Odd VVol issue
Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 9:38 pm
This is an odd one
I've started rolling out VVols into our production ESX clusters and after storage migrating the 1st VM noticed an oddness.
Even though there is a VM Storage Policy created and applyed as default to the VVol datastore, the "Swap" volume for the VM was using a different CPG to the rest of the VMs volumes.
I created a new CPG for VVols to make use of (just for logical separation) called "SSD_R5_HA_VVol" and the array already has a CPG called "SSD_R5_HA", the VM storage Policy looks like this :
When I storage migrated a VM you can see it has used the correct CPGs :
The rules have been applied OK :
Virtual volumes look like this :
But when you pull out the details on each volume, the "swap" volume is not right, below is a "data" volume and the "swap :
I can only assume it is because the "swap" has to be a full fat volume ... just I don't know why it can't also be using the same CPG
Any ideas ? (I also have a HPE case logged, but that'll take a bit for them to work on .. a brain here might already know!)
I've started rolling out VVols into our production ESX clusters and after storage migrating the 1st VM noticed an oddness.
Even though there is a VM Storage Policy created and applyed as default to the VVol datastore, the "Swap" volume for the VM was using a different CPG to the rest of the VMs volumes.
I created a new CPG for VVols to make use of (just for logical separation) called "SSD_R5_HA_VVol" and the array already has a CPG called "SSD_R5_HA", the VM storage Policy looks like this :
Code: Select all
Name LDV_3PAR_Thin_SSD_R5
Description HPE 8400 3PAR
Rule-set 1: HPE 3PAR StoreServ
Placement
Storage Type HPE 3PAR StoreServ
Common Provisioning Group SSD_R5_HA_VVol
Snapshot Common Provisioning Group SSD_R5_HA_VVol
Thin Persistence Enabled
Thin Deduplication Disabled
When I storage migrated a VM you can see it has used the correct CPGs :
Code: Select all
akl-ldv-3par-1 cli% showvvolvm -d -sc LDV-ITVFCorp-VVols
------(MB)------
VM_Name UUID Num_vv Num_snap Physical Logical GuestOS VM_State UsrCPG SnpCPG Container CreationTime
test01 501e348d-3965-1912-2fa2-2b7776f70703 5 0 72775 221184 windows9Server64Guest PoweredOn SSD_R5_HA_VVol SSD_R5_HA_VVol LDV-ITVFCorp-VVols 2020-05-01 15:46:56 NZST
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 total 5 72775 221184
The rules have been applied OK :
Code: Select all
akl-ldv-3par-1 cli% showvvolvm -sp -sc LDV-ITVFCorp-VVols test01
VM_Name SP_Name SP_Constraint_List
test01 LDV_3PAR_Thin_SSD_R5 CPG=SSD_R5_HA_VVol
SnapshotCPG=SSD_R5_HA_VVol
ThinPersistence=Enabled
Deduplication=Disabled
---------------------------------------------------------
1 total
Virtual volumes look like this :
Code: Select all
akl-ldv-3par-1 cli% showvvolvm -vv -sc LDV-ITVFCorp-VVols test01
------(MB)------
VM_Name VV_ID VVol_Name VVol_Type Prov Physical Logical
test01 87385 cfg-test01-6e2485c7 Config tpvv 3876 4096
87386 dat-test01-a7000170 Data tpvv 32329 81920
87387 dat-test01-cd1fe59a Data tpvv 13604 81920
87388 dat-test01-ec2fa9c1 Data tpvv 8923 40960
87390 swp-test01-0ec91562 Swap full 14043 12288
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 total 5 72775 221184
But when you pull out the details on each volume, the "swap" volume is not right, below is a "data" volume and the "swap :
Code: Select all
akl-ldv-3par-1 cli% showvv -cpgalloc dat-test01-ec2fa9c1
Id Name Prov Compr Dedup Type UsrCPG SnpCPG
87388 dat-test01-ec2fa9c1 tpvv No No base SSD_R5_HA_VVol SSD_R5_HA_VVol
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 total
akl-ldv-3par-1 cli% showvv -cpgalloc swp-test01-0ec91562
Id Name Prov Compr Dedup Type UsrCPG SnpCPG
87390 swp-test01-0ec91562 full NA NA base SSD_R5_HA --
------------------------------------------------------------------
1 total
I can only assume it is because the "swap" has to be a full fat volume ... just I don't know why it can't also be using the same CPG
Any ideas ? (I also have a HPE case logged, but that'll take a bit for them to work on .. a brain here might already know!)