. But when it arrives, you notice something bizarre: the “Large” is not only wider and longer, it also has an extra arm hole. Yes, there are enough holes for three arms as well as your head. Even more bizarrely, the “XL” size has four sets of sleeves, while the “Small” has only one and the “XS” none at all!

Surprisingly, this analogy is very applicable to cloud computing, where properties like compute power, memory, network bandwidth, capacity and performance are often tied together. As we saw in the previous post, a requirement for a certain amount of read I/O Operations Per Second (IOPS) can result in the need to overprovision unwanted capacity and possibly even unnecessary amounts of compute power.

But there is one situation where this causes extra levels of pain: when the workload in question is database software which is licensable by CPU cores (e.g. Oracle Database, Microsoft SQL Server).

To extend the opening analogy into total surrealism, imagine that the above clothing store exists in a state which collects a Sleeve Tax of %100 of the item value per sleeve. Now, your chosen t-shirt might be $40 but the Medium size will cost you $120, the Large $160 and the XXXXXL (suitable for octopods) a massive $360.

Luckily, the cloud providers have a way to help you out here. But it kind of sucks…

Constrained / Optimized VM Sizes

If you need large amounts of memory or I/O, the chances are you will have to pick a VM type which has a larger number of cores. But if you don’t want to buy databases licenses for these additional cores (because you don’t need the extra CPU power), you can choose to restrict the VM instance so that it only uses a subset of the total available cores. This is similar to the concept of logical partitioning which you may already have used on prem. Here are two examples of this practice from the big hyperscalers:

Microsoft Azure: Constrained vCPU capable VM sizes

Amazon Web Services: Introducing Optimize CPUs for Amazon EC2 Instances

As you can see, Microsoft and AWS have different names for this concept, but the idea is the same. You provision, let’s say, a 128 vCPU instance and then you restrict it to only using, for example, 32 vCPUs. Boom – you’ve dropped your database license requirement to 25% of the total number of vCPUs. Ok so you only get the compute performance of 25% too, but that’s still a big win on the license cost… right?

Well yes but…

There’s a snag. You still have to pay the full cost of the virtual machine despite only using a fraction of its resources. The monthly cost from the cloud provider is the same as if you were using the whole machine!

To quote Amazon (emphasis mine):

Please note that CPU optimized instances will have the same price as full-sized EC2 instances of the same size.

Or to quote the slightly longer version from Microsoft (emphasis mine):

The licensing fees charged for SQL Server or Oracle are constrained to the new vCPU count, and other products should be charged based on the new vCPU count. This results in a 50% to 75% increase in the ratio of the VM specs to active (billable) vCPUs. These new VM sizes allow customer workloads to use the same memory, storage, and I/O bandwidth while optimizing their software licensing cost. At this time, the compute cost, which includes OS licensing, remains the same one as the original size.

It’s great to be able to avoid the (potentially astronomical) cost of unnecessary database licences, but this is still a massive compromise – and the cost will add up over each month you are billed for compute cores that you literally cannot use. Again, this is the public cloud demonstrating that inefficiency and overprovisioning are to be accepted as a way of life.

Surely there must be a better way?

Spoiler alert: there IS a better way

Filed under Blog, Cloud, Database, Storage Tagged with Cloud, database, oracle, overprovisioning, sql

Overprovisioning: The Curse Of The Cloud

August 2, 2021 Leave a comment

I want you to imagine that you check in to a nice hotel. You’ve had a good day and you feel like treating yourself, so you decide to order breakfast in your room for the following morning. Why not? You fill out the menu checkboxes… Let’s see now: granola, toast, coffee, some fruit. Maybe a juice. That will do nicely.

You hang the menu on the door outside, but later a knock at the door brings bad news: You can only order a maximum of three items for breakfast. What? That’s crazy… but no amount of arguing will change their rules. Yet you really don’t want to choose just three of your five items. So what do you do? The answer is simple: you pay for a second hotel room so you can order a second breakfast.

Welcome to the world of overprovisioning.

Overprovisioning = Inefficiency

Overprovisioning is the act of deploying – and paying for – resources you don’t need, usually as a compromise to get enough of some other resource. It’s a technical challenge which results in a commercial or financial penalty. More simply, it’s just inefficiency.

The history of Information Technology is full of examples of this as well as technologies to overcome it: virtualization is a solution designed to overcome the inefficiency of deploying multiple physical servers; containerisation overcomes the inefficiency of virtualising a complete operating system many times… it’s all about being more efficient so you don’t have to pay for resources you don’t really need.

In the cloud, the biggest source of overprovisioning is the way that cloud resources like compute, memory, network bandwidth, storage capacity and performance are packaged together. If you need one of these in abundance, the chances are you will need to pay for more of the others regardless of whether they are required or not.

Overprovisioning = Compromise

As an example, at the time of writing, Google Cloud Platform’s pd-balanced block storage options provide 6 read IOPS and 6 write IOPS per GB of capacity:

* Persistent disk IOPS and throughput performance depends on disk size, instance vCPU count, and I/O block size, among other factors.

Consider a 1TB database with a reasonable requirement of 30,000 read IOPS during peak load. To build a solution capable of this, 5000GB (i.e. 5TB) of capacity would need to be provisioned… meaning 80% of the capacity is wasted!

Worse still, the “Read IOPS per instance” row of the table tells us that some of the available GCP instance types may not be able to hit our 30,000 requirement, meaning we may have to (over)provision a larger virtual machine type and pay for cores and RAM that aren’t necessary (by the way, I’m not picking on GCP here, this is common to all public clouds).

But the real sucker punch is that, if this database is licensed by CPU cores (e.g. Oracle, SQL Server) and we are having to overprovision CPU cores to get the required IOPS numbers, we now have to pay for additional, unwanted – and very expensive – database licenses.

Overprovisioning = Overpaying

My (old) front door

Let’s not imagine that this is a new phenomenon. If you’ve ever over-specced a server in your data centre (me), if you’ve ever convinced your boss that you need the Enterprise Edition of something because you thought it would be better for your career prospects (also me), or if you’ve ever spent £350 on a thermal imaging camera just so you can win an argument about whether you need a new front door (I neither admit nor deny this) then you have been overprovisioning.

It’s just that the whole nature of cloud computing, with it’s self-service, on-demand, limitlessly-scalable charateristics make it so easy to overprovision things all the time. So while the amounts may seem small when shown on the cloud provider’s Price per hour list, when you multiply them by the number of VMs, the number of regions and the number of hours in a year, they start to look massive on your bill.

And when you consider the knock on effects on database licensing, things really get painful. But let’s save that for the next blog post…

Filed under Blog, Cloud, Database, Storage Tagged with Cloud, database, overprovisioning

The Battle For Your Databases

January 26, 2021 1 Comment

There’s a battle going on right now between all of the public cloud vendors – a war in the clouds. And you might be surprised to hear what they are fighting over… They are fighting over you. Or, more specifically, your business-critical databases.

Everybody has something in the cloud these days. On a personal level, we are all keeping our photos, our music and our emails in the cloud. Corporations have followed suit: email, document collaboration and workflow, backups, websites… Almost everything is in the cloud. Almost.

The Big Scary Stuff That Nobody Wants To Move

Pretty much every company with an on-prem presence will have one or more relational databases underpinning their critical applications. Oracle Database, Microsoft SQL Server, PostgreSQL, DB/2 (the forgotten database of yesteryear: it’s still out there, but nobody likes to talk about it), MySQL… these products support mission critical applications like CRM, ERM, e-commerce, all those SAP modules that I can never remember the names of… And in each industry vertical, there are critical systems: healthcare has Electronic Patient Records, retail has its warehouse management platforms, finance has all manner of systems labelled Do Not Touch.

These workloads are the last bastion of on-prem, the final stand of the privately-managed data centre. And just like mainframes, on-prem may never completely die, but we should expect to see it fade away this decade. The challenge, though, is the inertia caused by such massive amounts of complexity and the associated risk of disturbing it. I have witnessed DBA teams who draw lots over which unfortunate will have to log on to “that database”, the one in the corner that nobody understands or wants to touch when it’s working ok. So how are they going to migrate that entire thing into AWS or Azure? Everybody knows a story about an eighteen-month migration project that overran budget by 1000% and then failed, right?

The View From The Clouds

So you may ask, if all this complex, gnarly stuff is full of risk, why do the hyperscalers want it? The answer is, because this is the biggest game left on the hunting ground. These vast technology stacks are the crown jewels of on-prem data estates. If you are Cloud Vendor A, there are some important reasons why you really want to capture this workload into your cloud:

Big applications and databases require a large recurring spend on premium cloud infrastructure
Customers are used to spending large amounts of money to run these services
The surrounding application ecosystem offers potential for the upsell of further cloud services (analytics, AI, business intelligence etc)
Once that workload comes into your cloud, it’s probably never leaving. In other words, it’s a long-term guaranteed revenue stream.

The last point is especially important: vendors use the term sticky to describe workloads like this. The effort of migrating all that sensitive, critical data and all that impenetrable business logic (written ten years ago by developers who have long since moved on) means you are never going to want to do this more than once. Once it’s in, it’s in.

A Massive Anchor

Working with one of the hyperscalers, I have heard these databases described as anchor workloads (credit: Kellyn Pot’vin Gorman) because they are what holds back the migration of large, juicy and complex environments into the public cloud. Like the biggest beast on the savannah, they are the hardest to take down… but a successful capture means everybody gets to eat until they are full.

So if this is you – if you are in fact a massive anchor – it’s probably worth keeping this in mind. Migrating your complex, challenging workload to the public cloud might seem like a mammoth task from your perspective, but to the hyperscalers you are the goose that lays the golden egg. And they can’t wait to get cracking.

Side note: I originally planned to call this post “Cloud Wars”, but I discovered that my former Oracle colleague, the inestimable Bob Evans, had beaten me to it…

Filed under Blog, Cloud, Database Tagged with Cloud, database, public cloud

The Public Cloud: The Hotel For Your Applications

October 22, 2020 Leave a comment

Unless you are Larry Ellison (hi Larry!), the chances are you probably live in a normal house or an apartment, maybe with your family. You have a limited number of bedrooms, so if you want to have friends or relatives come to stay with you, there will come point where you cannot fit anybody else in without it being uncomfortable. Of course, for a large investment of time and money, you could extend your existing accommodation or maybe buy somewhere bigger, but that feels a bit extreme if you only want to invite a few people On to your Premises for the weekend.

Another option would be to sell up and move into a hotel. Pick the right hotel and you have what is effectively a limitless ability to scale up your accommodation – now everybody can come and stay in comfort. And as an added bonus, hotels take care of many dull or monotonous daily tasks: cooking, cleaning, laundry, valet parking… Freeing up your time so you can concentrate on more important, high-level tasks – like watching Netflix. And the commercial model is different too: you only pay for rooms on the days when you use them. There is no massive up-front capital investment in property, no need to plan for major construction works at the end of your five year property refresh cycle. It’s true pay-as-you-go!

It’s The Cloud, Stupid

The public cloud really is the hotel for your applications and databases. Moving from an investment model to a consumption-based expense model? Tick. Effectively limitless scale on demand? Tick. Being relieved of all the low-level operational tasks that come with running your own infrastructure? Tick. Watching more Netflix? Definite Tick.

But, of course, the public cloud isn’t better (or worse) than On Prem, it’s just different. It has potential benefits, like those above, but it also has potential disadvantages which stem from the fact that it’s a pre-packaged service, a common offering. Everyone has different, unique requirements but the major cloud providers cannot tailor everything they do to you individual needs – that level of customisation would dilute their profit margins. So you have to adapt your needs to their offering.

To illustrate this, we need to talk about car parking:

Welcome To The Hotel California

So… you decide to uproot your family and move into one of Silicon Valley’s finest hotels (maybe we could call it Hotel California?) so you can take advantage of all those cloud benefits discussed above. But here’s the problem, your $250/day suite only comes with one allocated parking bay in the hotel garage, yet your family has two cars. You can “burst” up by parking in the visitor spaces, but that costs $50/day and there is no guarantee of availability, so the only solution which guarantees you a second allocated bay is to rent a second room from the hotel!

This is an example of how the hotel product doesn’t quite fit with your requirements, so you have to bend your requirement to their offering – at the sacrifice of cost efficiency. (Incurring the cost of a second room that you don’t always need is called overprovisioning.) It happens all the time in every industry: any time a customer has to fit a specific requirement to a vendor’s generic offering, something somewhere won’t quite fit – and the only way to fix it is to pay more.

The public cloud is full of situations like this. The hyperscalers have extensive offerings but their size means they are less flexible to individual needs. Smaller cloud companies can be more attentive to an individual customer’s requirements, but lack the economies of scale of companies like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google, meaning their products are less complete and their prices potentially higher. The only real way to get exactly what you want 100% of the time is… of course… to host your data on your own kit, managed by you, on your premises.

Such A Lovely Place

I should state here for the record that I am not anti-public cloud. Far from it. I just think it’s important to understand the implications of moving to the public cloud. There are a lot of articles written about this journey – and many of them talk about “giving up control of your data”. I’m not sure I entirely buy that argument, other than in a literal data-sovereignty sense, but one thing I believe to be absolutely beyond doubt is that a move to the public cloud will require an inevitable amount of compromise.

That should be the end of this post, but I’m afraid that I cannot now pass up the opportunity to mention one other compromise of the public cloud, purely because it fits into the Hotel California theme. I know, I’m a sucker for a punchline.

You and your family have enjoyed your break at the hotel, but you feel that it’s not completely working – those car parking charges, the way you aren’t allowed to decorate the walls of your room, the way the hotel suddenly discontinued Netflix and replaced it with Crackle. What the …? So you decide to move out, maybe to another hotel or maybe back to your own premises. But that’s when you remember about the egress charges; for every family member checking out of the hotel, you have to pay $50,000. Yikes!

I guess it turns out that, just like with the cloud, you can check out anytime you like… but you can never leave.

Filed under Blog, Cloud, Database, Storage Tagged with Cloud, database, public cloud

Databases Now Live In The Cloud

September 22, 2020 Leave a comment

I recently stumbled across a tech news post which surprised me so much I nearly dropped my mojito. The headline of this article screamed:

Gartner Says the Future of the Database Market Is the Cloud

Now I know what you are thinking… the first two words probably put your cynicism antenna into overdrive. And as for the rest, well duh! You could make a case for any headline which reads “The Future of ____________ is the Cloud”. Databases, Artificial Intelligence, Retail, I.T., video streaming, the global economy… But stick with me, because it gets more interesting:

On-Premises DBMS Revenue Continues to Decrease as DBMS Market Shifts to the Cloud

Yeah, not yet. That’s just a predictable sub-heading, I admit. But now we get to the meat of the article – and it’s the very first sentence which turns everything upside down:

By 2022, 75% of all databases will be deployed or migrated to a cloud platform, with only 5% ever considered for repatriation to on-premises, according to Gartner, Inc.

Boom! By the year 2022, 75% of all databases will be in the cloud! Even with the cloud so ubiquitous these days, that number caused me some surprise.

Also, I have so many questions about this:

Does “a cloud platform” mean the public cloud? One would assume so but the word “public” doesn’t appear anywhere in the article.
Does “all databases” include RDBMS, NoSQL, key-value stores, what? Does it include Microsoft Access?
Is the “75%” measured by the number of individual databases, by capacity, by cost, by the number of instances or by the number of down-trodden DBAs who are trying to survive yet another monumental shift in their roles?
How do databases perform in the public cloud?

Now, I’m writing this in mid-2020, in the middle of the global COVID19 pandemic. The article, which is a year old and so pre-COVID19, makes the prediction that this will come true within the next two years. It doesn’t allow for the possibility of a total meltdown of society or the likelihood that the human race will be replaced by Amazon robots within that timeframe. But, on the assumption that we aren’t all eating out of trash cans by then, I think the four questions above need to be addressed.

Questions 1, 2 and 3 appear to be the domain of the authors of this Gartner report. But question 4 opens up a whole new area for investigation – and that will be the topic of this next set of blogs. But let’s finish reading the Gartner notes first, because there’s more:

“Cloud is now the default platform for managing data”

One of the report’s authors, long-serving and influential Gartner analyst Merv Adrian, wrote an accompanying blog post in which he makes the assertion that “cloud is now the default platform for managing data”.

And just to make sure nobody misunderstands the strength of this claim, he follows it up with the following, even stronger, remark:

On-premises is the past, and only legacy compatibility or special requirements should keep you there.

Now, there will be people who read this who immediately dismiss it as either obvious (“we’re already in the cloud”) or gross exaggeration (“we aren’t leaving our data centre anytime soon”) – such is the fate of the analyst. But I think this is pretty big. Perhaps the biggest shift of the last few decades, in fact.

Why This Is A Big Deal

The move from mainframes to client/server put more power in the hands of the end users; the move to mobile devices freed us from the constraints of physical locations; the move to virtualization released us from the costs and constraints of big iron; but the move to the cloud is something which carries far greater consequences.

After all, the cloud offers many well-known benefits: almost infinite scalability and flexibility, immunity to geographical constraints, costs which are based on usage (instead of up-front capital expenditure), and a massive ecosystem of prebuilt platforms and services.

And all you have to give up in return is complete control of your data.

Oh and maybe also the predictability of your I.T. costs – remember in the old days of cell phones, when you never exactly knew what your bill would look like at the end of the month? Yeah, like that, but with more zeroes on the end.

Over to Merv to provide the final summary (emphasis is mine):

The message in our research is simple – on-premises is the new legacy. Cloud is the future. All organizations, big and small, will be using the cloud in increasing amounts. While it is still possible and probable that larger organizations will maintain on-premises systems, increasingly these will be hybrid in nature, supporting both cloud and on-premises.

The two questions I’m going to be asking next are:

What does this shift to the cloud mean for the unrecognised but true hero of the data center, the DBA?
If we are going to be building or migrating all of our databases to the cloud, how do we address the ever-critical question of database performance?

Link to Source Article from Gartner

Link to Merv Adrian blog post

Filed under Blog, Cloud, Database Tagged with Cloud, database, performance, public cloud

Don’t Call It A Comeback

September 18, 2020 3 Comments

I’ve Been Here For Years…

Ok, look. I know what I said before: I retired the jersey. But like all of the best superheroes, I’ve been forced to come out of retirement and face a fresh challenge… maybe my biggest challenge yet.

Back in 2012, I started this blog at the dawn of a new technology in the data centre: flash memory, also known as solid state storage. My aim was to fight ignorance and misinformation by shining the light of truth upon the facts of storage. Yes, I just used the phrase “the light of truth”, get over it, this is serious. Over five years and more than 200 blog posts, I oversaw the emergence of flash as the dominant storage technology for tier one workloads (basically, databases plus other less interesting stuff). I’m not claiming 100% of the credit here, other people clearly contributed, but it’s fair to say* that without me you would all still be using hard disk drives and putting up with >10ms latencies. Thus I retired to my beach house, secure in the knowledge that my legend was cemented into history.

But then, one day, everything changed…

Everybody knows that Information Technology moves in phases, waves and cycles. Mainframes, client/server, three-tier architectures, virtualization, NoSQL, cloud… every technology seems to get its moment in the sun…. much like me recently, relaxing by the pool with a well-earned mojito. And it just so happened that on this particular day, while waiting for a refill, I stumbled across a tech news article which planted the seed of a new idea… a new vision of the future… a new mission for the old avenger.

It’s time to pull on the costume and give the world the superhero it needs, not the superhero it wants…

Guess who’s back?

* It’s actually not fair to say that at all, but it’s been a while since I last blogged so I have a lot of hyperbole to get off my chest.

Filed under Blog, Cloud, Database, Storage Tagged with Cloud, database, performance, public cloud

New Installation Cookbook: Oracle Linux 6.7 with Oracle 11.2.0.4 RAC

April 13, 2016 1 Comment

I’ve updated my install cookbooks page to include a new cookbook for installation of Oracle 11.2.0.4 Real Application Clusters on Oracle Linux 6.7.

This is also the first one I’ve published since I left the employment of Violin Memory to work for Kaminario, so this install uses a Kaminario K2 All Flash Array. However, it applies very well to any Oracle RAC installation which uses relatively capable storage.

Enjoy:

https://flashdba.com/install-cookbooks/oracle-linux-6-7-with-oracle-11-2-0-4-rac/

Filed under Blog, Cookbooks, Database, Flash, Linux, Storage Tagged with all flash arrays, database, linux, oracle

Oracle’s ASM Filter Driver Revisited

July 29, 2015 10 Comments

Almost exactly a year ago I published a post covering my first impressions of the ASM Filter Driver (ASMFD) released in Oracle 12.1.0.2, followed swiftly by a second post showing that it didn’t work with 4k native devices.

When I wrote that first post I was about to start my summer holidays, so I’m afraid to admit that I was a little sloppy and made some false assumptions toward the end – assumptions which were quickly overturned by eagle-eyed readers in the comments section. So I need to revisit that at some point in this post.

But first, some background.

Some Background

If you don’t know what ASMFD is, let me just quote from the 12.1 documentation:

Oracle ASM Filter Driver (Oracle ASMFD) is a kernel module that resides in the I/O path of the Oracle ASM disks. Oracle ASM uses the filter driver to validate write I/O requests to Oracle ASM disks.

The Oracle ASMFD simplifies the configuration and management of disk devices by eliminating the need to rebind disk devices used with Oracle ASM each time the system is restarted.

The Oracle ASM Filter Driver rejects any I/O requests that are invalid. This action eliminates accidental overwrites of Oracle ASM disks that would cause corruption in the disks and files within the disk group. For example, the Oracle ASM Filter Driver filters out all non-Oracle I/Os which could cause accidental overwrites.

This is interesting, because ASMFD is considered a replacement for Oracle ASMLib, yet the documentation for ASMFD doesn’t make all of the same claims that Oracle makes for ASMLib. Both ASMFD and ASMLib claim to simplify the configuration and management of disk devices, but ASMLib’s documentation also claims that it “greatly reduces kernel resource usage“. Doesn’t ASMFD have this effect too? What is definitely a new feature for ASMFD is the ability to reject invalid (i.e. non-Oracle) I/O operations to ASMFD devices – and that’s what I got wrong last time.

However, before we can revisit that, I need to install ASMFD on a brand new system.

Installing ASMFD

Last time I tried this I made the mistake of installing 12.1.0.2.0 with no patch set updates. Thanks to a reader called terry, I now know that the PSU is a very good idea, so this time I’m using 12.1.0.2.3. First let’s do some preparation.

Preparing To Install

I’m using an Oracle Linux 6 Update 5 system running the Oracle Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel v3:

[root@server4 ~]# cat /etc/oracle-release
Oracle Linux Server release 6.5
[root@server4 ~]# uname -r
3.8.13-26.2.3.el6uek.x86_64

As usual I have taken all of the necessary pre-installation steps to make the Oracle Universal Installer happy. I have disabled selinux and iptables, plus I’ve configured device mapper multipathing. I have two sets of 8 LUNs from my Violin storage: 8 using 512e emulation mode (512 byte logical block size but 4k physical block size) and 8 using 4kN native mode (4k logical and physical block size). If you have any doubts about what that means, read here.

[root@server4 ~]# ls -l /dev/mapper
total 0
crw-rw---- 1 root root 10, 236 Jul 20 16:52 control
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       7 Jul 20 16:53 mpatha -> ../dm-0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       7 Jul 20 16:53 mpathap1 -> ../dm-1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       7 Jul 20 16:53 mpathap2 -> ../dm-2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       7 Jul 20 16:53 mpathap3 -> ../dm-3
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       7 Jul 20 16:53 v4kdata1 -> ../dm-6
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       7 Jul 20 16:53 v4kdata2 -> ../dm-7
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       7 Jul 20 16:53 v4kdata3 -> ../dm-8
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       7 Jul 20 16:53 v4kdata4 -> ../dm-9
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 16:53 v4kdata5 -> ../dm-10
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 16:53 v4kdata6 -> ../dm-11
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 16:53 v4kdata7 -> ../dm-12
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 16:53 v4kdata8 -> ../dm-13
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 17:00 v512data1 -> ../dm-14
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 17:00 v512data2 -> ../dm-15
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 17:00 v512data3 -> ../dm-16
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 17:00 v512data4 -> ../dm-17
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 17:00 v512data5 -> ../dm-18
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 17:00 v512data6 -> ../dm-19
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 17:00 v512data7 -> ../dm-20
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 17:00 v512data8 -> ../dm-21
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8 Jul 20 16:53 vg_halfserver4-lv_home -> ../dm-22
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       7 Jul 20 16:53 vg_halfserver4-lv_root -> ../dm-4
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       7 Jul 20 16:53 vg_halfserver4-lv_swap -> ../dm-5

The 512e devices are shown in green and the 4k devices shown in red. The other devices here can be ignored as they are related to the default filesystem layout of the operating system.

Installing Oracle 12.1.0.2.3 Grid Infrastructure (software only)

This is where the first challenge comes. When you perform a standard install of Oracle 12c Grid Infrastructure you are asked for storage devices on which you can locate items such as the ASM SPFILE, OCR and voting disks. In the old days of using ASMLib you would have prepared these in advance, because ASMLib is a separate kernel module located outside of the Oracle GI home. But ASMFD is part of the Oracle Home and so doesn’t exist prior to installation. Thus we have a chicken and egg situation.

Even worse, I know from bitter experience that I need to install some patches prior to labelling my disks, but I can’t install patches without installing the Oracle home either.

So the only thing for it is to perform a Software Only installation from the Oracle Universal Installer, then apply the PSU, then create an ASM instance and finally label the LUNs with ASMFD. It’s all very long winded. It wouldn’t be a problem if I was migrating from an existing ASMLib setup, but this is a clean install. Such is the price of progress.

To save this post from becoming longer and more unreadable than a 12c AWR report, I’ve captured the entire installation and configuration of 12.1.0.2.3 GI and ASM on a separate installation cookbook page, here:

Installing 12.1.2.0.3 Grid Infrastructure with Oracle Linux 6 Update 5

It’s simpler that way. If you don’t want to go and read it, just take it from me that we now have a working ASM instance which currently has no devices under its control. The PSU has been applied so we are ready to start labelling.

Using ASM Filter Driver to Label Devices

The next step is to start labelling my LUNs with ASMFD. I’m using what the documentation describes as an “Oracle Grid Infrastructure Standalone (Oracle Restart) Environment”, so I’m following this set of steps in the documentation.

Step one tells me to run a dsget command and then a dsset command to add a diskstring of ‘AFD:*’. Ok:

[oracle@server4 ~]$ asmcmd dsget
parameter:
profile:++no-value-at-resource-creation--never-updated-through-ASM++
[oracle@server4 ~]$ asmcmd dsset 'AFD:*'
[oracle@server4 ~]$ asmcmd dsget
parameter:AFD:*
profile:AFD:*

Next I need to stop CRS (I’m using a standalone config so actually it’s HAS):

[root@server4 ~]# crsctl stop has
CRS-2791: Starting shutdown of Oracle High Availability Services-managed resources on 'server4'
CRS-2673: Attempting to stop 'ora.LISTENER.lsnr' on 'server4'
CRS-2673: Attempting to stop 'ora.asm' on 'server4'
CRS-2673: Attempting to stop 'ora.evmd' on 'server4'
CRS-2677: Stop of 'ora.LISTENER.lsnr' on 'server4' succeeded
CRS-2677: Stop of 'ora.evmd' on 'server4' succeeded
CRS-2677: Stop of 'ora.asm' on 'server4' succeeded
CRS-2673: Attempting to stop 'ora.cssd' on 'server4'
CRS-2677: Stop of 'ora.cssd' on 'server4' succeeded
CRS-2793: Shutdown of Oracle High Availability Services-managed resources on 'server4' has completed
CRS-4133: Oracle High Availability Services has been stopped.

And then I need to run the afd_configure command (all as the root user). Before and after doing so I will check for any loaded kernel modules with oracle in the name, so see what changes:

[root@server4 ~]# lsmod | grep oracle
oracleacfs           3308260  0
oracleadvm            508030  0
oracleoks             506741  2 oracleacfs,oracleadvm
[root@server4 ~]# asmcmd afd_configure
Connected to an idle instance.
AFD-627: AFD distribution files found.
AFD-636: Installing requested AFD software.
AFD-637: Loading installed AFD drivers.
AFD-9321: Creating udev for AFD.
AFD-9323: Creating module dependencies - this may take some time.
AFD-9154: Loading 'oracleafd.ko' driver.
AFD-649: Verifying AFD devices.
AFD-9156: Detecting control device '/dev/oracleafd/admin'.
AFD-638: AFD installation correctness verified.
Modifying resource dependencies - this may take some time.
[root@server4 ~]# lsmod | grep oracle
oracleafd             211540  0
oracleacfs           3308260  0
oracleadvm            508030  0
oracleoks             506741  2 oracleacfs,oracleadvm
[root@server4 ~]# asmcmd afd_state
Connected to an idle instance.
ASMCMD-9526: The AFD state is 'LOADED' and filtering is 'ENABLED' on host 'server4'

Notice the new kernel module called oracleafd. Also, AFD is showing that “filtering is enabled” – I guess this relates to the protection against invalid writes.

Time to start up HAS or CRS again:

[root@server4 ~]# crsctl start has
CRS-4123: Oracle High Availability Services has been started.

Ok, let’s start labelling those devices.

Labelling (Incorrectly)

Now remember that I am testing with two sets of devices here: 512e and 4k. The 512e devices are emulating a 512 byte blocksize, so they should result in ASM creating diskgroups with a blocksize of 512 bytes – thus avoiding all the tedious bugs from which Oracle suffers when using 4096 byte diskgroups.

So let’s just test a 512e LUN to see what happens when I label it and present it to ASM. First, the label is created using the afd_label command:

[oracle@server4 ~]$ ls -l /dev/mapper/v512data1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Jul 24 10:30 /dev/mapper/v512data1 -> ../dm-14
[oracle@server4 ~]$ ls -l /dev/dm-14
brw-rw---- 1 oracle dba 252, 14 Jul 24 10:30 /dev/dm-14
[oracle@server4 ~]$ asmcmd afd_label v512data1 /dev/mapper/v512data1
[oracle@server4 ~]$ asmcmd afd_lsdsk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Label                     Filtering   Path
================================================================================
V512DATA1                   ENABLED   /dev/sdpz

Well, it worked.. sort of. The path we can see in the lsdsk output does not show the /dev/mapper/v512data1 multipath device I specified… instead it’s one of the non-multipath /dev/sd* devices. Why?

Even worse, look what happens when I check the SECTOR_SIZE column of the v$asm_disk view in ASM:

SQL> select group_number, name, sector_size, block_size, state
  2  from v$asm_diskgroup;

GROUP_NUMBER NAME	SECTOR_SIZE BLOCK_SIZE STATE
------------ ---------- ----------- ---------- -----------
	   1 V512DATA	       4096	  4096 MOUNTED

Even though my LUNs are presented as 512e, ASM has chosen to see them as 4096 byte. That’s not wanted I want. Gaah!

Labelling (Correctly)

To fix this I need to unlabel that LUN so that AFD has nothing under its control, then update the oracleafd_use_logical_block_size parameter via the special SYSFS files /sys/modules/oracleafd:

[root@server4 ~]# cd /sys/module/oracleafd
[root@server4 oracleafd]# ls -l
total 0
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jul 20 14:43 coresize
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root    0 Jul 20 14:43 holders
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jul 20 14:43 initsize
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jul 20 14:43 initstate
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root    0 Jul 20 14:43 notes
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root    0 Jul 20 14:43 parameters
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jul 20 14:43 refcnt
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root    0 Jul 20 14:43 sections
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jul 20 14:43 srcversion
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jul 20 14:43 taint
--w------- 1 root root 4096 Jul 20 14:43 uevent
[root@server4 oracleafd]# cd parameters
[root@server4 parameters]# ls -l
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Jul 20 14:43 oracleafd_use_logical_block_size
[root@server4 parameters]# cat oracleafd_use_logical_block_size
0
[root@server4 parameters]# echo 1 > oracleafd_use_logical_block_size
[root@server4 parameters]# cat oracleafd_use_logical_block_size
1

After making this change, AFD will present the logical blocksize of 512 bytes to ASM rather than the physical blocksize of 4096 bytes. So let’s now label those disks again:

[root@server4 mapper]# for lun in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8; do
> asmcmd afd_label v512data$lun /dev/mapper/v512data$lun
> done
Connected to an idle instance.
Connected to an idle instance.
Connected to an idle instance.
Connected to an idle instance.
Connected to an idle instance.
Connected to an idle instance.
Connected to an idle instance.
Connected to an idle instance.
[root@server4 mapper]# asmcmd afd_lsdsk
Connected to an idle instance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Label                     Filtering   Path
================================================================================
V512DATA1                   ENABLED   /dev/mapper/v512data1
V512DATA2                   ENABLED   /dev/mapper/v512data2
V512DATA3                   ENABLED   /dev/mapper/v512data3
V512DATA4                   ENABLED   /dev/mapper/v512data4
V512DATA5                   ENABLED   /dev/mapper/v512data5
V512DATA6                   ENABLED   /dev/mapper/v512data6
V512DATA7                   ENABLED   /dev/mapper/v512data7
V512DATA8                   ENABLED   /dev/mapper/v512data8

Note the correct multipath devices (“/dev/mapper/*”) are now being shown in the lsdsk command output. If I now create an ASM diskgroup on these LUNs, it will have a 512 byte sector size:

SQL> get afd.sql
  1  CREATE DISKGROUP V512DATA EXTERNAL REDUNDANCY
  2  DISK 'AFD:V512DATA1', 'AFD:V512DATA2',
  3	  'AFD:V512DATA3', 'AFD:V512DATA4',
  4	  'AFD:V512DATA5', 'AFD:V512DATA6',
  5	  'AFD:V512DATA7', 'AFD:V512DATA8'
  6  ATTRIBUTE
  7	  'compatible.asm' = '12.1',
  8*	  'compatible.rdbms' = '12.1'
SQL> /

Diskgroup created.

SQL> select disk_number, mount_status, header_status, state, sector_size, path
  2  from v$asm_disk;

DISK_NUMBER MOUNT_S HEADER_STATU STATE	  SECTOR_SIZE PATH
----------- ------- ------------ -------- ----------- --------------------
	  0 CACHED  MEMBER	 NORMAL 	  512 AFD:V512DATA1
	  1 CACHED  MEMBER	 NORMAL 	  512 AFD:V512DATA2
	  2 CACHED  MEMBER	 NORMAL 	  512 AFD:V512DATA3
	  3 CACHED  MEMBER	 NORMAL 	  512 AFD:V512DATA4
	  4 CACHED  MEMBER	 NORMAL 	  512 AFD:V512DATA5
	  5 CACHED  MEMBER	 NORMAL 	  512 AFD:V512DATA6
	  6 CACHED  MEMBER	 NORMAL 	  512 AFD:V512DATA7
	  7 CACHED  MEMBER	 NORMAL 	  512 AFD:V512DATA8

8 rows selected.

SQL> select group_number, name, sector_size, block_size, state
  2  from v$asm_diskgroup;

GROUP_NUMBER NAME	SECTOR_SIZE BLOCK_SIZE STATE
------------ ---------- ----------- ---------- -----------
	   1 V512DATA		512	  4096 MOUNTED

Phew.

Failing To Label 4kN Devices

So what about my 4k native mode devices, the ones with a 4096 byte logical block size? What happens if I try to label them?

[root@server4 ~]# asmcmd afd_label V4KDATA1 /dev/mapper/v4kdata1
Connected to an idle instance.
ASMCMD-9513: ASM disk label set operation failed.

Yeah, that didn’t work out did it? Let’s look in the trace file:

[root@server4 ~]# tail -5 /u01/app/oracle/log/diag/asmcmd/user_root/server4/alert/alert.log
24-Jul-15 12:38 ASMCMD (PID = 8695) Given command - afd_label V4KDATA1 '/dev/mapper/v4kdata1'
24-Jul-15 12:38 NOTE: Verifying AFD driver state : loaded
24-Jul-15 12:38 NOTE: afdtool -add '/dev/mapper/v4kdata1' 'V4KDATA1'
24-Jul-15 12:38 NOTE:
24-Jul-15 12:38 ASMCMD-9513: ASM disk label set operation failed.

I’ve struggled to find any more meaningful message, even when I manually run the afdtool command shown in the log – but it seems pretty likely that this is failing due to the device being 4kN. I therefore assume that AFD still isn’t 4kN ready. I do wish Oracle would make some meaningful progress on its support of 4kN devices…

I/O Filter Protection

So now let’s investigate this protection that ASMFD claims to have against non-Oracle I/Os. First of all, what do those files in /dev/oracleafd/disks actually contain?

[root@server4 ~]# cd /dev/oracleafd/disks
[root@server4 disks]# ls -l
total 32
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22 Jul 24 12:34 V512DATA1
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22 Jul 24 12:34 V512DATA2
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22 Jul 24 12:34 V512DATA3
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22 Jul 24 12:34 V512DATA4
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22 Jul 24 12:34 V512DATA5
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22 Jul 24 12:34 V512DATA6
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22 Jul 24 12:34 V512DATA7
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22 Jul 24 12:34 V512DATA8
[root@server4 disks]# cat V512DATA1
/dev/mapper/v512data1

Aha. This is what I got wrong in my original post last year, because – keen as I was to start my summer vacation – I didn’t spot that these files are simply pointers to the relevant multipath device in /dev/mapper. So let’s follow the pointers this time.

Let’s remind ourselves that the files in /dev/mapper are actually symbolic links to /dev/dm-* devices:

root@server4 disks]# ls -l /dev/mapper/v512data1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Jul 24 12:34 /dev/mapper/v512data1 -> ../dm-14
[root@server4 disks]# ls -l /dev/dm-14
brw-rw---- 1 oracle dba 252, 14 Jul 24 12:34 /dev/dm-14

So it’s these /dev/dm-* devices that are at the end of the trail we just followed. If we dump the first 64 bytes of this /dev/dm-14 device, we should be able to see the AFD label:

[root@server4 disks]# od -c -N 64 /dev/dm-14
0000000                           (   o   u   t
0000020                                
0000040   O   R   C   L   D   I   S   K   V   5   1   2   D   A   T   A
0000060   1

There it is. We can also read it with kfed to see what ASM thinks of it:

[root@server4 ~]# kfed read /dev/dm-14
kfbh.endian:                          0 ; 0x000: 0x00
kfbh.hard:                            0 ; 0x001: 0x00
kfbh.type:                            0 ; 0x002: KFBTYP_INVALID
kfbh.datfmt:                          0 ; 0x003: 0x00
kfbh.block.blk:                       0 ; 0x004: blk=0
kfbh.block.obj:                       0 ; 0x008: file=0
kfbh.check:                  1953853224 ; 0x00c: 0x74756f28
kfbh.fcn.base:                        0 ; 0x010: 0x00000000
kfbh.fcn.wrap:                        0 ; 0x014: 0x00000000
kfbh.spare1:                          0 ; 0x018: 0x00000000
kfbh.spare2:                          0 ; 0x01c: 0x00000000
000000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 74756F28  [............(out]
000000010 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000  [................]
000000020 4C43524F 4B534944 32313556 41544144  [ORCLDISKV512DATA]
000000030 00000031 00000000 00000000 00000000  [1...............]
000000040 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000  [................]
  Repeat 251 times

So what happens if I overwrite it, as the root user, with some zeros? And maybe some text too just for good luck?

root@server4 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/dm-14 bs=4k count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
4194304 bytes (4.2 MB) copied, 0.00570833 s, 735 MB/s
[root@server4 ~]# echo CORRUPTION > /dev/dm-14
[root@server4 ~]# od -c -N 64 /dev/dm-14
0000000   C   O   R   R   U   P   T   I   O   N  \n          
0000020

It looks like it’s changed. I also see that if I dump it from another session which opens a fresh file descriptor. Yet in the /var/log/messages file there is now a new entry:

F 4626129.736/150724115533 flush-252:14[1807]  afd_mkrequest_fn: write IO on ASM managed device (major=252/minor=14)  not supported i=0 start=0 seccnt=8  pstart=0  pend=41943040
Jul 24 12:55:33 server4 kernel: quiet_error: 1015 callbacks suppressed
Jul 24 12:55:33 server4 kernel: Buffer I/O error on device dm-14, logical block 0
Jul 24 12:55:33 server4 kernel: lost page write due to I/O error on dm-14

Hmm. It seems like ASMFD has intervened to stop the write, yet when I query the device I see the “new” data. Where’s the old data gone? Well, let’s use kfed again:

[root@server4 ~]# kfed read /dev/dm-14
kfbh.endian:                          0 ; 0x000: 0x00
kfbh.hard:                            0 ; 0x001: 0x00
kfbh.type:                            0 ; 0x002: KFBTYP_INVALID
kfbh.datfmt:                          0 ; 0x003: 0x00
kfbh.block.blk:                       0 ; 0x004: blk=0
kfbh.block.obj:                       0 ; 0x008: file=0
kfbh.check:                  1953853224 ; 0x00c: 0x74756f28
kfbh.fcn.base:                        0 ; 0x010: 0x00000000
kfbh.fcn.wrap:                        0 ; 0x014: 0x00000000
kfbh.spare1:                          0 ; 0x018: 0x00000000
kfbh.spare2:                          0 ; 0x01c: 0x00000000
000000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 74756F28  [............(out]
000000010 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000  [................]
000000020 4C43524F 4B534944 32313556 41544144  [ORCLDISKV512DATA]
000000030 00000031 00000000 00000000 00000000  [1...............]
000000040 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000  [................]
  Repeat 251 times

The label is still there! Magic.

I have to confess, I don’t really know how ASM does this. Indeed, I struggled to get the system back to a point where I could manually see the label using the od command. In the end, the only way I managed it was to reboot the server – yet ASM works fine all along and the diskgroup was never affected:

SQL> alter diskgroup V512DATA check all;
Mon Jul 20 16:46:23 2015
NOTE: starting check of diskgroup V512DATA
Mon Jul 20 16:46:23 2015
GMON querying group 1 at 5 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON checking disk 0 for group 1 at 6 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON querying group 1 at 7 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON checking disk 1 for group 1 at 8 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON querying group 1 at 9 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON checking disk 2 for group 1 at 10 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON querying group 1 at 11 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON checking disk 3 for group 1 at 12 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON querying group 1 at 13 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON checking disk 4 for group 1 at 14 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON querying group 1 at 15 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON checking disk 5 for group 1 at 16 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON querying group 1 at 17 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON checking disk 6 for group 1 at 18 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON querying group 1 at 19 for pid 7, osid 9255
GMON checking disk 7 for group 1 at 20 for pid 7, osid 9255
Mon Jul 20 16:46:23 2015
SUCCESS: check of diskgroup V512DATA found no errors
Mon Jul 20 16:46:23 2015
SUCCESS: alter diskgroup V512DATA check all

So there you go. ASMFD: it does what it says on the tin. Just don’t try using it with 4kN devices…

Filed under Advanced Format, ASM, Blog, Database, Linux, Storage Tagged with advanced format, ASM, database, linux

The Great Hypervisor Bake-off: VMware ESX vs Oracle VM

May 7, 2015 20 Comments

This is a very simple post to show the results of some recent testing that Tom and I ran using Oracle SLOB on Violin to determine the impact of using virtualization. But before we get to that, I am duty bound to write a paragraph of text featuring lots of long sentences peppered with industry buzz words. Forgive me, it’s just the way I’m wired.

It is increasingly common these days to find database environments running in virtual machines – even large, business critical ones. The driver is the trend to commoditize I.T. services and build consolidated, private-cloud style solutions in order to control operational expense and increase agility (not to mention reduce exposure to Oracle licenses). But, as I’ve said in previous posts, the catalyst has been the unblocking of I/O as legacy disk systems are replaced by flash memory. In the past, virtual environments caused a kind of I/O blender effect whereby I/O calls become increasingly randomized – and this sucked for the performance of disk drives. Flash memory arrays on the other hand can deliver random I/O all day long because… well, if you don’t know the reasons by now can I just recommend starting at the beginning. The outcome is that many large and medium-sized organisations are now building database-as-a-service platforms with Oracle databases (other database products are available) running in virtual machines. It’s happening right now.

Phew. Anyway, that last paragraph was just a wordy way of telling you that I’m often seeing Oracle running in virtual machines on top of hypervisors. But how much of a performance impact do those hypervisors have? Step this way to find out.

The Contenders

When it comes to running Oracle on a hypervisor using Intel x86 hardware (for that is what I have available), I only know of three real contenders:

Hyper-V has been an option for a couple of years now, but I’ll be honest – I have neither the time nor the inclination to test it today. It’s not that I don’t rate it as a product, it’s just that I’ve never used it before and don’t have enough time to learn something new right now. Maybe someday I’ll come back and add it to the mix.

In the meantime, it’s the big showdown: VMware versus Oracle VM. Not that Oracle VM is really in the same league as VMware in terms of market share… but you know, I’m trying to make this sound exciting.

The Test

This is going to be an Oracle SLOB sustained throughput test. In other words, I’m going to build an Oracle database and then shovel a massive amount of I/O through it (you can read all about SLOB here and here). SLOB will be configured to run with 25% of statements being UPDATEs (the remainder are SELECTs) and will run for 8 hours straight. What we want to see is a) which hypervisor configuration allows the greatest I/O bandwidth, and b) which hypervisor configuration exhibits the most predictable performance.

This is the configuration. First the hardware:

Violin Memory 6616 flash Memory Array

1x Dell PowerEdge R720 server
2x Intel Xeon CPU E5-2690 v2 10-core @ 3.00GHz [so that’s 2 sockets, 20 cores, 40 threads for this server]
128GB DRAM
1x Violin Memory 6616 (SLC) flash memory array [the one that did this]
8GB fibre-channel

And the software:

Hypervisor: VMware ESXi 5.5.1
Hypervisor: Oracle VM for x86 3.3.1
VM: Oracle Linux 6 Update 5 (with the Unbreakable Enterprise v3 Kernel 3.6.18)
Oracle Grid Infrastructure 11.2.0.4 (for Automatic Storage Management)
Oracle Database Enterprise Edition 11.2.0.4

Each VM is configured with 20 vCPUs and is using Linux Device Mapper Multipath and Oracle ASMLib. ASM is configured to use one single +DATA disgroup comprising 8 ASM disks (LUNs from Violin) with external redundancy. The database parameters and SLOB settings are all listed on the SLOB sustained throughput test page.

Results: Bare Metal (Baseline)

First let’s see what happens when we don’t use a hypervisor at all and just run OL6.5 on bare metal:

IO Profile                  Read+Write/Second     Read/Second    Write/Second
~~~~~~~~~~                  ----------------- --------------- ---------------
            Total Requests:         232,431.0       194,452.3        37,978.7
         Database Requests:         228,909.4       194,447.9        34,461.5
        Optimized Requests:               0.0             0.0             0.0
             Redo Requests:           3,515.1             0.3         3,514.8
                Total (MB):           1,839.6         1,519.2           320.4

Ok so we’re looking at 1519 MB/sec of read throughput and 320 MB/sec of write throughput. Crucially, the lines are nice and consistent – with very little deviation from the mean. By dividing the amount of time spent waiting on db file sequential read (i.e. random physical reads) with the number of waits, we can calculate that the average latency for random reads was 438 microseconds.

Now we know what to expect, let’s look at the result from the hypervisor tests.

Results: VMware vSphere

VMware is configured to use Raw Device Mapping (RDM) which essentially gives the benefits of raw devices… read here for more details on that. Here are the test results:

IO Profile                  Read+Write/Second     Read/Second    Write/Second
~~~~~~~~~~                  ----------------- --------------- ---------------
            Total Requests:         173,141.7       145,066.8        28,075.0
         Database Requests:         170,615.3       145,064.0        25,551.4
        Optimized Requests:               0.0             0.0             0.0
             Redo Requests:           2,522.8             0.1         2,522.7
                Total (MB):           1,370.0         1,133.4           236.7

Average read throughput for this test was 1133 MB/sec and write throughput averaged at 237 MB/sec. Average read latency was 596 microseconds. That’s an increase of 36%.

In comparison to the bare metal test, we see that total bandwidth dropped by around 25%. That might seem like a lot but remember, we are absolutely hammering this system. A real database is unlikely to ever create this level of sustained I/O. In my role at Violin I’ve been privileged to work on some of the busiest databases in Europe – nothing is ever this crazy (although a few do come close).

Results: Oracle VM

Oracle VM is based on the Xen hypervisor and therefore uses Xen virtual disks to present block devices. For this test I downloaded the Oracle Linux 6 Update 5 template from Oracle’s eDelivery site. You can see more about the way this VM was configured here. Here are the test results:

IO Profile                  Read+Write/Second     Read/Second    Write/Second
~~~~~~~~~~                  ----------------- --------------- ---------------
            Total Requests:         160,563.8       134,592.9        25,970.9
         Database Requests:         158,538.1       134,587.3        23,950.8
        Optimized Requests:               0.0             0.0             0.0
             Redo Requests:           2,017.2             0.2         2,016.9
                Total (MB):           1,273.4         1,051.6           221.9

This time we see average read bandwidth of 1052MB/sec and average write bandwidth of 222MB/sec, with the average read latency at 607 microseconds, which is 39% higher than the baseline test.

Meanwhile, total bandwidth dropped by 31%. That’s slightly worse than VMware, but what’s really interesting is the deviation. Look at how ragged the lines are on the OVM test! There is a much higher degree of variance exhibited here than on the VMware test.

Conclusion

This is only one test so I’m not claiming it’s conclusive. VMware does appear to deliver slightly better performance than OVM in my tests, but it’s not a huge difference. However, I am very much concerned by the variance of the OVM test in comparison to VMware. Look, for example, at the wait event histograms for db file sequential read:

Wait Event Histogram
-> Units for Total Waits column: K is 1000, M is 1000000, G is 1000000000
-> % of Waits: value of .0 indicates value was <.05%; value of null is truly 0
-> % of Waits: column heading of <=1s is truly <1024ms, >1s is truly >=1024ms
-> Ordered by Event (idle events last)

                                                             % of Waits
                                          -----------------------------------------------
                                    Total
Hypervisor  Event                   Waits  <1ms  <2ms  <4ms  <8ms <16ms <32ms  <=1s   >1s
----------- ----------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Bare Metal: db file sequential read 5557.  98.7   1.3    .0    .0    .0    .0
VMware ESX: db file sequential read 4164.  92.2   6.7   1.1    .0    .0    .0
Oracle VM : db file sequential read 3834.  95.6   4.1    .1    .1    .0    .0    .0    .0

The OVM tests show occasional results in the two highest buckets, meaning once or twice there were waits in excess of 1 second! However, to be fair, OVM also had more millisecond waits than VMware.

Anyway, for now – and for this setup at least – I’m sticking with VMware. You should of course test your own workloads before choosing which hypervisor works for you…

Thanks as always to Kevin for bringing Oracle SLOB to the community.

Filed under Blog, Database, Database Virtualisation, Flash, Linux, Storage Tagged with database, database-virtualisation, linux, oracle, oracle vm, vmware

← Older posts

flashdba