One Response

  1. ericcsinger
    ericcsinger at |

    Hi Michael,

    It’s refreshing to see a HCI single VM benchmark. I’ve been asking for this out of vSAN, Datrium and even you guys (Nutanix) for a little while now. It’s for the very reason that you brought up. My DBA’s don’t care that an entire cluster can do 1.2 million IOPS @ <1ms latency, they care what their one big servers performance is. So kudos to you guys for taking the first step, and I say that as a person who's not really a fan of HCI (yet).

    What I would love to see you guys (and other hyper / "open" converged vendors) show, is a more realistic scenario(s). 33 disks in a single VM, even a large one, is likely not realistic. No less than the VMware benchmarks you outlined. I'm sure there are edge cases where folks have that many disks in an attempt to squeeze every last IO out (or show what a single VM can do like in your case).

    IMO, what might be more useful for folks, is showing what a single VM + a single disk performance equals. That's probably 80% of the VM's out there. Meaning, if i fire up IOMeter on a single vdisk, what kind of IO can you deliver? Maybe even show it scaling up to 33 disks if you wanted. So start with one disk, go to two, four, eight, sixteen and then thirty two. Then when you're comparing HCI solutions, we can look at which vendor provides the best single VM performance *and* aggregate VM performance.

    I also feel its important for HCI vendors to show what their resiliency settings are. Especially when it comes to write benchmarks. it's like being required to show your work in school. If one vendor can only hit "x" write IOPS with their resiliency set to one host failure, how realistic is that configuration. Versus something like three host failures, which is probably more common.

    Anyway, really great article, and thanks for demonstrating what a single VM can drive in your solution.

    Reply

Leave a Reply