<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Windows 2012 Dynamic VHDX on NetApp in Microsoft Virtualization Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Microsoft-Virtualization-Discussions/Windows-2012-Dynamic-VHDX-on-NetApp/m-p/60191#M2975</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In &lt;A href="http://www.netapp.com/us/media/tr-4175.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;TR-4175&lt;/A&gt; I read this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Microsoft Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V includes dynamic and differencing VHDX drive types. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dynamic disks start as sparse disks and are not populated until the first reads and/or writes occur. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Differencing disks start with a fixed disk as the parent. The differencing disks are only 4KB in size and &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;grow as the reads and writes occur. &lt;STRONG&gt;We tested with dynamic and differencing VHDX drives and found &lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;the performance to be equivalent to fixed VHDX drives.&lt;/STRONG&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&gt;I thought I heard someone explaining that NTFS allocations on the parent for many dynamic VHDXs growing simultaneously was a bottleneck in real-world environments&lt;/SPAN&gt;.&amp;nbsp; Anyone ever heard of this or did I dream it up?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5em;"&gt;Also, if performance is now comparable, are there any real reasons to strongly recommend fixed anymore?&amp;nbsp; There is always the "where to deploy thin provisioning" discussion (at VHDX layer and/or LUN / FlexVol layers) but assuming there is a preference for dynamic VHDX is there any reason not do to so?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5em;"&gt;I also checked and the New-NaVirtualDisk cmdlet even allows creation of dynamic VHDX....&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5em;"&gt;Thanks!&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5em;"&gt;Chris Madden&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:40:51 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>madden</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:40:51Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Windows 2012 Dynamic VHDX on NetApp</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Microsoft-Virtualization-Discussions/Windows-2012-Dynamic-VHDX-on-NetApp/m-p/60191#M2975</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In &lt;A href="http://www.netapp.com/us/media/tr-4175.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;TR-4175&lt;/A&gt; I read this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Microsoft Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V includes dynamic and differencing VHDX drive types. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dynamic disks start as sparse disks and are not populated until the first reads and/or writes occur. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Differencing disks start with a fixed disk as the parent. The differencing disks are only 4KB in size and &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;grow as the reads and writes occur. &lt;STRONG&gt;We tested with dynamic and differencing VHDX drives and found &lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;the performance to be equivalent to fixed VHDX drives.&lt;/STRONG&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&gt;I thought I heard someone explaining that NTFS allocations on the parent for many dynamic VHDXs growing simultaneously was a bottleneck in real-world environments&lt;/SPAN&gt;.&amp;nbsp; Anyone ever heard of this or did I dream it up?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5em;"&gt;Also, if performance is now comparable, are there any real reasons to strongly recommend fixed anymore?&amp;nbsp; There is always the "where to deploy thin provisioning" discussion (at VHDX layer and/or LUN / FlexVol layers) but assuming there is a preference for dynamic VHDX is there any reason not do to so?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5em;"&gt;I also checked and the New-NaVirtualDisk cmdlet even allows creation of dynamic VHDX....&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5em;"&gt;Thanks!&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5em;"&gt;Chris Madden&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:40:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Microsoft-Virtualization-Discussions/Windows-2012-Dynamic-VHDX-on-NetApp/m-p/60191#M2975</guid>
      <dc:creator>madden</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:40:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Windows 2012 Dynamic VHDX on NetApp</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Microsoft-Virtualization-Discussions/Windows-2012-Dynamic-VHDX-on-NetApp/m-p/60194#M2976</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes there is a minuscule amount of overhead with Dynamic VHDX, however there is no longer any alignment issues.&amp;nbsp; For this reason the decision to run one over the other is an operational concern.&amp;nbsp; If the organization doesn't monitor, and is slow to respond to change. Then Fixed is still the preferred deployment model, as it carries no risk.&amp;nbsp; If using Fixed the toolkit can be used to still thin at the storage layer.&amp;nbsp; However if the organization does monitor then Dynamic will return the greatest long term ROI.&amp;nbsp; Going forward all FlexPod reference architectures will use Dynamic VHDX as monioring is part of the architecture as built.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope that helps,&lt;BR /&gt;~Glenn&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:41:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Microsoft-Virtualization-Discussions/Windows-2012-Dynamic-VHDX-on-NetApp/m-p/60194#M2976</guid>
      <dc:creator>GlennSizemore</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-03-17T13:41:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

