This article can also be found in the Premium Editorial Download "Storage magazine: FC, iSCSI, NAS: How to choose storage for virtual servers."
Download it now to read this article plus other related content.
Virtual servers need a good shared data storage system. All major networked storage protocols work with virtual machines, but some are better than others in certain environments.
Choosing a data storage system to use with virtualized servers is one of the most critical architecture choices you’ll have to make, and one of the most challenging. There are many options available, but there’s no single type of networked storage that’s hands down the best for virtual servers. Each environment is different and what works well for one may not work well for another.
Fibre Channel (FC) has been the traditional choice for virtualization, but iSCSI and network-attached storage (NAS) have become increasingly popular alternatives that can provide good performance for more limited budgets. Let’s look at the characteristics of each networked storage type and review its pros and cons.
Fibre Channel storage
For performance and reliability it’s hard to beat FC storage, but the performance comes at a price in terms of both dollars and complexity. Because of its deep roots in the data center, FC is generally the most popular storage choice for larger virtual environments, based mainly on its speed (currently 8 Gbps with 16 Gbps becoming available) and reliability. FC storage networks tend to be isolated and thus more secure than Ethernet-based storage devices. But Fibre Channel requires special host bus adapters (HBAs) and
So, implementing a Fibre Channel network from scratch can be costly. Also, FC environments are more complex to implement and manage as their configuration is very different from a traditional network infrastructure. While most companies have staff with network administration skills, many don’t have the same resources for FC storage-area network (SAN) administration. Designing and managing a SAN architecture usually requires specialized training that can further add to the expense of implementation.
Advantages of using FC storage
- Commonly deployed enterprise storage architecture; many environments may have existing SANs
- Typically the best performing storage due to higher available bandwidth
- Isolated FC fabrics are more secure; logical unit number (LUN) zoning and masking can be used to control access
- Able to boot from FC storage (boot from SAN) so local host storage isn’t needed
- Block-level storage that can be used with VMware vSphere VMFS volumes
Disadvantages of using FC storage
- Typically the most expensive storage option to implement from scratch
- Requires specialized and expensive components such as switches, cables and HBAs
- May be complex to implement and manage; typically requires dedicated storage administrators
- Fewer security controls available; authentication and encryption are complicated to implement
If you plan on having many high disk I/O virtual machines (VMs) running on your hosts then you should seriously consider using FC storage for maximum performance. Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) is also an option that allows you to run FC storage over traditional Ethernet components, but it can be just as expensive to implement as it requires 10 Gbps Ethernet (10 GbE) networking and special switching gear.
If you already have an FC SAN in your environment, then using it with virtualization just makes sense. And expanding an existing SAN is much easier and cheaper than implementing a new one. You really can’t go wrong with FC storage if your budget can afford it and you can handle the management complexity.
This was first published in September 2011