VMFS 3.46 size

Similar Questions

• 1.8 to VMFS watch block size of 1 MB - WTF?

  We have a box 4.0 on which we have created multiple VMFS, each about 1.8 TB volumes.

  All three volumes appear and we have been using them, but today we came to increase the size of a VMDK and found that he maxed out at 256 GB.

  By looking at the properties of VMFS volume, all three show that 1.8 to, or one of them (one is this VMDK) shows a block size of 1 MB.

  By definition, if I understand correctly, you cannot have a 1.8 to VMFS with block size of 1 MB, so what is the best way to combat this?

  The server is a stand-alone, so it is not shared storage, nor is the server connected to a vCenter server.

  Thanks in advance.

  Block size does not affect the size of VMFS, it only affects the maximum size of the single VMDK file. So, it is perfectly valid to have datastore VMFS 1.8 to with 1 MB block.

  You must evacuate all virtual machines that store of data and reformat the drive with the largest block, I'm sorry, but it's your only option.

  Tomi

  http://v-reality.info

• ESXi 5.5, 5 VMFS datastore / vmdk size question

  Trying to check that I understand the vmdk for esxi 5.5 size limitation.

  If I have a VMFS 5 existing on my 5.0 esxi hosts, data store once I update my hosts to esxi 5.5 that I would then be able to have vm with vmdk is greater than 2 TB?

  I don't have to create new warehouses of data VMFS 5 after the upgrade to esxi5.5 take advanrage of the change in file size limit?

  Thanks for any help.

  That's right, at least in part. In addition to the upgrade of the host, you must also upgrade the hardware version of the virtual machine (Compatibility Mode) to take advantage of larger virtual disks (up to ~ to 62). However, always keep in mind the time needed to restore the virtual disk together where this is necessary. With 1 Gbps - assuming that you have the full available bandwidth - 2 TB will require more than 5 hours already! Then maybe organize the data in several virtual disks may be a better solution.

  André

• VMFS 5 / VMDK sizes

  I'm curious to know why, if I can get a data store > 2 TB, I can't have a VMDK > 2 TB?  I have not found an answer to this question yet, just that I'm still limited to 2 TB on VMDK files.

  Thank you

  I don't think that VMware is able to tell you the reason for it. ESXi can manage some pass-trough RDM with up to 64 TB, to address issues already works. IMO this restriction exist, due to the current structure of the metadata in the files of disk virtual thin provisioned (snapshots are scattered provided). To be able to size greater than 2 TB of the pointers in the grain, the data type of mailing lists telephone / tables may need to be changed, but the compatibility to existing snapshots must be maintained.

  André

• Virtual RDM: mapping in the vm, VMFS folder file size

  Hello

  I just migrated an iscsi LUN previously managed the MS iscsi initiator (running inside a machine virtual w2k03) to ESX iscsi sw, preserving the data.

  I used RDM (raw device mapping) and I had to use 'virtual' because 'physical' hanged the VM at startup of the operating system.

  The iscsi LUN is 1 TB, with about 60GB used.

  I noticed that on the volume VMFS file mapping for the virtual machine is about 2 GB: happen when on the iscsi LUN more space will be used? And if it goes, is there a rule to calculate how much?

  I'm worried I might risk running out of space on the VMFS volume because of the mapping of RDM file...

  Thank you

  Guido

  It's just a pointer to the original disc of RDM.   I have a few MS Cluster in my setup. For 18 GB RDM Lun he creates about 100 MB.

  Thank you

• Any attempt to change vmfs size block installation fails

  I found several sources with the same information on changing the size of the block during the installation, but it does not work for me.

  I followed the "reconfigure Installer ESX 4.x and new VMFS volumes with size of specific blocks of formatting", but when I run/bin/weasel after you change the fsset.py I get an error when loading the drivers ' failure of the 20.psa - mask-path of the run script and the installation cannot continue. "

  Just for grins, I made a default installation of the disk and it worked just with the wrong block size, and I can not just delete because it contains esxconsole files.

  I searched the forums and google with no luck, Devil just gooling "20.psa - mask-path" is not even get no results.

  Ideas, advice or any direction would be greatly appreciated.

  If you create a logical disk / LUN on the array for the ESX install and balance like a logical LUNS for the data store. You will then have the option to set the block size of data store after installation.

  You might consider using for ESX ESXi is not available in vSphere ba 5 and beyond.

• A procedure to follow to change the block of VMFS Volume size?

  We use a VMFS volume with size of 1 MB blocks.  As the virtual HD size must be greater than 256 GB, to change the size of the block to 2 MB.

  We would like to confirm that the following is correct:

  (1) to migrate all VM this VMFS volume

  (2) delete this VMFS of ESX Cluster

  Add 3) as storage again

  4) format with the 2 MB block size

  Is it Miss?

  Thank you

  There is not another possible procedure

  But as already shown reflect the selection of block size.

  ---

  MCSA, MCTS, VCP, VMware vExpert 2009

  http://blog.vadmin.ru

• vSphere - KS.cfg: line31: virtualdisk size is too large for vmfs volume

  Can someone tell me what the problem with my script KS.cfg? It contains the following information, but I get an error stating "...". line 31: virtualdisk size is too large for vmfs volume (needed size 27176 MB > size available 26184MB)... »

  He complains, I increase the size of what he said and then, he complained again and again and again and again each time...

  • BEGINNING of KS.cfg *.

  AcceptEULA

  keyboard us

  AUTH - enablemd5 - enableshadow

  bootloader - location = mbr

  clearpart - overwritevmfs - firstdisk

  1. Uncomment the esxlocation line and comment out the clearpart

  2. and physical partitions to do a non-destructive reinstall.

  #esxlocation - uuid = 41cff7dd-4dd9-400D-a262-9ebb06565cc9

  install the cdrom

  rootpw - iscrypted bonnefin

  time zone "America/Vancouver".

  network - addvmportgroup = true - device = vmnic0 - bootproto = dhcp

  part "/ boot" - fstype = ext3 - size = 1100 - onfirstdisk - asprimary

  the part 'none' - fstype = vmkcore - size = 110 - onfirstdisk

  part "Storage1" - fstype = vmfs3 - size = 26184 - grow - onfirstdisk

  VirtualDisk "esxconsole" - size = 26176 - onvmfs = 'Storage1.

  part 'swap' - fstype = swap - size = 1600 - onvirtualdisk = "esxconsole" - asprimary

  the part "/ var/log" - fstype = ext3 - size = 4096 - onvirtualdisk = "esxconsole".

  part ' / var' - fstype = ext3 - size = 4096 - onvirtualdisk = "esxconsole".

  a part "/ home" - fstype = ext3 - size = 2048 - onvirtualdisk = "esxconsole".

  part ' / tmp' - fstype = ext3 - size = 2048 - onvirtualdisk = "esxconsole".

  part "/ opt" - fstype = ext3 - size = 2048 - onvirtualdisk = "esxconsole".

  part ' / ' - fstype = ext3 - size = 10240 - push - onvirtualdisk = "esxconsole" - asprimary

  % post - interpreter = bash

  • END of KS.cfg *.

  VMFS needed his own space for metadata, and you have not left a lot to her (26184-26176 = 8 MB).  You need a minimum of about 500 MB - is better around a gig or 2.

  -Matt

  VCP, vExpert, Unix Geek

• Block size of data store

  Hello

  First time post and quite new to the product.

  Does anyone know why the option of block size to store data in the client default vSphere to 1 MB in size?  I see in the tutorials and blogs, there are options in the updated section in shape for up to 8 MB?

  Thanks for your help.

  Hello, welcome to the communities.

  Here is some information on the sizes of block VMFS and their constraints;

  VMware KB: Block the size of a VMFS data store limitations

  VMware KB: Frequently asked Questions on VMware vSphere 5.x for VMFS-5

  Don't forget, when you upgrade from an earlier version of VMFS, the block size is preserved. Newly put VMFS-5 data warehouses have a unified 1 MB block size.

  See you soon,.

  Jon

• What is the best practice to block through several layers sizes: hardware and hypervisor VM OS?

  The example below is not a real Setup, I work with, but should get the message. Here's my example of what I'm doing as a reference layer:

  (LAYER1) Hardware: The hardware RAID controller

  • -1 TB Volume configured in the 4K block size. (RAW)?

  
  

  (Layer2) Hypervisor: Data store ESXi

  • -1 TB of Raid Controller formatted with VMFS5 @ block size of 1 MB.

  
  

  Layer (3) the VM OS: Server 2008 R2 w/SQL

  • -100 GB virtual HD using NTFS @ 4 K for the OS block size.
  • -900 GB virtual HD set up using NTFS @ 64 K block size to store the SQL database.
  • 
    

  It seems that vmfs5 is limited to only having a block size of 1 MB. It would be preferable that all or part of the size of the blocks matched on different layers and why or why not? What are the different block sizes on other layers and performance? Could you suggest better alternative or best practices for the sample configuration above?

  If a San participated instead of a hardware on the host computer RAID controller, it would be better to store the vmdk of OS on the VMFS5 data store and create an iSCSI separated THAT LUN formatted to a block size of 64 K, then fix it with the initiator iSCSI in the operating system and which size to 64 K. The corresponding block sizes through layers increase performance or is it advisable? Any help answer and/or explaining best practices is greatly appreciated.

  itsolution,

  Thanks for the helpful response points.  I wrote a blog about this which I hope will help:

  Alignment of partition and blocks of size VMware 5 | blog.jgriffiths.org

  To answer your questions here, will:

  I have 1 TB of space (around) and create two Virutal Drives.

  Virtual Drive 1-10GB - to use for OS Hyper-visiere files

  Virtual Drive 2 - 990 GB - used for the storage of data/VM VMFS store

  The element size of default allocation on the Perc6 / i is 64 KB, but can be 8,16,32,64,128,256,512 or 1024 KB.

  What size block would you use table 1, which is where the real hyper-visiere will be installed?

  -> If you have two tables I would set the size of the block on the table of the hypervisor to 8 KB

  What block size that you use in table 2, which will be used as the VM data store in ESXi?

  ->, I'd go with 1024KO on VMFS 5 size

  -Do you want 1024KO to match the VMFS size which will be finally formatted on top he block?

  -> Yes

  * Consider that this database would eventually contain several virtual hard drives for each OS, database SQL, SQL logs formatted to NTFS to the recommended block, 4K, 8K, 64K size.

  -> The problem here is THAT VMFS will go with 1 MB, no matter what you're doing so sculpture located lower in the RAID will cause no problems but does not help either.  You have 4 k sectors on the disk.  RAID 1 MB, 1 MB invited VMFS, 4 k, 8K, 64 K.   Really, 64K gains are lost a little when the back-end storage is 1 MB.

  If the RAID stripe element size is set to 1 024 Ko so that it matches the VMFS 1 MB size of block, which would be better practice or is it indifferent?

  -> So that's 1024KB, or 4 KB chucks it doesn't really matter.

  What effect this has on the OS/Virtual HD and their sizes respective block installed on top of the tape and the size of block VMFS element?

  -> The effect is minimal on the performance but that exists.   It would be a lie to say that he didn't.

  I could be completely on the overall situation of the thought, but for me it seems that this must be some kind of correlation between the three different "layers" as I call it and a best practice in service.

  Hope that helps.  I'll tell you I ran block size SQL and Exchange time virtualized without any problem and without changing the operating system.  I just stuck with the standard size of microsoft.  I'd be much more concerned by the performance of the raid on your server controller.  They continue to do these things cheaper and cheaper with cache less and less.  If performance is the primary concern then I would consider a matrix or a RAID5/6 solution, or at least look at the amount of cache on your raid controller (reading is normally essential to the database)

  Just my two cents.

  Let me know if you have any additional questions.

  Thank you

  J

• Property of block size of the data store

  How to get the block size defined in the configuration of the data store tab. Is there a property, I should be looking. Currently, I tried getting the object managed data store but were not able to get the size of the block that.

  If you are looking for the solution with PowerCLI, take a look at Re: version list VMFS and block size of all data stores

  André

• ESXI4 installation, best practices RAID, Stripe size, VD, the partitions?

  Hi all

  I have server Dell Poweredge PE2970 with PERC6 / I and PERC6/E RAID controllers.

  and the Bay of Dell Powerwault MD1000 storage.

  PERC6 / I is conducted 6 x 150 GB, 10,000 rpm, SATA drives. (560 GB RAID 6) and,

  PERC6/E is engine x 15 x 1 TB 5400 RPM, SATA drives. (12 to RAID 6)

  This combination is used to provide iSCSI and NFS services for film and music production environment.

  I plan to create 3x100Gb, 1x200Gb, and 1x60Gb virtual disks of 560 GB RAID 6 array.

  60 GB to install VMware ESXI4 and StorMagic SvSAN.

  100 GB for virtual machines (Linux, Windows, NFS, AD, backup, servers etc.)

  100 GB for Audio iSCSI (work Pro Tools disk)

  100 GB for video iSCSI (work Pro Tools disk)

  200 GB for iSCSI Virtual Instruments (used by Pro tools)

  and 6 x 2 TB of storage, backups, etc.

  How to create these virtual disks when I create RAID arrays?

  What Strip size to use?

  How about this VD 60 'system' VD ESXI4 and SvSAN, or 100 GB 'virtual machine' for other servers?

  I had to do it like this, or should I create a 160 GB VD, for all the servers and facilities of ESXI?

  or should I create a VD to each their own?

  I mean like VD 1 GB for ESXI4, 25 GB (two partitions of 5 GB and 20 GB) VD for SvSAN, VD (two partitions 40 GB and 40 GB) 80 GB for Windows server.

  5 GB VD for Audio Linux NFS, 100 GB VD for iSCSI server, etc. In this solution, I could choose a different distribution for each VD size.

  I know this isn't the best solution, and in the future I could replace all the drives 10,000 rpm with fast SSDS 32 GB (128 GB RAID6)

  for the system and servers, and have a second table MD1000 for iSCSI disks dedicated 10,000 rpm. But for now, it's how to deal with.

  All suggestions and advice are welcome.

  Concerning

  Petzu

  We create a 5120 MB vd for esxi installation.  5121 actually like the perc bios rounds.

  Then we can recreate all installing esxi without touching anything else.

  The virtual machine are limited in the size of their maximum vmdk. For example, you could create just the minimum number of data warehouses.

  Keep it simple and straightforward unless you have a specific reason to diverge.

  Let me paraphrase what mentions a dev to vmware, (it was in what concerns the amendment of vmfs default block size and I like to think that it is also applied to vmware Scheduler, a great great piece of programming). "We optimize, so you can just go with the default value and know he's going to do the right thing."

  The default size of the distribution is a good compromise, optimized to work under most workloads; different size block sizes can have radically different performance based on the workload characteristics.  The default value works well and 2008 and later versions of the most recent vm of windows properly aligned on 64 k.

  Dell has a ton of technical documents by comparing the performance of raid levels.  Already a few months that we are talking about performance raid comparng and I whimper.

  If it needs to be super fast I pick up 10, lots of space 5, more reliable but more space, and then from 10 to 6.

  Dell technology said that most of the people raid 5, because disk is so reliable.

  We use raid 6 for reliability on volumes in addition to 12. Depending on the level of incorrigible error on a raid of 12 to rebuild.

  http://m.ZDNet.com/blog/storage/why-RAID-6-stops-working-in-2019/805 (which implies an ure 12^{14 and I think I'm 12 years old company records}15 ure).

  The backup raid controller cache battery alleviates some of the supposed raid 6 over raid 5 performance drops.

  In your case I use raid 5 for warehouses of operational data for performance and raid 6 for the backup data store.

  In addition a synthetic benchmark not always told you the return you will get with a real application in an operating system.

  When we first virtualized mysql, according to our benchmark iometer, we thought performance would be an order of magnitude worse. In practice, they were good enough that we went hog wild and virtualized of many others.  You should always be aware of the performance characteristics of your application.

  For example, we have two pairs of distinct mysql replication, and each of them get their own volume 5 disc on the md1000 even.

  Heterogeneous workloads on the same volume of mixture, specifically servers oversees with lots of random file io and vm with support for example sequential access will hurt the performance of the database.  ESXI 4.1 storage io control feature is designed to mitigate this.

  The funniest on the axles and raid controllers, it's that sometimes a lot of slower batteries will out perform less higher speed axes.

  If you think you aggregate read the md1000 on performs faster small volume.

  Battery learn cycle is running all 90 days or more and turn off the cache writeback, which hurt performance. He must run because the cache battery degrades over time, and he needs to know when the battery lasts less than 24 hours.  It determines this by measuring the time it takes to recharge.

  We have never noticed this or necessary to adjust it to our server by default openmanage farm, I just thought I would mention it because we were on a subject very.

  Install openmanage for esxi.  Disable the cache on individual disks, as this cache is not battery backup.

  Don't forget to document your config, because it won't remember what you were doing when you do a recovery.

• We would have a VMFS-3 volume large or small volumes?

  Hi, I have three questions.

  Question No. 1: The format ESX3.5 storage through VMFS-3 file system. What is the name of ESX4 file system.

  Question 2: What is the maximum size of VMFS-3 volume?

  Question 3: what is the recommended to VMFS-3 volume size? Should a one big disk or several small pieces considereing loads of e/s and combined question.

  Kind regards

  Khurram Shahzad

  1 ESX4 always use 3 VMFS. In fact, ESX VMFS 3.31 used 3.5 and ESX 4.0 uses 3.33, but ESX 4 can work with warehouses of 3.31 data without any problem.

  2-64 to - 32 degrees 2 to everyone.

  3. There is no recommended size. Everything depends on your size of virtual machines and the load. The only way to determine what size should your VMFS be - to measure the e/s VM load and compare with throughput of disk array.

  ---

  MCSA, MCTS, VCP, VMware vExpert 2009

  http://blog.vadmin.ru

• 2 TB + VMDK? How...?

  OK, maybe I'm stupid. But for the life of me, I do not understand this.

  VMware said THAT VMFS 5 supports up to 62 to VMDK.

  Yet, when I build the new data store of 14 to SAN LUN with 5.60 VMFS, max VMDK size is 2 TB due to the block size of 1 MB.

  I'm converting a file from a server 10TB server share nu metal to a virtual machine and I really don't want to use Windows dynamic disk to span multiple volumes.

  Help me understand this contradiction?

  You try this VI-client or Web client. What I remember is that only Webclient allows you to create 2 TB + VMDK. Can you check and update

• Problems adding a hard drive to a Windows 2003 client

  I am trying to add a hard drive to a guest VM on a host running ESXi 4.1.0 standard. It is a historical system that we must keep and maintain for another 1 & 1/2 years. There are 15 comments on this host.  The local database has 1.63 TB of storage with 868,85 Go free. All comments thick supply usage.

  The prompt, I work with is a Windows 2003 R2, 32-bit, Service Pack 2, Standard Edition.  Currently, I have two drives C: = 80 GB, & E: = 20 GB. I am trying to add a third hard drive of 300 GB.  When I try to add the 300 GB drive, I get the following error message. "Disk capacity was not properly formatted or was out of reach.  It has been replaced by the nearest acceptable value. " Value, it is replaced by what is 256 GB.

  I used the same Windows operating system to create three other similar servers with the largest hard drive = 100 GB C:, E: = 100 GB, & F: = 1.5 to.  Microsoft's web site, said that this operating system can handle 2 TB of storage.  The only difference with the other hosts three, that's they run vSphere 5.5.

  The size of the block of your VMFS datastore is the limiting factor, the bottom suggest that your datastore to VMFS-3 has been configured with 1 MB block size where the maximum virtual hard disk and the file size would be 256Go.

  See below for the limits provided by VMFS-2 and VMFS-3 block sizes.

  Block size	Large virtual disk on VMFS-2	Large virtual disk on VMFS-3
  1 MB	456 GB	256 GB *.
  2 MB	912 GB	512 GB *.
  4 MB	1.78 TB	1 TB
  8 MB	2 TB	2 TB minus 512 B *.