We are looking to migrate to a vSAN environment, and will deploy at least a 12 node cluster. 90% of the environment will not be particularly IOPS hungry or latent sensitive. And my first approach, was to utilise a storage policy of R5 FTT1, thin provisioned. Any performant will be thick provisioned on R1. But, from reading R5&R6 suffer from poor performance and higher latency compared to using R1. Since R27U3, I read that there has been improvements of using erasure encoding in conjunction with dedupe/compression.
R6 has a double write parity, and with my number of nodes, I should run a FTT2, but I am looking at 100TB of storage. Is there a big difference write/latent wise R5 v R6? Are there any updated benchmarks comparing R1-R6 on R27? I am migrating via HCX, and I don't want to to retrospectively change my storage policy on that volume of data, although I could change problematic VM's if need be. Our vSAN is NVMe cache and all flash storage. Coming from a storage background, anything R6 was generally deemed archive workloads. Ideally, money no object R1 FTT=2, but this is too costly. 10% of my environment is running DB's, but the majority should fall to R6 FTT2, but I am worried of the downsides of R6. Are the improvements of R27U3 performance documented anyway and substantiated.
Has anyone completed any testing, any advice, pointers?
