ONTAP Discussions

Hyper-v over SMB

edununes
636 Views

I'm experiencing a problem where I'm seeing a lot of indirect access to the share, I have a data lif on each controller and it's configured in the dns with the same cifs server name for each lif, my doubt is how I guarantee it will be accessed through the lif from node where is the volume/share hosted?

5 REPLIES 5

AlexDawson
485 Views

What version of ONTAP are you running and is CIFS configured to run in SMB 3.0 mode with continuous availability?

edununes
478 Views

Alex,
We are using version 9.9.1P9 with SMB 3 and continuos availability.

AlexDawson
461 Views

Thanks! I see you have found this post - https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Automatic-node-referrals-CIFS-and-support-for-Hyper-V/td-p/147402 - I have not replied to that one as it is so old, but I think their problem was that they only have data volumes/aggregates on one node. 

 

The current link to our best practices document for SMB for HyperV is at https://docs.netapp.com/us-en/ontap/pdfs/sidebar/SMB_configuration_for_Microsoft_Hyper_V_and_SQL_Server.pdf 

 

As your system is seeing indirect access, I assume that the volumes and aggregates are spread. With at least 10Gb throughput, on 9.9.1 indirect access should not be a major concern. 

 

I can't say for sure why node referrals is required to be disabled for Hyper-V, but I suspect it is a requirement for continuous availability, as this would otherwise remove indirect access. I believe therefore that the indirect access is expected in this use case.

 

You can run this command to view latency sources in your environment - I would be interested to see the output:

 

cluster1::> qos statistics volume latency show -iterations 100
Workload        ID      Latency  Network  Cluster   Data     Disk     QoS       NVRAM      Cloud
--------------- ------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------
-total-                  110.35ms   0ms   110.02ms 327.00us   0ms    0ms     0ms         0ms
vs1vol0         111      167.82ms   0ms   167.22ms 603.00us   0ms    0ms     0ms         0ms
vol1            1234     117.76ms   0ms   117.56ms 191.00us   0ms    0ms     0ms         0ms

  

edununes
434 Views

Alex, Thanks for responding.
Just remembering that my equipment is an A700 and before the update to 9.9.1 the latency was below 1ms,

AlexDawson
378 Views

Hi there! This certainly sounds like it needs a support case opened, sorry!

Public