Start a Conversation

Unsolved

This post is more than 5 years old

1366

February 7th, 2012 21:00

SQL HA Resiliency Solution with VPLEX

A good practice to leverage VPLEX as an alternative to SQL mirrioring with less complexity & less risk.

VPLEX Local as a Resilient HA solution

One of the many features of VPLEX is it’s ability to mirror data across multiple storage arrays and present that mirror as a single LUN to the host.  For customers already running large multi-node MSCS clusters, the LUN appears just like any normal storage LUN and Windows/SQL treat the LUN normally.  There are several reasons VPLEX should be considered as an alternative to database mirroring. (much of this applies to Exchange CCR as well)

VPLEX hardware is inherently Resilient.  A VPLEX cluster is an N+1 cluster of loosely coupled nodes, cooperating with each other, but not depending on each other.  Hosts can access any of the hosted data, through any of the ports, on any of the cluster nodes.  If a node fails for any reason, the remaining nodes continue serving IO for any data.  Except for a dead path on the host side (managed by PowerPath or MPIO), there is no failover process, and no cache mirroring to worry about.  The potential performance impact of a failure is equal to 1, divided by the quantity of that component in the cluster. (128 x 8gbe ports across 8 director nodes for a large VPLEX Local cluster)

In addition, because VPLEX utilizes a write-through cache, there is never any dirty cache data (data in cache that has not been committed to disk) in a VPLEX system.  A power outage or VPLEX hardware failure does not put data at risk.

Other Advantages of using VPLEX over SQL Database Mirroring

Improved Performance:

  • Compared with SQL Database mirroring, VPLEX mirroring has significantly less impact on transaction performance for writes and can improve transaction performance in some cases due to the large read cache in the VPLEX directors. (Note: I am comparing to DB Mirroring in Full-Safety mode since the customer’s requirement was a zero-data-loss solution.)

Non-Disruptive Storage Failover:

  • In the event of a storage failure, SQL Mirroring must perform a cluster node failover which takes a few seconds at best, possibly disrupting applications.  VPLEX provides completely non-disruptive failover when a storage failure occurs.  (A server hardware failure still triggers a node failover as it would in any other failover clustering scenario.)

Less Management Overhead:

  • From a management perspective, using VPLEX instead of SQL Database mirroring gives the SQL DBAs fewer SQL instances and fewer moving parts to manage on a daily basis.  The storage team just presents a mirrored LUN from VPLEX to the cluster and it’s business as usual for the DBAs.
  • VPLEX also allows the storage team to non-disruptively migrate data between storage arrays behind VPLEX to balance load, perform hardware refreshes, resolve capacity problems.  VPLEX performs the migration at the direction of the storage admins.

Reduced Risk:

  • Reducing management complexity also reduces risk.  With a high number of database instances and db mirrors involved in a large environment like this one, the chance of one of those mirrors having a problem, or being configured incorrectly, is increased.  DBAs can rely on VPLEX mirroring all of the data, 24x7x365, even when host maintenance is being performed.

Reduced Cost:

  • When compared with the SQL Database Mirroring solution, the VPLEX solution reduced the number of physical servers needed in this environment, reducing cost enough to more than offset the cost of VPLEX itself.  Combined with reductions in soft costs, like reduced DBA management overhead, VPLEX will actually save them quite a bit of money, and increased uptime during storage refresh and maintenance will increase revenues in this case as well.

A Distributed Future:

  • Next year, when a second datacenter is online nearby, the first VPLEX Local cluster can be connected to another VPLEX cluster in the new datacenter.  Then the SQL cluster nodes and data can be distributed across both datacenters, providing protection from entire datacenter outages, or solving space constraints with no changes to the application or servers, and no downtime.

225 Posts

February 7th, 2012 23:00

Simon,

Overall I agreed with the point, VPLEX providing less complexity and risk on SQL server mirroring.

I have several perspective on this article after went through it.

VPLEX is not a N+1 cluster system, it is totally a full active-active system, all VPLEX directors are running as peers and you do not need worry of data loss when one of them failed because VPLEX does not hold any user data.

About “Improved Performance”, Upon my observation, VPLEX has no impact on write operation because of VPLEX write through, but VPLEX does impact on read due to verification on data map. Could you give me more information on this?

About no downtime of VPLEX expansion to new DC, I can not agree this part. As I know, VPLEX conversion Local to Metro need to implement additional IO card, re-install VPLEX code, etc.

You could review the

White Paper: Implementing EMC VPLEX and Microsoft Hyper-V and SQL Server with Enhanced Failover Clustering Support — Applied Technology 

This Whitepaper cover both of SQL server on VPLEX Local and Metro.

Thanks,

Eddy

643 Posts

March 4th, 2012 23:00

Thanks for your information, I agree some of your points, but just one clarification that write through is applied to VPLEX Local and Metro, for VPLEX Geo is write back.

225 Posts

March 13th, 2012 20:00

Simon,

VPLEX Geo’s “Write back” is a bit different with my understanding.

VPELX Geo uses Async GC mode to transfer delta data, IO generated with Host is written through to local device and VPLEX director’s vaulting portion( internal SSD), VPLEX RAM does still not hold any dirty data from host, from other word, IO commit would not happen when IO reach VPLEX RAM Cache.

The former is my understanding, if you have any further information, appreciated.

Eddy

No Events found!

Top