Security

Are the values reported by the clearpass CLI "show system-resources" command in standard units like IOPS or MB/s? Or are they some meaningless internal benchmark?

 

Our C3000V shows the following requirements:

Required system configuration:

-----------------------------

Number of CPUs  = 24

Total Memory    = 64 GB

Total Disk Size = 1800 GB

Total Disk Write Throughput = 400

Total Disk Read Throughput = 1200

-----------------------------

 

If those are Disk Throughput specs are IOPS, then our Nimble Storage appliance shows that it should easily hit these marks; if they are MB/s, then we need to add some flash disks to get those throughputs.

 

In actual fact, our Clearpass VMs fail the disk test pretty badly, and we are trying to find where the issue is. If these units are IOPS, then the values meausred by the system-resources tool are way lower than the values shown our our Nimble's GUI chart. If they are MB/s, then our test result values are plausible for our spinning disks, and we need SSDs.

The measurement reading in ClearPass are IOPS.

It also shows current as well as required

 

[appadmin@cppm161]# show system-resources

WARNING - System has failed minimum required resource checks for C1000V.

Current system configuration:

-----------------------------

Number of CPUs  = 8

Total Memory    = 8.00 GB

Total Disk Size = 150.00 GB

Total Disk Write Throughput = 119

Total Disk Read Throughput = 169

-----------------------------

Required system configuration:

-----------------------------

Number of CPUs  = 8

Total Memory    = 8 GB

Total Disk Size = 1000 GB

Total Disk Write Throughput = 50

Total Disk Read Throughput = 70

-----------------------------

Yes, thanks, but the current and required what?? I showed my sysadmin how short we were of the target, and he assumemd MB/s and said we had to go all flash for that kind of performance. But, for IOPS, it should be easy.

 

Problem for us is that the IOPS that Clearpass VM appliance measures is way worse than the IOPS that Nimble dash board shows it can deliver. Looking now to find where the mismatch is.

The measurement in ClearPass is from server perspective. In other words the max IOPS the server can get from the nimble, not what the nimble can deliver. Your disk size of 150GB does not match the requirement, that is why it fails the test.

1TB is a requirement for ClearPass. As well thick provisioned is strongly recommended. Please follow up the installation guide strictly.

Yes, clear on the disk sizes, thanks. I posted only the two requirements lines from our output, asking the units. (The small disk example posted above is from an Aruba example, and was in a reply to my post; those are not my disk sizes) 

Problem solved now?

Well, the problem of what units the Aruba test is using, yes, solved. And, I double-checked that the 2T disks on our two VMs are thick-provisioned.

 

For the rest of it, we have a ticket with Nimble, and they asked some questions about details of the test run by "show system-resources", so I'm going to open an Aruba ticket to get the Nimble people what they need from the Aruba people.

 

Also planning some IPERF testing from the VM hosts to the Nimble controller, to rule out network limitations. And we're moving one of the Clearpass VMs to a separate new test volume, to make it easier to meter it's IO as it hits the Nimble -- currently the clearpass numbers are bundled with the rest of the VMs on our five hosts.

Hi skbohrer,

 

Have you been able to get Clearpass and your Nimble to cooperate? We are in a similar situation, and are trying to deploy a 3000V OVA, and our disk speed ratings are coming in well under half. What's more frustrating, we are getting this on both our legacy spinning disk storage and our all-flash array, with only about a 1MB difference between the 2. 

The only thing I've been able to do to make a significant difference in those test results is to change the VM Hardware version to 15; that got us the highest numbers, although still well short of what is listed as a minimum. 

Thank you,