advisor assessment report - · pdf filereference systems technology incorporated...

Reference Systems Technology Incorporated Virtustream® Advisor | Assessment Report v2014.03

Advisor Assessment Report

Client: Reference Systems Technology Incorporated Project: Reference Project

Model: 2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux

Report: Virtustream Branding Sample Report

Version: 1.0

Date: Thursday, January 23, 2014

Prepared By: Derek Bambach

Prepared For: internal review

Classification: Discussion Document

CC:

Reference Systems Technology Incorporated Virtustream® Advisor | Assessment Report

Virtustream, Inc.

www.virtustream.com

North America

Bethesda, Maryland (Headquarters)

4800 Montgomery Lane, Suite 1100, Bethesda, MD 20814

Tel: +1.240.252.1007 Fax: +1.301.718.7880

San Francisco, California

455 Market Street, Suite 1250, San Francisco, CA 94105

Tel: +1.415.856.2501 Fax: +1.415.856.2504

Atlanta, Georgia

6 Concourse Parkway, Suite 1930, Atlanta, GA

Tel: +1.678.533.2440 Fax: +1.678.395.6998

European Offices

London, UK

3rd Floor, 78-79 Leadenhall Street, London, EC3A 3DH

Tel: +44 (0) 870 345 3525 Fax: +44 (0) 870 738 6345

Kaunas, Lithuania

Coming Soon

Copyright © 2014 by Virtustream, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide.

http://www.virtustream.com/

Reference Systems Technology Incorporated Virtustream® Advisor | Assessment Report

Document Control:

The following document details the effect that Cloud and Virtualization would have on the future Information

Technology strategy of Reference Systems Technology Incorporated.

It is based on the information provided to Virtustream in a series of meetings and also any performance analysis

that is available at the time of writing.

Information contained in this document is accurate to the best of Virtustream knowledge at the time of publication

and is required to be treated as confidential. It should not be reproduced or made available in any form to persons

outside the group directly responsible for evaluating its contents

Any performance data provided is based on relevant information made available to us at the present time, and

must (except where stated otherwise) be regarded as an estimate only, since the actual performance and

functionality of any computer system will depend upon a variety of factors, not all of which are related to the

products and services that may ultimately be supplied.

For information purposes, please find below the document control details:

Client: Reference Systems Technology Incorporated

Project Name: Reference Project

Model Name: 2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux

Report Name: Virtustream Branding Sample Report

Doc Version: 1.0

Report Date: Thursday, January 23, 2014

Prepared By: Derek Bambach

Prepared For: internal review

Classification: Discussion Document

CC:

[Reference Systems Technology Incorporated] Virtustream® Advisor Assessment Report | 1

Contents

1. Advisor Study Objectives .................................................................................................... 3

Overview of Reference Systems Inc...................................................................................................................3

Project Background.............................................................................................................................................3

Reference Systems Inc. Objectives for the Cloud ..............................................................................................3

Cloud Options for Consideration .........................................................................................................................3

Concerns about the Cloud ..................................................................................................................................3

Success Criteria for Reference Systems Inc. .....................................................................................................3

2. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4

Overview .............................................................................................................................................................4

Summary of Resource Utilization .......................................................................................................................4

Main Areas of Service Improvement...................................................................................................................4

Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................................5

3. General IT Profile ................................................................................................................ 6

IT at Reference Systems Inc. (Environment Summary) .....................................................................................6

Current Data Center Information ........................................................................................................................6

Server Estate Information ...................................................................................................................................6

Device Estate Information ...................................................................................................................................6

Network and Access Overview ...........................................................................................................................6

4. Business Continuity, Disaster Recovery, Backup and Restore ........................................... 7

Overview .............................................................................................................................................................7

Advisor Interview Results ...................................................................................................................................7

Virtualization and Cloud Services for Back-up and Restore ...............................................................................7

Virtualization as an Enabling Technology for Business Continuity .....................................................................7

Disaster Recovery Objectives .............................................................................................................................8

Business Continuity Requirements .....................................................................................................................8

Higher Systems Availability ................................................................................................................................9

Business Continuity Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 10

5. Security and Compliance Requirements ........................................................................... 11

Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 11

Security Audit Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 11

Security and Compliance Recommendations .................................................................................................. 11

6. Performance Statistic Summaries ..................................................................................... 12

Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 12

Measured Candidates ...................................................................................................................................... 12

CPU Peak Hour Demand Load (56 candidates) .............................................................................................. 14

CPU Consumption (56 candidates) ................................................................................................................. 15

Memory Consumption (56 candidates) ............................................................................................................ 19

Disk Activity: Input/Output Operations (56 candidates) ................................................................................... 23

Disk Activity: Volume (56 candidates) ............................................................................................................. 26

Network Data Volume (55 candidates) ............................................................................................................ 29


Storage Capacities (56 candidates) ................................................................................................................. 33

7. Aggregate Resource Utilization over Time ........................................................................ 37

Aggregate CPU Utilization ............................................................................................................................... 37

Aggregate Memory Utilization .......................................................................................................................... 37

Aggregate Disk IOPS (Read) ........................................................................................................................... 38

Aggregate Disk IOPS (Write) ........................................................................................................................... 38

Aggregate Disk Volume (Read) ....................................................................................................................... 39

Aggregate Disk Volume (Write) ....................................................................................................................... 39

Aggregate Disk IOPS (Total) ........................................................................................................................... 40

Aggregate Disk Volume (Total) ........................................................................................................................ 40

Aggregate Storage Utilization .......................................................................................................................... 41

Aggregate Network Utilization ......................................................................................................................... 41

8. Week by Week Performance Analysis for Virtualization ................................................... 42

Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 42

Measured Performance Data – Period 1 ......................................................................................................... 44




9. Resource Utilization Analysis ............................................................................................ 48

Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 48

µVM Consumption (56 candidates) ................................................................................................................. 49

10. Potential Impact of Virtualization ....................................................................................... 50

Proposed Virtualization Host Resources ......................................................................................................... 50

Combined Most Intensive Resource Utilization modelling............................................................................... 50

11. Potential Impact of Cloud Infrastructure ............................................................................ 53

Proposed Cloud µVM Resources .................................................................................................................... 53

Current Overall Resource Utilization ............................................................................................................... 53

12. Environmental Impact ....................................................................................................... 54

Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 54

Existing Infrastructure Power Consumption .................................................................................................... 54

Impact of Virtualization Solution ...................................................................................................................... 55

Impact of Cloud Solution .................................................................................................................................. 57

13. Report Signoff ................................................................................................................... 58

14. Target List ......................................................................................................................... 59

15. About Virtustream, Inc. ..................................................................................................... 64

16. Appendix - Virtualization Explained................................................................................... 65

17. Appendix - Cloud Explained .............................................................................................. 70


1. Advisor Study Objectives

Overview of Reference Systems Inc.

[Questionnaire Section 01 - Question 03] Reference Systems Inc. provides real time system process monitoring

for industrial, utility, and military markets worldwide. The company provides tools to monitor and report on real-

time conditions and changes to manufacturing, utility, and infrastructure support systems to insure system

integrity and to create an automated alert and response system. Reference Systems Inc. offers its monitoring

tools directly and through third party distributors, and also offers additional out-sourced monitoring services to

users of its monitoring tools.

Project Background

[Questionnaire Section 01 - Question 03] Reference Systems Inc. provides real time system process monitoring

for industrial, utility, and military markets worldwide. The company provides tools to monitor and report on real-

time conditions and changes to manufacturing, utility, and infrastructure support systems to insure system

integrity and to create an automated alert and response system. Reference Systems Inc. offers its monitoring

tools directly and through third party distributors, and also offers additional out-sourced monitoring services to

users of its monitoring tools.

Reference Systems Inc. Objectives for the Cloud

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 03] Summary of the Client Objectives for the Cloud.

Cloud Options for Consideration

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 04] Summary of the Cloud Options under Consideration for this

assessment.

Concerns about the Cloud

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 05] Summary of the Client's concerns about the Cloud.

Success Criteria for Reference Systems Inc.

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 06] Consumption model, right class of server, agility, replication, DR,

backup, Increase Availability, Risk Mitigation, cost effectiveness.


2. Executive Summary

Overview

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 02] Executive Overview summary based on Client interviews.

This report discusses the opportunity that cloud services and virtualization technologies present to Reference

Systems Inc. and the approaches required to implement and complete a successful transformation from its

current status.

Summary of Resource Utilization

Memory, CPU, IOPS

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 07] Summary of current Resource Utilization.

The below chart summarizes the usage results of Reference Systems Inc.’s infrastructure in aggregate. Detailed

analysis of the systems and the implications for virtualization and cloud services is provided in Chapters 6-9.

Resource Total during Peak Period % Utilized µVMs

CPU (Mhz) 366,538 18.0% 1,833

Memory (MB) 1,920,612 83.5% 2,687

Disk I/OPS 1,826,416 N/A 1,274

Network (B/s) 1,767,340 N/A 4,307

Main Areas of Service Improvement

Potential Efficiencies from Virtualization and Cloud Services

Industry averages place CPU utilization lower than 15% per server – Reference Systems Inc. is averaging

18.0% at peak. Virtualization consolidates all this inefficiency onto fewer platforms to drive up utilization without

compromising performance / reliability.

Total Cost of Ownership

Systems Availability

Business Continuity


Conclusions and Recommendations

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 20] Conclusions and Recommendations based on Client interviews and

conversations.

The Advisor Report lays the initial groundwork on the current configuration of Reference Systems Inc.’s IT

infrastructure, and provides a 4-week profile of the system usage.

Virtustream recommends that Reference Systems Inc. use this Advisor Report as the baseline for developing a

Cloud Strategy and Implementation Project.


3. General IT Profile

IT at Reference Systems Inc. (Environment Summary)

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 09] Summary of the Client's IT environment based on Client interviews.

Current Data Center Information

Reference Systems Inc. currently operates servers at main locations.

Location Details: [Questionnaire Section 12 - Question 08] New York, Los Angeles

.

Server Estate Information

The existing (in scope) server estate is spread between these data centers, and this comprises approximately 56

servers, of which 70 servers are operating in a virtual environment.

The replacement program for the servers is every 4 years and approximately of the servers are replaced each

year; this represents approximately 0 servers per year. The growth rate on the server estate is estimated at year

on year, therefore this represents an additional servers for the next year.

Multiple Production environments, related test and development environments

Device Estate Information

The client access device deployed at Reference Systems Inc. is predominantly a typical full function workstation

device of which there are approximately in use. There is also some use of Microsoft Terminal Services via the

Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) for about 50 users with approximately 2000 laptops.

Network and Access Overview

The following diagrams provide the network and access structure at Reference Systems Inc.

[ADD SUPPORTING DIAGRAMS HERE]


4. Business Continuity, Disaster Recovery, Backup and Restore

Overview

Much of the content of this report focuses on new technologies and different methods to achieve objectives via

virtualization. However, one area that is still as valid as ever is the requirement for a Business Continuity Strategy

that includes a robust and reliable backup and recovery solution.

Virtustream has extensive experience in the specification, implementation and support of Enterprise backup

solutions, and virtualization has until recently presented a significant challenge with regard to backup and

recovery strategies.

Advisor Interview Results

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 13] Overview based on the Advisor Interview results.

For further detail on the results of this area, please see the “Business Continuity, Back-up, and Restore” section

of the Advisor Questionnaire Summary.

Virtualization and Cloud Services for Back-up and Restore

Virtualization as an Enabling Technology for Business Continuity

Reference Systems Inc. has a separate strategic review being conducted on how to improve the current disaster

recovery capabilities, and virtualization has been recognized as a potential enabling technology that could assist

in the delivery of such a strategy.

The assumption that virtualization could potentially have benefits in assisting such a strategy is well founded as

virtualization is the cornerstone technology to enabling organizations to simplify and automate the tasks required

to provide reliable and rapid disaster recovery. If all the requisite components in the technology stack illustrated

below are implemented, then this recovery can begin to move towards business continuity as in a solution that

does not need recovery as it has avoided the outage in the first place.

This report uses the following terminology to explain the evolution of disaster recovery capabilities.

Tier Terminology Explanation

1 Business Continuity The ability to cope with most types of outage and continue to provide key services with

no or very limited disruption and little or no restoration services

2 Disaster Recovery

In the event of an interruption to services a plan is activated to recover the systems

within the agreed timelines. Services are interrupted until recovery services have been

performed.

3 High Availability The ability to provide higher availability for systems within the confines of no major

outages.

Within each of the tiers, it is necessary to implement techniques, designs, technologies and processes to ensure

that the objective can be met.


Disaster Recovery Objectives

Business Continuity Requirements

Reference Systems Inc. will need to consider the following components to enable a transition to a continuity

solution. The table below indicates the required stack of components to deliver true business continuity

Component Status Requirement

Multi-Site Data Center [Add status here]

To be able to function in the event of an outage it is

a necessity that operations can operate from more

than one location.

Resilient

Communications [Add status here]

The solution is only as strong as its weakest link

and therefore the communications backbone needs

to be multi-homed and routed.

Remote access [Add status here] The ability to utilize applications remotely is critical

as the data is only useful if it can be accessed.

Replicated Data [Add status here]

The requirement to replicate data between sites so

that the need to restore from backups is minimized

or removed totally. Business continuity is all about

the ability to remove lead times.

Service availability /

resource provisioning [Add status here]

This forms the mainstay of this report to be able to

measure and quantify the resource required to

operate the services in a virtualized presentation.

Without virtualization duplicate hardware for all

services that are deemed required in a disaster

scenario would be required.

Operational planning [Add status here]

The requisite planning and testing of a Business

Continuity Solution, the creation of the procedures

to be adhered to and the test of their success. A

sound business continuity plan is an essential part

of the process.


Component Status Requirement

Semi-Automation [Add status here]

To enable the most rapid restoration of services in

the event of an outage it is a requirement that

automation or semi-automation of processes be

implemented to remove the lag introduced and the

risk of human error to repeat the tested in a true

outage situation. It is also the key to testing the

business continuity plan.

The functionality provided by the semi-automation

solution is covered in detail in the operational

management section of this report.

In summary by combining the functionality of

VMware Site Recovery Manager and its other

automation tools it will be possible for Reference

Systems Inc. to implement the semi-automation

frameworks required to simplify and more

consistently enable site failover and fail-back.

Higher Systems Availability

Like any organization, Reference Systems Inc. has expressed a desire to have enhanced systems availability

from its services. This is broken down into the following key areas:

Ability for systems to cope with outages

Improved disaster recovery capabilities through intelligent storage management

Improved agility to enable planned systems maintenance

Standardization

Improved management

Service Outages

To minimize the ability of system outages to affect services, Reference Systems Inc. should consider a design

that addresses two critical areas: storage and resource pools.

The resource pools are handled by the High Availability function of VMware vSphere server where the loss of a

host system running the underlying VMware ESX Hypervisor would instigate the servers that were being serviced

by the downed host being restarted on an alternative host. The host that will operate these servers is decided by

the Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS) function of VI3 which finds the best placed host to service the

requests.

By building in enough resource to cope with host outages, this can facilitate both an unplanned failure and

planned maintenance in working hours.

Systems Maintenance

Systems Maintenance is essentially to maintain the wellbeing of the IT infrastructure, unfortunately this can lead

to ‘planned downtime’ to avoid ‘unplanned downtime’, the opportunity to complete this required task is getting less

and less as organizations tolerance to any interruption of service reduces.

In line with the Services Outages section, it is necessary to build in capability to perform maintenance to both the

storage and resource pools and therefore both solutions need to have this functionality.


Standardization

A key to maintaining high availability is to maintain approved standards as this minimizes the effect of variations.

Virtualization allows standard server templates to be created on a platform of uniform hardware and therefore one

of the most disruptive areas of server support that of non-standard builds or hardware is avoided, thus improving

availability.

Business Continuity Conclusions and Recommendations

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 01] Summary of conclusions & recommendations regarding Business

Continuity.


5. Security and Compliance Requirements

Overview

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 15] Summary of the security and compliance overview based on Client

interviews.

Security Audit Requirements

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 16] Summary of the Client's Security Audit Requirements based on Client

interviews.

Security and Compliance Recommendations

[Questionnaire Section 34 - Question 17] Summary of our Security and Compliance Recommendation for the

Client.


6. Performance Statistic Summaries

Overview

Cloud computing and Virtualization are essentially all about resource management. These approaches are, in

some ways, a return of the methodologies of mid-range and mainframe computing models. Therefore to

understand the areas that could benefit the most from virtualization, it is important to monitor and asses the

current utilization models.

The principle benefit of virtualization is in its ability to utilize underlying physical resources in a more intelligent

way by sharing resources based on service level policies. It is this ability to be flexible to the varying demands

placed upon the consolidated resources that enables organizations to drive efficiencies within the organization.

By removing significant dependencies on the underlying physical resources, it is possible to design highly

available, performance enhanced and efficient shared platforms.

Once operating in such a manner, further enhancements can be made to improve the management and

optimization of IT infrastructure through service-level automation frameworks enabling organizations to manage

more with less and more effectively.

Measured Candidates

Performance Characteristics Overall Summaries

Each area of critical importance to virtualization/consolidation is summarized complete with utilization graphs.

This includes the following areas:

CPU and Memory Trends and efficiencies

Disk IOPS Trends

Disk IOPS data volume trends

Networking Trends

Storage Capacity Requirements

Utilization Detail

As part of the process, we have run the Virtustream Advisor to collect inventory and performance information over

a four week period. The statistics have been collated to help formulate a server consolidation solution targeted at

a cloud architecture.

We use the peak load values when considering consolidation, not the weekly average. As statistics are received,

they are evaluated to determine what hour of the day the peak load is placed on each individual server. The peak

load is determined by evaluating load for a minimum of four weeks. The hour with the consistently high load will

be deemed the peak load hour, and its average value becomes the peak load for the server. These peak loads

are then correlated across the broader collection of servers to determine the optimal mix of workloads with a

virtual or cloud infrastructure.

Proposed Consolidation of Resources

Using the statistics gathered in the planning exercise, Virtustream is able to estimate actual resources required in

the target cloud environment(s) to ensure that Reference Systems Inc. has the necessary compute resources

required to meet its demands.


Performance Characteristics Week by Week Summaries

Each area of critical importance to virtualization/consolidation is summarized to create the week’s virtualization

candidate profile, and this is modelled against the proposed host resources that form the virtualization platform. It

shows the demand that the measured systems would place upon the consolidated design.

A Guide to the Measured Statistics

Resource Explanation

CPU Util. MHz A calculation of the peak average MHz load placed upon the existing server estate based on %

utilization against the total amount of CPU installed

RAM Used MB A calculation of the utilized memory (RAM) in MB against the allocated resource

Disk Size GB The total amount of Hard Disk space allocated to the server

Disk Used GB The total amount of allocated disk space actually used by the server

Disk IOPS The total storage Input/output operations

Disk Reads/Writes B/s The total of the IOPs with regard to read and write operations

Network Traffic B/s A measure of how busy the server network card is, taken from the average data throughput in

bytes per second

Data Collection Periods

Period One: 41281 Number of Candidates: 56

Period Two: 41288 Number of Candidates: 56

Period Three: 41295 Number of Candidates: 56

Period Four: 41302 Number of Candidates: 56

Applied Resource Model Adjustments*

Target Expansion: 100.00% [if 100%, no adjustment applied]

CPU Performance: 100.00% [if 100%, no adjustment applied]

*Adjustment values of 100% = NO ADJUSTMENT APPLIED


CPU Peak Hour Demand Load (56 candidates)

Commentary

Ideally, organizations target an

even spread of demand

throughout the 24 hour period.

If there are concentrated

periods of load being

experienced this can typically

be causes by some of the

following activities:

1) Backup schedules

2) Anti-Virus Scans

3) Update periods

4) Logon and Logoff cycles

Virtustream models on the

load placed at peak average

demand.

The graph illustrates that there

is a peak demand for CPU at

a concentrated period

between 3:00 AM - 4:00 AM

when the highest number of

servers (5) experience their

most demanding hour. This

represents 8.9% of the entire

server estate and as a

concentrated workload.

[Questionnaire Section 35 -

Question 02] Additional

Commentary - CPU Peak

Hour Demand Load.

0

1

2

3

4

5

12

AM

1 A

M

2 A

M

3 A

M

4 A

M

5 A

M

6 A

M

7 A

M

8 A

M

9 A

M

10

AM

11

AM

12

PM

1 P

M

2 P

M

3 P

M

4 P

M

5 P

M

6 P

M

7 P

M

8 P

M

9 P

M

10

PM

11

PM

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Servers at Peak CPU per Hour

Servers Per Hour at MAX


CPU Consumption (56 candidates)

CPU Utilization (MHz)

CPU (Percent)

Commentary

The CPU Consumption graphs

show how the demands

placed on the systems have

varied from week to week -

from a low consumption peak

of 301,543 MHz observed in

week #N/A to the highest

peak in week 3 at 366,538

MHz. This equates to an

increase of 64,995 MHz

across all of the servers, or an

average increase of 64,995

MHz per machine for CPU

consumption from the lowest

to the highest observed peak.



Commentary - CPU

Consumption.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

350,861321,046

366,538

301,543

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: CPU (MHz)

CPU @ MIN CPU @ AVG CPU @ 95th% CPU @ MAX

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

17%16%

18%

15%

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: CPU (% of Asset)

CPU % @ MIN CPU % @ AVG CPU % @ 95th% CPU % @ MAX


CPU Utilization – Average vs. Maximum (MHz)

CPU Utilization – Average vs. Maximum (Percent)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

1/7/20131/14/2013

1/21/20131/28/2013

210,984198,122 209,365

204,784

350,861321,046 366,538

301,543

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: CPU [AVG + MAX] (MHz)

CPU @ AVG CPU @ MAX

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

1/7/20131/14/2013

1/21/20131/28/2013

10.4%9.7% 10.3%

10.1%

17.2%15.8% 18.0%

14.8%

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: CPU [AVG + MAX] (%)

CPU % @ AVG CPU % @ MAX


CPU Utilization at Maximum (MHz and Percent Available)

CPU Utilization at Average and Maximum (Percent Available)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

350,861 321,046 366,538 301,543

1,684,920 1,714,735 1,669,243 1,734,238

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: CPU @ MAX (MHz & %)

CPU @ MAX CPU Free @ MAX

10%

90%

Percent used at AVG CPU @ AVG

CPU Free @ AVG


16%

84%

Percent used at MAX CPU @ MAX

CPU Free @ MAX


Memory Consumption (56 candidates)

Memory Utilization (MB)

Memory Utilization (Percent)

Commentary

The Memory consumption

graphs show how the

demands placed on the

system vary from week to

week. The highest period of

memory utilization observed in

week 3 with 2,645,193 MB of

memory consumed at peak;

the lowest result was collected

in week 2 with a total of

2,630,420 MB utilized, yielding

a net difference of MB or 264

MB per server on average.



Commentary - Memory

Consumption.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

2,643,511 2,630,420 2,645,193 2,641,670

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Memory (MB)

Memory @ MIN Memory @ AVG Memory @ 95th% Memory @ MAX

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

83% 83% 83% 83%

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Memory (% of Asset)

Memory % @ MIN Memory % @ AVG Memory % @ 95th% Memory % @ MAX


Memory Utilization – Average vs. Maximum (MB)

Memory Utilization – Average vs. Maximum (Percent)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

1/7/20131/14/2013

1/21/20131/28/2013

2,535,4922,517,897 2,559,793

2,487,056

2,643,5112,630,420 2,645,193

2,641,670

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Memory [AVG + MAX] (MB)

Memory @ AVG Memory @ MAX

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1/7/20131/14/2013

1/21/20131/28/2013

80.0%79.4% 80.8%

78.5%

83.4%83.0% 83.5%

83.3%

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Memory [AVG + MAX] (%)

Memory % @ AVG Memory % @ MAX


Memory Utilization at Maximum (MB and Percent Available)

Memory Utilization at Average and Maximum (Percent Available)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

2,643,511 2,630,420 2,645,193 2,641,670

526,021 539,112 524,339 527,862

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Memory @ MAX (MB & %)

Memory @ MAX Memory Free @ MAX

80%

20%

Percent used at AVG Memory @ AVG

Memory Free @ AVG


83%

17%

Percent used at MAX Memory @ MAX

Memory Free @ MAX


Disk Activity: Input/Output Operations (56 candidates)

Disk IOPS (Read, Write, & Total) at Average

Disk IOPS (Read, Write, & Total) at Maximum

Commentary

The transition to centralized

computing via virtualization

places a significant

dependency on centralized

storage.

Much of the functionality

available from virtualization

comes from its close links with

the storage layer.

The storage solution will need

to meet the demands of the

IOPs of the business.

The Disk Operation

consumption graphs show

how the demands placed on

the system vary from week to

week. The high point of

demand comes in week 4

when 50,944 IOPs were

performed. This diminishes to

its low point in week 2 when it

is reduced to 44,378 IOPs.

This represents a 6,566 IOPs

variance from the low peak to

the high peak.



Commentary - Storage IOPS.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

47,23142,541

47,196 46,927

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk IOPS Rd/Wr/Total @ AVG

IOPS Read @ AVG IOPS Write @ AVG IOPSTotal @ AVG

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

50,944

44,37849,359 49,706

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk IOPS Rd/Wr/Total @ MAX

IOPS Read @ MAX IOPS Write @ MAX IOPS Total @ MAX


Disk IOPS (Read)

Disk IOPS (Write)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

10,337

7,588 7,3718,681

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk IOPS Read

IOPS Read @ MIN IOPS Read @ AVG IOPS Read @ 95th% IOPS Read @ MAX

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

43,391

37,22341,995 42,047

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk IOPS Write

IOPS Write @ MIN IOPS Write @ AVG IOPS Write @ 95th% IOPS Write @ MAX


Disk IOPS (Total) – Average and Maximum

Disk IOPS (Total) at Maximum

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1/7/20131/14/2013

1/21/20131/28/2013

47,231

42,541 47,19646,927

50,944

44,378 49,35949,706

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk IOPS Total [AVG + MAX]

IOPSTotal @ AVG IOPS Total @ MAX

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

50,944

44,37849,359 49,706

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk IOPS Total

IOPS Total @ MIN IOPSTotal @ AVG IOPS Total @ 95th% IOPS Total @ MAX


Disk Activity: Volume (56 candidates)

Disk Volume (Read, Write, & Total) at Average

Disk Volume (Read, Write, & Total) at Maximum

Commentary

These graphs indicate the

volume of data being read

from or written out to the

underlying storage. The

centralized storage will need

to be able to cope not only

with the amount of

transactions, but also the

volume of data.

The blend of the read and

write transactions will have an

effect on the actual storage

design. Disk writes impose a

much greater load on the

storage subsystem and often

is a limiting factor in

commodity clouds.

The Read and Write

consumption graphs show

how the demands placed on

the system vary from week to

week.

The peak for Reads of

2,347,997,440 bytes per

second is hit in week and the

peak for Writes is hit in week

at 543,021,044 bytes per

second.



Commentary - Storage Data

Volume.

0

200,000,000

400,000,000

600,000,000

800,000,000

1,000,000,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

977,093,788

806,404,136 820,041,458 845,574,907

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk VOL Rd/Wr/Total @ AVG (B/s)

Disk Vol Read @ AVG Disk Vol Write @ AVG Disk Vol Total @ AVG

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

2,428,042,7142,218,410,114

2,390,252,256 2,358,500,352

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk VOL Rd/Wr/Total @ MAX (B/s)

Disk Vol Read @ MAX Disk Vol Write @ MAX Disk Vol Total @ MAX


Disk Volume (Read)

Disk Volume (Write)

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

2,332,766,7202,154,120,826

2,347,997,4402,280,903,168

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk VOL Read (B/s)

Disk Vol Read @ MIN Disk Vol Read @ AVG Disk Vol Read @ 95th% Disk Vol Read @ MAX

0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

387,185,158454,832,486

543,021,044

343,563,776

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk VOL Write (B/s)

Disk Vol Write @ MIN Disk Vol Write @ AVG


Disk Volume (Total) – Average and Maximum

Disk Volume (Total) at Maximum

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

1/7/20131/14/2013

1/21/20131/28/2013

977,093,788

806,404,136820,041,458

845,574,907

2,428,042,7142,218,410,114 2,390,252,256

2,358,500,352

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk VOL Total [AVG + MAX]

Disk Vol Total @ AVG Disk Vol Total @ MAX

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

2,428,042,7142,218,410,114

2,390,252,256 2,358,500,352

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Disk VOL Total

Disk Vol Total @ MIN Disk Vol Total @ AVG


Network Data Volume (55 candidates)

Network Utilization (B/s)

Network Utilization (Percent)

Networking Commentary

Most physical machines have

a connection to the network

via Gigabit network interface

cards (NICs). When these

machines are virtualized, they

will share network interfaces

via virtual networking.

Therefore it is critical that the

networking layer is not

overloaded leading to

contention for resources that

could affect the perceived

performance and availability of

the virtual machines.

Within the physical hosts used

by virtualized infrastructures

and the cloud, multiple

physical networking interfaces

(NICs) will be bonded or

teamed to provide higher

bandwidth trunks and

redundancy to the core

network infrastructure and this

will then be allocated in a load

balanced manner to virtual

machines using algorithms

defined within virtual network

switches.

The Reference Systems Inc.

network was being utilized at

its highest rate during week

when 1,076,702,038 bytes

per second was measured.

This peak was reduced to

588,710,958 bytes per

second during week .



Commentary - Network Data

Volume.

0

200,000,000

400,000,000

600,000,000

800,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,200,000,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

588,710,958

762,186,990

1,076,702,038

593,966,041

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Network (B/s)

NET used @ MIN NET used @ AVG NET used @ 95th% NET used @ MAX

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

3%

4%

5%

3%

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Network (%)

NET % used @ MIN NET % used @ AVG NET % used @ 95th% NET % used @ MAX


Network Utilization – Average vs. Maximum (B/s)

Network Utilization – Average vs. Maximum (Percent)

0

200,000,000

400,000,000

600,000,000

800,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,200,000,000

1/7/20131/14/2013

1/21/20131/28/2013

191,967,450193,747,229

188,642,247183,488,109

588,710,958762,186,990

1,076,702,038

593,966,041

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Network [AVG + MAX] (B/s)

NET used @ AVG NET used @ MAX

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

1/7/20131/14/2013

1/21/20131/28/2013

0.9%0.9%

0.9%0.9%

2.8%3.6%

5.1%

2.8%

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Network [AVG + MAX] (%)

NET % used @ AVG NET % used @ MAX


Network Utilization at Maximum (B/s and % Available)

Network Utilization at Average and Maximum

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

588,710,958 762,186,990 1,076,702,038 593,966,041

20,665,834,497 20,492,358,464 20,177,843,417 20,660,579,414

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Network @ MAX (B/s & %)

NET used @ MAX NET Free @ MAX

1%

99%

Percent used at AVG NET used @ AVG

NET Free @ AVG


4%

96%

Percent usedat MAX NET used @ MAX

NET Free @ MAX


Storage Capacities (56 candidates)

Storage Utilization (GB)

Storage Utilization (Percent)

Storage Commentary

Virtualization increases the

use of centralized storage in

order to provide machine

portability and high availability.

Therefore it is necessary that

enough storage is provisioned

for the actual data as well as

the projected growth and for

advanced functionality like

snapshots and replication

facilities. Finally, it is critical to

ensure that the necessary

IOPs capacity is available to

ensure required response

times.

Reference Systems Inc. had

approximately 30.6 TB of

storage allocated and of this

77.7% is utilized approaching

23.7 TB. The free space

represents 22.3% of the

available storage or 6.8 TB

of storage.



Commentary - Storage

Capacity.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

24,295 24,299 24,304 24,304

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Storage (GB)

Storage @ MIN Storage @ AVG Storage @ 95th% Storage @ MAX

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

78% 78% 78% 78%

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Storage (% of Asset)

Storage % @ MIN Storage % @ AVG Storage % @ 95th% Storage % @ MAX


Storage Utilization – Average vs. Maximum (GB)

Storage Utilization – Average vs. Maximum (Percent)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

24,295 24,299 24,304 24,304

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Storage (GB)

Storage @ MIN Storage @ AVG Storage @ 95th% Storage @ MAX

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

78% 78% 78% 78%

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Storage (% of Asset)

Storage % @ MIN Storage % @ AVG Storage % @ 95th% Storage % @ MAX


Storage Utilization at Maximum (GB and Percent Available)

Storage Utilization at Average and Maximum

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013

588,710,958 762,186,990 1,076,702,038 593,966,041

20,665,834,497 20,492,358,464 20,177,843,417 20,660,579,414

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Network @ MAX (B/s & %)

NET used @ MAX NET Free @ MAX

78%

22%

Percent used at AVG Storage @ AVG

Storage Free @ AVG


78%

22%

Percent used at MAX Storage @ MAX

Storage Free @ MAX


7. Aggregate Resource Utilization over Time

Aggregate CPU Utilization

Aggregate Memory Utilization

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Aggregate CPU (MHz)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Aggregate Memory (MB)


Aggregate Disk IOPS (Read)

Aggregate Disk IOPS (Write)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Aggregate Disk IOPS (Read)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Aggregate Disk IOPS (Write)


Aggregate Disk Volume (Read)

Aggregate Disk Volume (Write)

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Aggregate Disk Volume (Read) B/s

0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Aggregate Disk Volume (Write) B/s


Aggregate Disk IOPS (Total)

Aggregate Disk Volume (Total)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Aggregate Disk IOPS (Total)

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Aggregate Disk Volume (Total) B/s


Aggregate Storage Utilization

Aggregate Network Utilization

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Aggregate Disk Storage (GB)

0

200,000,000

400,000,000

600,000,000

800,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,200,000,000

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: Aggregate Network (B/s)


8. Week by Week Performance Analysis for Virtualization

Overview

The previous section concentrated on the combined loads of the differing workload areas. This section illustrates

how this usage profile would affect the ‘typical’ virtual machine profile and what the effect on a suggested host

platform would be.

Each area of critical importance to virtualization/consolidation is summarized to create the week’s virtualization

candidate profile, and this is modelled against the proposed host resources that form the virtualization platform. It

shows the demand that the measured systems would place upon the consolidated design.

The information is presented in a week by week basis to illustrate the performance trends.

Resource Totals Per Server

CPU Allocated MHz Total CPU MHz available in all the

candidates. Total divided by the number of candidates

CPU Util. MHz

The total literal MHz consumption of the

entire estate based on each individual

server’s consumption.

The average of total literal MHz consumption of

the entire estate based on each individual

servers consumption

Average Processor

Speed N/A

The average speed of the processor installed in

the servers

Peak Av CPU MHz

consumption

The total MHz consumption of the servers

based on literal calculation.

Take the calculated MHz figure and then divide

by the number of servers

VMware Peak Av CPU

Utilization based on

average %

The average MHz consumed based on the

total MHz in the estate divided by the

average %. This is not as accurate as the

CPU utilized MHz (measured figure)

The average MHz consumed based on the total

MHz in the estate divided by the average %

divided by the number of candidate servers.

This is not as accurate as the CPU utilized MHz

(measured figure)

Memory Allocated MB The total allocated Mb of RAM in the estate The total allocated Mb of RAM in the estate

divided by the number of servers

Memory Used The total memory used in the Estate The total memory used in the Estate divided by

the number of servers

Memory Free The total amount of free memory not being

utilized in the estate

The total amount of free memory not being

utilized in the estate divided by the number of

servers

Memory utilization % The percentage that the memory is utilized in

the estate

The percentage that the memory is utilized in

the estate

Disk I/0 The number of disk Input/output operations

per second in the entire estate.

The number of disk Input/output operations per

second in the entire estate divided by the

number of servers

Network (bytes/sec) The total bytes per second transferred on the

network interface cards of the entire estate.

The total bytes per second transferred on the

network interface cards of the entire estate

divided by the number of servers.


Data Collection Periods

Period One: 41281 Number of Candidates: 56

Period Two: 41288 Number of Candidates: 56

Period Three: 41295 Number of Candidates: 56

Period Four: 41302 Number of Candidates: 56


Measured Performance Data – Period 1

Resource (at MAX Utilization) Totals Per Server

Number of Targets 56 Divided by # of Targets

CPU: Allocated (MHz) 2,035,781 36,353

CPU: Utilization (MHz) ** 350,861 6,265

CPU: Utilization (Percent) 17.2% 17.2%

CPU: Free at MAX (MHz) 1,684,920 30,088

Memory: Allocated (MB) 3,169,532 56,599

Memory: Utilization (MB) ** 2,643,511 47,206

Memory: Utilization (Percent) 83.4% 83.4%

Memory: Free (MB) 526,021 9,393

Disk I/0PS (Read) 10,337 185

Disk I/0PS (Write) 43,391 775

Disk I/0PS (Total) ** 50,944 910

Disk Volume (Read) 2,332,766,720 41,656,549

Disk Volume (Write) 387,185,158 6,914,021

Disk Volume (Total) 2,428,042,714 43,357,906

Network: Allocated (Mbits) 170,036 3,036

Network: Utilization (B/s) ** 588,710,958 10,512,696

Network: Utilization (Percent) 2.8% 2.8%

Network: Free 20,665,834,497 369,032,759

Storage: Allocated 31,290 559

Storage: Utilization (MB) 24,295 434

Storage: Utilization (Percent) 77.6% 77.6%

Storage: Free 6,996 125

**Resource Unit Component












Memory: Free (MB) 539,112 9,627

Disk I/0PS (Read) 7,588 136


Disk I/0PS (Total) ** 44,378 792

Disk Volume (Read) 2,154,120,826 38,466,443






Network: Free 20,492,358,464 365,934,973

















Memory: Free (MB) 524,339 9,363



Disk I/0PS (Total) ** 49,359 881

Disk Volume (Read) 2,347,997,440 41,928,526




Network: Utilization (B/s) ** 1,076,702,038 19,226,822


Network: Free 20,177,843,417 360,318,632

















Memory: Free (MB) 527,862 9,426



Disk I/0PS (Total) ** 49,706 888

Disk Volume (Read) 2,280,903,168 40,730,414






Network: Free 20,660,579,414 368,938,918







9. Resource Utilization Analysis

Overview

This section provides an estimate of the number of “MicroVMs” (µVMs) that would be required by Reference

Systems Inc. µVMs are a unit of measure that focus on the fundamental system resources of the environment.

µVMs measure Memory, CPU, IOPS, and Network in segments that are directly comparable to a virtualized

system inventory. The µVM is designed to be technology and service provider independent: they show a

measure of resource that is not favoring any specific vendor. The µVM also estimates the resource pool for the

target environment: it avoids the “allocation” trap of estimating the number of virtual machines based on pre-

configured products, presenting the optimal resource pool for a given environment without extraneous overhead

for unused VM capacity.

With this data, Reference Systems Inc. can estimate the potential requirement of any target virtualization

technology or cloud service provider. Reference Systems Inc. can align the µVM resource pool with the product

definition of the vendor, and quickly determine the appropriate allocation in the vendor’s environment.

At the end of each section, the highest consumer is indicated to illustrate the resource component that is the most

consumed.

Resource Totals Unit Value

CPU Util. MHz The total MHz of CPU available in one µVM 200 MHz

Memory Used The total MB of RAM available in one µVM 768 MB

Disk I/0 The total number of Disk Input/Output Operations per Second available

in one µVM 40 IOPS

Network (Mbit/s) The total Mbits per Second transferred on the NIC cards available in

one µVM 2 Mbit/s


µVM Consumption (56 candidates)

The charts below illustrate how the resource consumption varies in relation to the µVM resource allocation.

Resource Unit (µVM) Component

Max Consumption µVM Unit Value**** µVM Unit Total During Period

CPU (Mhz) 366,538 200 MHz/µVM 1,833

Memory (MB) 2,645,193 768 MB/µVM 2,687

Disk I/OPS 50,944 40 IOPS/µVM 1,274

Network (B/s) 1,076,702,038 2 Mbps/µVM 4,307

µVM Commentary

Over the measured period, the servers would require 4,307 µVMs to meet the highest consuming component

(Network). [Questionnaire Section 35 - Question 08] Additional Commentary - µVM Consumption.

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,0005,000

Network

Disk I/O

Memory

CPU

2,376

1,243

2,683

1,508

4,307

1,234

2,687

1,833

3,049

1,110

2,672

1,606

2,355

1,274

2,685

1,755

2014 Reference Model - Unix/Linux: µVM Requirement

1/7/2013 1/14/2013 1/21/2013 1/28/2013


10. Potential Impact of Virtualization

Proposed Virtualization Host Resources

The previous section analyzed the resources currently used within the existing server estate. That information is

utilized within this section to map this onto a consolidation design utilizing virtualization.

The following table indicates the total available resource in each of the proposed VMware vSphere ESX hosts to

run operate the virtual machines.

The platform has been modelled with the following parameters:

Most intensive processing week to provide CPU requirements

Most intensive memory week to provide RAM requirements

Additional host resource to cope with a failure to one host or for online maintenance

Active/Active operation capability

Provision to cater for 25% of estate utilizing Fault Tolerant facilities with the assumption of 2x resource

consumption per server utilizing this facility

Site A – Virtualization Resources Main Data Center – 33 Host(s) in Normal Operations

Resource Host Total Capacity Site Capacity

Host CPU Resource (1 CPU, 6 Core w/2600 MHz speed) (MHz) 11,232 370,656

Memory (GB) factored to 80% 205 6,758

Network (Gbps) 4 132

Storage (Gbps) 4 132

Site B – Virtualization Resources Secondary Data Center – 33 Host(s) in Normal Operations

Resource Host Total Capacity Site Total Capacity

Host CPU (1 CPU, 6 Core w/2600 MHz speed) (MHz) 11,232 370,656

Memory (GB) factored to 80% 205 6,758

Network (Gbps) 4 132

Storage (Gbps) 4 132

Combined Most Intensive Resource Utilization modelling

Utilizing the performance data captured in the previous section, we take the combined load of each of the most

intensive weeks to create the combined peak average load candidate. This is then modelled onto the proposed

host resources to illustrate the likely utilization.


Modelled Candidate with Combined Maximum Source Demands – Typical Profile x 56 Candidates

Resource Peak Modeled Candidate Maximum Utilization

Processor Utilization (MHz) 6,545 366,538

Memory Utilization (MB) 47,236 2,645,193

Storage Allocation (GB) 0.55 30.56

Storage Utilization (GB) 0.42 23.73

Disk IOPS Read 185 10,337

Disk IOPS Write 775 43,391

Disk IOPS Total 910 50,944

Disk Volume Read (B/s) 9,696,804 543,021,044

Disk Volume Write (B/s) 9,696,804 543,021,044

Disk Volume Total (B/s) 43,357,906 2,428,042,714

Network Bandwidth (B/s) 19,576,401 1,096,278,438

Storage Bandwidth (Disk Vol Rd + Wr) 19,393,609 1,086,042,088

Typical Profile of the Production Consolidation Platform Utilization (All Hosts Active/Active)

Resource Maximum Utilization

Site Total Capacity

% Utilized #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?

#NAME? 358 370,656 0% #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?

Memory (MB) 2,583 6,758 38% #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?

Network (4 Gbps) 1,070,584 132 811049% #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?

Storage (4 Gbps) 1,060,588 132 803476% #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?

The table above shows the utilization of 33 host(s) at each site in an active / active configuration with standard operations and all hosts operating.

Typical Profile of Production Consolidation Platform Utilization (All Hosts Active/Active Loss of One Host)


Site Total Capacity


#NAME? 358 #NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?

Memory (GB RAM) 2,583 #NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?

Network (4 Gbps) 1,070,584 #NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?



Site Total Capacity


Storage (4 Gbps) 1,060,588 #NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME? #NAME?

The table above shows the utilization of 32 host(s) at each site in an active/active configuration with standard operations and one host in maintenance mode (inactive).


11. Potential Impact of Cloud Infrastructure

Proposed Cloud µVM Resources

This section maps the resource configuration profiled in the previous section into the target cloud environment(s).

The proposal has been modelled with the following parameters:

Most intensive processing week to provide CPU requirements

Most intensive memory week to provide RAM requirements

Most intensive IOPs requirements

Most intensive Networking

Current Overall Resource Utilization

Resource Total during Peak Period % Utilized µVMs

CPU (Mhz) 366,538 18.0% 1,833

Memory (MB) 1,920,612 83.5% 2,687

Disk I/OPS 1,826,416 N/A 1,274

Network (B/s) 1,767,340 N/A 4,307


12. Environmental Impact

Overview

Virtualization has achieved widespread adoption in many organizations due to its ability to essentially do more

with less and faster. Therefore virtualization is in essence a more efficient inherent strategy to pursue.

One convenient side effect of pursuing virtualization is that it will undoubtedly require less utility than was in place

previously. Until recently, hardware was notoriously inefficient as the priority was to maintain service levels, not

necessarily to do so efficiently. Virtualization has highlighted the ability to eradicate huge areas of cost and

inefficiency.

Gaining much more notoriety today is the follow-on effect that if computing can be completed using less resource,

then in turn with being more cost effective, it will also place less demand on the environment. Recent initiatives

such as ‘The Green Grid’ are extolling the virtue of designing the efficient data center and core to this is

consolidation and virtualization.

Existing Infrastructure Power Consumption

Utility Demands

Using a working average of a 500W power supply in each of the physical servers, the table below shows the

current power demands and its related cooling requirements.

The 500W is the stated maximum for the power supply and it has been factored down to 70% to allow for

configuration variations within the server platform, this represents a conservative approach to assessing power

consumption.

Current Physical Platform for Initial Candidates – All based on 24*7 Usage

Resource Power (Watts per hour)

Quantity Total KWPH Daily KW

Consumption Yearly KWh #NAME?

Servers 350

Reference

Systems

Inc.

#VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

Air Con #VALUE! 1 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

Total #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

The table above shows for 30 physical, (eliminating the estimated 70 virtual) candidates in scope. The power

consumption total for this implementation is #VALUE! KW per year costing #VALUE! per year in utility costs.

This is based on 1.2W of energy being consumed to provide the cooling for the 1 watt consumed.


Impact of Virtualization Solution

Power Consumption

Power Consumption of the proposed Virtualization Live Platform – All based on 24*7 usage).

Resource Power (Watts

per hour) Quantity Total KWPH

Daily KW Consumption

Yearly KWh #NAME?

Servers 350 33 12 277 101,178 $12,141.36

Storage 4,410 2 9 212 77,263 $9,271.58

Air Con 11,550 1 12 277 101,178 $12,141.36

Total 32 766 279,619 $33,554.30

The above figures take into account the existing virtualized infrastructure; the number of hosts is reflective of what

would be required to virtualize the 56 servers. These virtualization hosts are based on servers operating 835W

power supplies to 100% resulting in the 835W power consumption per hour per server.

In addition, centralized storage would be required, and a representative power consumption of a dual site

implementation of a storage solution capable of meeting the requirements has been specified.

To run the surveyed servers the 33 host(s) would utilize 101,178KW per year resulting in a likely cost of

$12,141.36. This is then increased by the need for centralized storage which would require 77,263KW per year

and cost $9,271.58. The cooling based on 1.2 Watts consumed to provide cooling for 1 watt would add an

additional 101,178KW per year. This brings the total cost to $33,554.30 per year for electricity costs and cooling.

Compared to the existing physical model this would save #VALUE! KW per year and #VALUE!.

Carbon Comparisons

The key to the reduction in carbon footprint emissions in relation to data centers is within the following areas:

Improved efficiency of the power supplies to reduce the inefficiency when demand is low

Reduction in the number of servers by utilizing the resources efficiently

Reduction in the associated cooling requirements due to less emitted BTUs by less servers

The carbon footprint impact of the candidates for consolidation is detailed in the comparison table below.

Resource Total KWPY Carbon Calculation Carbon Footprint (Tons per Year)

Footprint Physical #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

Footprint Virtual 279,619 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Reduction #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

% Reduction #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!


Calculation Key

Typical gas fired power stations produce 440g of CO2 per KWPH, oil fired stations produce 650g of CO2 per

KWPH coal fired stations 950g per KWPH. The above calculation uses 440g carbon dioxide per KWPH of

electricity for the middle ground.

The carbon footprint for Reference Systems Inc. would be reduced by #VALUE! per year when operating on a

fully virtual platform.

This does not take account for the additional reductions that would be possible by dynamic reduction in available

host resources as demand decreases without any loss of service that would be possible once on a virtualized

platform. This is a feature that is now fully supported, and host servers can be powered on and off to meet varying

demand. The figure being currently estimated is an additional 20% reduction in consumption related to the

virtualization host systems.


Impact of Cloud Solution

Power Consumption

Power Consumption of the proposed Cloud Platform – All based on 24*7 usage).

Resource Power (Watts

per hour) Quantity Total KWPH

Daily KW Consumption

Yearly KWh #NAME?

Servers 350 0 0 0 0 $0.00

Storage 4,410 2 9 212 77,263 $9,271.58

Air Con 0 1 0 0 0 $0.00

Total 9 212 77,263 $9,271.58

The above figures take into account the existing virtualized infrastructure; the number of hosts is reflective of what

would be required to virtualize the 56 servers on the cloud platform. These virtualization hosts are based on

servers operating 835W power supplies to 100% resulting in the 835W power consumption per hour per server.

In addition, centralized storage would be required and a representative power consumption of a dual site

implementation of a storage solution capable of meeting the requirements has been specified.

Carbon Footprint Comparisons

The key to the reduction in carbon footprint emissions in relation to data centers is within the following areas:

Improved efficiency of the power supplies to reduce the inefficiency when demand is low

Reduction in the number of servers by utilizing the resources efficiently

Reduction in the associated cooling requirements due to less emitted BTUs by less servers

The carbon footprint impact of the candidates for consolidation is detailed below.

Resource Total KWPY Carbon Calculation Carbon Footprint (Tons per Year)

Footprint Physical #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

Footprint Cloud 77,263 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Reduction #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

% Reduction #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

Calculation Key

Typical gas fired power stations produce 440g of CO2 per KWPH, oil fired stations produce 650g of CO2 per

KWPH coal fired stations 950g per KWPH. The above calculation uses #DIV/0!g carbon dioxide per KWPH of

electricity for the middle ground.

The carbon footprint for Reference Systems Inc. would be reduced by #VALUE! per year when operating on a

cloud services platform.


13. Report Signoff

Report Signoff

Project: Reference Project

I agree with and accept the contents of the report version 1.0, dated Thursday, January 23, 2014.

Reference Systems Inc. Representative

Job Title:

Signed:

Date:

For and on behalf of Reference Systems Inc.:

Print Name:

Virtustream Project Lead

Print name:

Signed:

Date:


14. Target List

Target Name Operating System OS Version CPU Speed

(MHz) Total CPU

(MHz) Disk Capacity

(MB) Memory

(MB) Network (MBits)

Target 004 CentOS release 5.8 (Final) 2.6.18-308.8.1.el5 2,394 19,152 144,971 3,948 1,000




Target 008 CentOS release 5.8 (Final) 2.6.18-308.4.1.el5 2,400 38,402 1,404,026 7,972 6,000

Target 009 CentOS release 4.5 (Final) 2.6.9-55.0.2.ELsmp 1,867 7,467 72,671 1,010 1,000





Target 028 CentOS release 6.3 (Final) 2.6.32-

220.23.1.el6.x86_64 2,500 2,500 49,652 490 1,000







220.17.1.el6.x86_64 2,833 5,667 97,815 2,006 10,000

Target 035 CentOS release 5.5 (Final) 2.6.18-194.11.3.el5PAE 2,993 11,970 112,212 7,986 10,000




(MHz) Total CPU

(MHz) Disk Capacity

(MB) Memory






Target 045

Red Hat Enterprise Linux

Server release 5.7

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-164.9.1.el5 2,533 40,536 279,958 64,326 1,000

Target 046


Server release 5.7

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-164.9.1.el5 2,533 40,536 279,959 64,327 1,000

Target 047


Server release 5.7

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-164.9.1.el5 2,533 40,536 279,958 64,326 1,000

Target 048


Server release 5.7

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-164.9.1.el5 2,534 40,536 279,958 64,326 1,000

Target 049


Server release 5.7

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 2,533 40,536 279,958 64,326 0

Target 050


Server release 5.7

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-238.19.1.el5 2,533 40,536 279,958 64,325 3,000

Target 051


Server release 5.7

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-194.3.1.el5 2,533 40,536 279,958 64,326 1,000

Target 052


Server release 5.7

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-238.19.1.el5 2,533 40,536 279,958 64,325 3,000



(MHz) Total CPU

(MHz) Disk Capacity

(MB) Memory


Target 069 CentOS Linux release 6.0

(Final)

2.6.32-

71.29.1.el6.x86_64 3,167 3,167 6,566 997 1,000



220.17.1.el6.x86_64 2,394 4,788 99,294 996 1,000


Target 073 CentOS release 4.6 (Final) 2.6.9-67.ELsmp 2,394 2,394 31,815 248 1,000

Target 081


AS release 4 (Nahant

Update 6)

2.6.9-67.ELlargesmp 2,660 63,837 2,567,940 96,672 1,000

Target 082



Update 6)

2.6.9-67.ELsmp 2,926 23,407 1,400,962 257,692 1,000

Target 083



Update 6)

2.6.9-67.ELsmp 2,926 23,407 1,400,962 257,692 3,000

Target 084



Update 6)

2.6.9-67.ELlargesmp 2,394 57,454 1,061,040 64,353 1,000

Target 085


Server release 5.5

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-238.1.1.el5 2,660 31,921 714,632 64,448 5,000

Target 086


Server release 5.5

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-238.1.1.el5 2,660 31,921 922,500 64,448 5,000

Target 087


Server release 5.5

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-238.1.1.el5 2,660 31,921 922,500 64,448 5,000



(MHz) Total CPU

(MHz) Disk Capacity

(MB) Memory


Target 088


Server release 5.5

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-238.1.1.el5 2,660 31,921 922,500 64,448 2,000

Target 089


Server release 5.5

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-238.5.1.el5 2,793 67,034 139,392 32,179 2,000

Target 090


Server release 6.1

(Santiago)

2.6.32-

131.0.15.el6.x86_64 1,200 38,400 712,732 129,141 2,000

Target 091


Server release 6.1

(Santiago)

2.6.32-

131.0.15.el6.x86_64 1,200 38,400 712,732 129,141 2,000

Target 092


Server release 6.1

(Santiago)

2.6.32-

131.0.15.el6.x86_64 1,200 38,400 763,918 129,141 2,000

Target 093


Server release 6.1

(Santiago)

2.6.32-

100.34.1.el6uek.x86_64 2,128 136,174 3,267,460 258,455 6,000

Target 094


Server release 6.1

(Santiago)

2.6.32-

100.34.1.el6uek.x86_64 2,128 136,213 3,267,460 258,455 14,000

Target 095


Server release 6.1

(Santiago)

2.6.32-

100.34.1.el6uek.x86_64 2,128 136,182 3,267,460 258,455 5,000

Target 096


Server release 5.5

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-238.9.1.el5 1,596 19,152 972,932 96,669 5,000

Target 097


Server release 5.5

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-238.9.1.el5 1,596 19,152 972,932 96,669 5,000



(MHz) Total CPU

(MHz) Disk Capacity

(MB) Memory


Target 098


Server release 5.5

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-238.9.1.el5 1,596 19,152 972,932 96,669 5,000

Target 099


Server release 5.3

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-164.10.1.el5xen 2,527 40,432 139,392 31,729 3,000

Target 100


Server release 5.3

(Tikanga)

2.6.18-164.10.1.el5xen 2,527 40,432 139,392 31,728 2,000


15. About Virtustream, Inc.

Virtustream, Inc. is a global infrastructure services firm committed to providing our clients pioneering and impartial

thought leadership in defining Information Technology strategies.

Our solutions enable clients to actualize the enterprise cloud by providing strategy, integration and managed

services leveraging virtualization technologies, and our proprietary, secure platform, xStream. Virtustream

delivers efficient infrastructure solutions backed by guaranteed service levels and industry leading resource-

based pricing models built upon the company’s pillars of service excellence including Professional Services,

Cloud Services and Managed Service solutions.

Virtustream has been providing specialist independent IT consultancy in all areas of virtualization from the data

center to the desktop for the last 10 years. We have won numerous industry awards in recognition of the detail

and quality of our work including being awarded VMware’s EMEA Consultancy Partner of the Year and the ICT -

Green IT initiative of the year award. Our customers range from the smaller business to the larger enterprises,

charities and government organizations including Domino Foods, Johns Hopkins, National Education Association,

The World Bank, Federal Reserve IT, National Institutes of Health, Allied Irish Bank, EMC and VMware.

The XStream Platform

The xStream platform is unique to Virtustream and has been built and developed in-house using internal IP

accumulated over 9 years of client engagements and including bespoke automation scripts to create a highly

scalable, efficient secure and resilient infrastructure to support our clients.

Virtustream has developed the platform to be vendor agnostic to leverage best of breed hardware and software

and is made available as a dedicated or shared platform, either managed or unmanaged, in our data centers or

on a client’s premises.

This provides our clients with the flexibility of options, so that we can host critical applications on any platform with

guaranteed committed level of resources defined by units. These computing units are calculated through CPU,

RAM, IOPs, Network, and requirements for High Availability and Disaster Recovery.

The whole environment is also tuned to optimize ERP applications such as SAP, Oracle and Microsoft and is

easily accessed via a personalized Silverlight portal.

Solution Overview

The xStream platform features an N+2 cluster design for high availability within the data center. Similarly, the

platform features resilience across two data centers.


16. Appendix - Virtualization Explained

Overview

The viability of pursuing a virtualization strategy is being investigated as a solution to the objectives identified in

the previous section. This report discusses the issues faced and how server virtualization could offer a solution to

the issue.

Various Forms of Virtualization

Infrastructure Area

Description Main Benefits

Server

The most adopted to date area of virtualization where a

software layer, hypervisor, is installed onto industry

standard hardware enabling it to host partitioned

‘virtualized’ containers or virtual machines.

The underlying resource in the host is shared out to the

virtual machines, and this has been successful in

combating Moore’s law as hardware advances outstrip

the ability to utilize them effectively.

Massive reductions in capital

expenditure on hardware

Energy consumption reductions

Increased availability

Improved responsiveness to the

organization

Centralized management of resources

Desktop

Designed to repeat the success of server virtualization,

Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI), is directed at

repeating the success of Terminal Server-based desktop

solutions (Microsoft Terminal Services and Citrix

Presentation Server) but with improved compatibility and

increased management.

Again host servers are utilized to provide virtual machines

running desktop operating systems, and users connect to

these via Connection Brokers which decide what image is

presented to which user and what functionality is

provided.

Centralized Management of the

Desktop

Security

Anywhere computing

Rapid deployment of applications or

upgrades

Service continuity of desktop inherited

from underlying infrastructure

Application

Application management is one of the biggest challenges

to an I.T. department and has some of the greatest

impact on an organization.

Virtualized applications are presented to the end user in

‘run time containers’ that are decoupled from the

underlying operating system. Therefore applications can

be streamed to users upon request, application upgrades

can be performed on the source application at the data

center, and this is automatically deployed at next request.

Build consistency of the desktop is

maintained as applications are not

‘installed’

Complementary technology to VDI

enabling improved reliability of the

application stack.

Removal of application conflicts

leading to reduced application roll out

times


Infrastructure Area

Description Main Benefits

Storage

The foundation on which all virtualization depends is the

storage layer, and Storage Virtualization enables the data

residing within the physical storage devices to be

accessed via a virtualization layer which enables an

independence from the underlying hardware.

Data is able to be replicated to multiple locations, and

applications access the data via the virtualized instance,

meaning data can traverse physical boundaries.

It also enables greater efficiency in the consumption of

storage as virtual volumes can be ‘thin provisioned’,

meaning they are built for future requirements but only

consume what is required for now.

Data availability as dependency on the

underlying physical resource is

reduced massively.

Performance can be increased as

physical disks can all participate in the

I/O demands

Just in time provisioning through thinly

provisioned data volumes

Reduced power consumption by

reduced footprint that is only increased

as real data is required

Network

Covering both the traditional network-based layer used for

traffic between devices and the core infrastructure

communication layers, such as storage area networks.

Network virtualization again takes the concept of

consolidation and abstraction so that fewer physical

interface cards are required and instead software layers

control the traffic flow and overlay Quality of Service

(QOS) to enable network interfaces to be shared.

Technology area is fast becoming known as

Convergence.

Simplified connection networks

Guaranteed service levels

Share available resources between

different networks

Improved manageability

What is Virtualization?

Virtualization is not a new technology as it has been utilized within mainframe and mid-range machines since its

invention by IBM over 30 years ago. It is relatively new in the area of x86 server-based technologies. It has been

established in production use however for over 5 years. In the last two years, adoption rates have soared with

most organizations attempting to exploit its benefit.

Virtualization places a thin layer of software onto hardware to allow the physical resource to be dynamically

segmented and presented to multiple server instances that run within the virtualization software. It effectively

creates sub-systems dedicated to services much in the same way as mid-range and mainframe solutions and

enables physical resources to be shared to multiple servers.

This design aspect has been adopted by other areas of I.T. infrastructure and is now incorporated into the storage

layer, application layer and workstation layer.

Why is it being adopted by so many

Inefficiency within the x86 physical models has been the primary driver. The reason that the issue exists in the

first place is the typical deployment model for x86-based servers dictates that one service is deployed onto one

server chassis, resulting in improved reliability (due mainly to the fact x86 operating systems have not traditionally

multi-tasked effectively) but increased inefficiency.

Hardware advances have exacerbated the issue as this has widened the gap between the resource available and

the ability to utilize it; this has led to typical averages of less than 10% utilization with regard to processor

utilization.

This has now been expanded where the benefits witnessed in the server sector are now being examined in the

application, storage and desktop models.


Is it just another of the latest trends from IT that will be out of fashion in a year?

IT often suffers from appearing to follow the latest developments only to repeat the process within a year when

the latest new technology surfaces, leading to wastage in expenditure and a lack of cohesive strategy. When

virtualization on x86 first appeared approximately six years ago it created significant interest but also attracted

much skepticism.

The landscape for virtualization today however presents a picture of huge adoption rates and acceptance as an

established mainstream deployment solution. The main driving force behind this growth has been the delivery on

the benefits promised by early adopters leading to exceptionally high levels of satisfaction by those organizations

who have made the migration.

The success of the technology has been based not on the technical benefits it offers IT services divisions but on

the fundamental changes it has made to the operational effectiveness of those who have adopted it.

Hardware manufacturers have changed their solutions to take advantage of the benefits of virtualization and as

this trend progresses many industry observers comment that it will reach a point where virtualization is built into

the hardware platform itself and will be a power-on option.

Headline Benefits of Server Virtualization

Issue Virtualization Solution Benefit

Data Center

Space

Allow more services to operate on a physical platform by sharing

underutilized resources to multiple servers

Less hardware working more

efficiently. Less data center space

required.

Data Center

Costs

By using the physical resources more efficiently, the asset is

worked to higher levels (typically taking utilization from sub 10%

towards 80%); and therefore, less hardware is required which

reduces the associated costs.

Power, cooling, space and

maintenance costs can be

significantly reduced.

Operational

efficiencies

Servers that were previously hardware-based are presented as

software; and therefore, deployment of servers can be achieved

far more rapidly and reliably. Typical commissioning of a server

can take 2 days currently (operating system and patching only),

and this can be reduced to minutes by deploying standardized

templates of virtual servers that are hardware independent.

Server deployment can be

completed in significantly less time

and with higher degrees of

standardization.

Service Levels

Aligning business service levels to hardware-based solutions can

be complex and costly. Areas such as business continuity and

high availability can result in duplication of resources.

Virtualization has such solutions built into the underlying

architecture; and therefore, solutions can be standardized and

costs reduced.

Costly high availability solutions can

be reduced in expenditure and

complexity and made available to

entire data centers.

Environmental

Benefits

High power and cooling consumption of underutilized servers

results in higher carbon emissions. Virtualization can significantly

reduce these.

Massive savings in carbon

emissions

Planning for

future

requirements

With the established inefficiencies of the physical model, this

places a higher emphasis on accurate predictive planning. While

Virtualization does not advocate less diligence in the planning

process, it does enable greater flexibility by being able to share

resources and prioritize allocation based on service level

decisions.

Far more flexible and dynamic

solution more in line with the nature

of organizations on demand model


Issue Virtualization Solution Benefit

Dynamic

Provisioning

Virtualization through all its forms allows the dynamic

management of physical resources to meet the demand; this

allows organizations to build for now but expand effortlessly for

the future.

Matching I.T. strategy to

organizational agility.

What Should or Should Not Be Virtualized

Virtualization Solution Reason

Virtualized

Any server where the measured performance can be combined

with other servers to not cause a combined issue on the

consolidation platform or where licensing proves to be prohibitive

to do so.

Servers should always be

measured for their suitability if

transferring from existing physical

platform as this can show

underlying existing issues in the

physical configuration that would

mask where the issue resides if

problems are encountered.

Physical

It is recommended to maintain at least one instance of the

following type of servers:

Active Directory Server

DNS server

Backup server

Virtual Center Server

Older versions of Citrix servers can present performance issues if

running on Windows 2000

Prohibitive licensing models based on host resources not virtual

server

By maintaining these outside the

consolidation platform there will

always be one instance that can be

brought up in isolation or first during

a sequence of power up to enable

critical facilities for other services

such as authentication or DNS.

Virtual Center is a recommendation

of Virtustream as it does not see

the wisdom in having the

management platform for

virtualization to be held within the

services it is managing.

Vendor Criteria

It is important that when choosing a platform vendor that the features and cost are evaluated in relation the stated

goals. By evaluating the vendors against each other, it is possible to make the correct decision of which platform

will provide the long term technology to deliver the TCO and ROI figures.

When comparing the vendors, it is important to look at the near future to what will be available as this can

influence any tactical decisions in the short term to move to an intermediate version of the vendor to allow

migration to the preferred platform. This design is based on the current or release imminent from the vendors in

the next 2-3 months as this is the realistic start of an implementation timeline.

The vendors for comparison in this assessment were Microsoft Hyper-V R2 and VMware vSphere. This section

looks at the overall feature comparison and additional products that are required to deliver the overall strategic

design and then outlines an indicative costing for comparison.


Base Feature Comparison

Microsoft Hyper-V R2 VMware vSphere Enterprise Plus

CPU Capacity (Host) 32 cores (improved) 64 cores (improved)

CPU Capacity (VM) 4 8 (improved)

Memory Capacity (VM) 64GB 255GB (improved)

Hot Add Resources (VM) Disk (new) CPU, Disk, Memory (improved)

Hot Migration (VM) Yes (new) Yes

Fault Tolerance (VM) No Yes (new)

Storage migration Requires storage vendor support Yes (improved)

Host baselines MS Server Management Suite Enterprise Yes (new)

Patching / compliance MS Server Management Suite Enterprise Yes (improved)

Non Windows OS support Yes* Yes**

Automation platform Vizioncorev Control(new product) Yes (improved)

Number of VMs 256 or resource limit (improved) 256 or Resource limit (improved)

Thin provisioning Requires storage vendor support Yes (new)

Dynamic Resourcing No Yes

Dynamic Power No Yes (improved)

HA Yes Yes

Shared File System Yes (new) Yes

Enterprise Management MS Server Management Suite Enterprise Yes

P2V MS Server Management Suite Enterprise Yes

Dynamic I/O Yes (new) No

* Microsoft Windows 2000 1CPU, 2003x86 1 or CPU, 2003 x64 1 or 2 CPU, 2008 x86 1, 2 or 4 CPU, 2008 x64 1, 2 or 4 CPU, Vista x86 1 or 2

CPU, Vista x86 1 or 2 CPU, Vista x64 1 or 2 CPU, XP Pro x86, XP Pro x64. Linux SUSE Enterprise Server 10 1 CPU

** Microsoft Windows PXE, 2008, Vista, 2003, XP, 2000, NT4, CentOS 5, Red Hat Enterprise 2.1-5, Red Hat, SUSE Enterprise Desktop 10-

11, SUSE Enterprise Server 8-11, UBUNTU 7.04-8.10, Netware 5.1-6.5, Solaris 10

70 | Virtustream® Advisor Assessment Report [Reference Systems Technology Incorporated]

17. Appendix - Cloud Explained

Overview

Cloud computing is conceptually the provision of computing resources in an abstracted form via a delivery model

that enables dynamically scalable resources provided as a service to an organization. Cloud solutions feature a

significantly higher percentage of virtualized resources than those seen in most corporately provided

infrastructures.

The Cloud market is fast developing and the term ‘Cloud’ is being used in an increasing number of diverse ways,

often causing confusion in an emerging sector leading to a lack of clarity in what it is actually being offered and

indeed what it actually delivers.

Breaking through the hyperbole, a more accurate technical definition is a computing capability that is presented

through an abstraction layer between the computing resource and the actual underlying technical architecture.

This enables an on demand service connected to a shared pool of configurable resources that can be rapidly

provisioned with minimal management overhead. Cloud services usually comprise of five essential

characteristics, on demand self-service, broad network access, resource pools, rapid elasticity and a measured

service.

In most cases, organizations do not own the underlying resources; instead a model-based on rental usage is

deployed paying only for resources that they use. Many cloud-computing offerings employ the utility computing

model, which is analogous to how traditional utility services (such as electricity) are consumed, whereas others

bill on a subscription basis.

Different Cloud Solutions

Cloud Category Description

Public Cloud

Public cloud is what is typically envisaged when viewed in a mainstream sense. Resources are

available easily, and to all, via the internet with entry to the solution sometimes as simple as a

credit card transaction.

The Public Cloud is typically self-service from a provisioning sense with clients presented a set of

standardized infrastructure offering.

Billing is typically based on a consumption utility model where up time, disk resource and

performance metrics are factored in.

Hybrid Cloud

The Hybrid Cloud is designed to combine the benefits of a series of solutions possibly from

multiple providers; some view it as the logical solution for many enterprises where the

requirements are too varied and complex to logically fit in one sector.

An example could be that for disaster recovery services; an organization utilizes externally

presented cloud resources for use in the case of a disaster invocation.

Private Cloud

The Private and Internal clouds are in actuality highly optimized environments that organizations

operate internally often mirroring external cloud concepts.

The concept behind them is that they offer the benefits offered by an external cloud while

possibly avoiding some of the perceived pitfalls.

The negatives with the approach are organizations are still left with the buy, build, manage and

maintain models that can make other cloud solutions look so appealing.

Reference Project

71 | Virtustream® Advisor Assessment Report [Reference Systems Technology Incorporated]

Cloud Services – Service Provider Options

In the above illustration it is easy to see the evolutionary scale of control as an organization moves through the

service level offering from cloud services.

In the traditional dedicated IT model on the first column we see the service level extending to the Network

element of the technology stack, where most organizations rely on a service provider of some variety to provide

their network links to locations.

Progressing to the next column, that of the traditional Hosting Provider, we find it shifting in the areas of storage

and server where the responsibility is shared. Above the server layer the client is still responsible for the virtual

machines and everything that operates on them.

Moving into Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) the client has handed over responsibility solely to the provider in the

areas of Network, Storage and Server and has joint responsibility for the virtual machine layer, everything else is

controlled by the client.

Platform as a Service (PaaS) extends this responsibility further still with the service provider sharing responsibility

for the application layer and the actual Virtual Machines becoming part of a wider services agreement.

In the final iteration, Software as a Service (SaaS) the client has delegated responsibility for the entire stack with

them maintaining only shared control over the critical data layer.

Headquarters

4800 Montgomery Lane

Suite 1100, Bethesda

MD 20814

Tel: +1.(240).252.1007

Fax: +1.301.718.7880

Email: [email protected]

www.virtustream.com

mailto:[email protected]

advisor assessment report - · pdf filereference systems technology incorporated...

Documents