Evaluate Weigh the pros and cons of technologies, products and projects you are considering.

Direct-attached vs. shared storage for VDI

Most organizations use shared storage for VDI, but it's important to review the pros and cons of DAS and other storage options before you implement virtual desktops.

One of the biggest hurdles to implementing VDI is creating a storage architecture. Step one: Determine whether you want direct-attached or shared storage for your virtual desktops.

Deploying and managing storage for virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) is so difficult because VDI is extremely I/O intensive. While you can reduce the I/O overhead by providing each virtual desktop with sufficient RAM -- so as to reduce the Windows operating system's dependency on the Pagefile.sys file -- you can't reduce virtual desktop I/O to the point that it becomes insignificant.

That is particularly true during busier periods of the day. For instance, large numbers of users powering up their virtual desktops in the morning can trigger an I/O storm. It may be tempting to dismiss boot storms as a once-a-day occurrence, because even that can be avoided by leaving virtual desktops powered up.

But there are other types of I/O storms. For instance, the user logon process can cause a major I/O spike, as can launching an application. Your VDI storage infrastructure needs to be efficient enough to effectively deal with these and other types of I/O storms that occur throughout the day.

When choosing VDI storage, you have two primary choices: local direct-attached storage or shared storage. Here are the differences between the two options.

Local direct-attached storage

The least expensive and easiest VDI storage option to configure is direct-attached storage (DAS). With DAS, the main advantage is that the hypervisor can communicate directly with the storage. That means network bandwidth limitations or latency don't constrain storage communications.

More on storage for VDI

Quiz: What do you know about storage for VDI?

How to manage VDI storage: A complete guide

VDI storage requirements: Do you need a new array?

Another advantage is that when direct-attached storage is used, another host will not affect disk I/O. In a shared storage environment, all of the host servers must share disk resources. If a host happens to carry an unusually heavy workload, that host's tasks can potentially rob other hosts of disk I/O. This is not a problem when each host has its own storage.

Despite the benefits of direct-attached storage for VDI, it isn't always reliable. DAS offers no provision for failover. If the host server fails, then any storage devices that are attached to the host become inaccessible. For this reason alone, many of the VDI platforms on the market do not even support DAS.

Depending on which platform you are using, it might be possible to create a pool of host servers, each with its own local storage. If a server in the pool fails, the connection broker can redirect sessions to another host. The problem with this approach is that it lacks support for personal virtual desktops. The only way this type of failover can work is if each host maintains an identical collection of virtual machines.

Shared storage

The preferred method for providing storage to virtual desktops is shared storage. In this architecture, each virtualization host connects to a centralized storage pool where the individual virtual hard disk files reside. Because all hosts are connected to a centralized storage pool, the infrastructure is protected against host server failure. If a host fails, its workload can be moved to a different host within the cluster.

Although using shared storage for VDI is a better architecture for most deployments (there are exceptions), shared storage is not without its drawbacks. For one thing, it can be expensive to implement. This is especially true if you are using a storage area network.

Even if you use iSCSI network-attached storage, cost can be an issue because the underlying storage hardware must be fault tolerant so that it does not risk becoming a single point of failure. Just as important, the storage hardware must be able to meet the I/O demands of the entire VDI environment. This means using a large number of spindles and possibly even investing in solid-state storage for VDI.

Dig Deeper on Virtual desktop infrastructure and architecture

Join the conversation


Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

Do you think direct-attached storage or shared storage is better for VDI?
More Flexible to end users.
windows 7 was never designed for shared stoarge!
Shared storage is better option for VDI
DAS and Host become a single point of failure
Nexenta converged storage
any storage with Virtu
Some arguments for DAS are rediculous.
Shared storage needed for load balancing and failover
I believe that the best solution lies in a balance between the two. With user profile data, virtualized applications, and business data located on Shared Storage and BCP protected, then non-persistent desktop instances can be used to take advantage of greater IOPs and lower cost host attached SSD storage.
Due to the fact that VDI is a business critical platform, the use of shared storage is unavoidable. People think of shared storage as the traditional SAN/ISCSI architecture which is resilient but expensive and beyond the finacial reach of many of today's businesses however, newer technologies such as Red Hat's Gluster or RHS will enable the use of commodity hardware which will offer a shared storage architecture at an affordable price.
use I/O accellerators like ioDrive2 combined with SAN
The drawbacks of each implementation: DAS risk of failure; Shared costs. The solution needs to be performance tolerable (No single virtual desktop hurts the Storage), shareable, and at a price point that allows for a livable TCO.
Direct attached storage can be considered as single point of failure, hence shared storage is preferred.
Have you looked at VDI-in-a-Box by Citrix? This solution provides high availability even when using DAS and it does so transparently.
I'm sorry....but this is rubbish. Using DAS in VDI...or any enterprise level visualization for that matter is a single point of failure and dosn't allow for HA, DRS and other features. In addition to this I can not see any cost benefit in regards of racking, cableing or cooling...
linked clone OS image is good to run off the direct-attached, while keeping the data on shared storage