Comparison Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct and Nutanix

There has been a lot of fuzz around storage spaces direct coming with Windows Server 2016, and I have been getting alot of questions around it lately. “Will it solve my storage issues?” “can we replace our existing SAN?” “When to choose SPD over SAN” and so on.

Now as of right now, not all the technical details are known around the feature itself and not all features are 100% in place but this blogpost will do a comparison between Nutanix and Storage Spaces Direct and how they differenciate. Now Storage Spaces direct is a more advances Storage Spaces setup, but uses the same capabilities but now we can agreegate local disks inside servers to setup a SMB 3.0 based fileservice.

This is an overview of how a Storage Spaces Direct setup might look like, since it has a requirement for 4 nodes and having a backbone RDMA, Im come back to why this is a requirement. Now as I have mentioned previously is that Storage Spaces direct has an issue and that is with data locality, Microsoft treats storage and compute as two seperate entities and that is reflected in the Storage Spaces Direct setup. Since it can be setup as two seperate components SMB Scale out file server or using hyperconvereged.

When setting up as Hyperconverged the following happens


Let us say that we have a VM01 running on NODE1 which is running on top of a storage spaces direct vdisk01 running as a two-way mirror. What will happen is that Storage Spaces will create 1 GB extent of the vDisk and spread the chucks across seperate nodes, so even thou the VM01 is running on a specific host, the storage is placed random on the different hosts within the cluster, which will indicate that this will generate alot of east-west traffic within the cluster, and that is why Microsoft has set a requirement that we have RDMA network backbone on our Storage Spaces Direct cluster since it will require low-latency – high troughput traffic in order to be efficient in this type of cluster setup, since Microsoft just looks at the different nodes as a bunch of disks.

On the other hand, Nutanix solves this in another matter, which I also think that Microsoft should think about which is data locality, in case of a VM running on a particular host, most of the content is served locally from the host that the VM is running on, using the different tieres (Content Cache), (Extent Store), (Oplog)


Which removes the requirement of any particular high speed backbone.

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top