umich virtualization testing

7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing

1/46

University of

Michigan Administrative InformationServices

Server Virtualization Technologies:Uses, Comparisons, and Implications

David SweetmanWindows Enterprise Systems Admin

Administrative Information ServicesUniversity of Michigan

[email protected]


2/46

Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 2

Presentation Overview

The What and Why of virtualization Comparing Product Features

Comparing Product Performance

Evaluating Physical Servers forvirtualization

Costs

Questions


3/46


What is server virtualization?

Creating multiple logical server OSinstances on one physical piece ofhardware

All HW drivers are virtualized samevirtual HW regardless of physical HW

Each virtual machine is completely

independent of the others and doesntrealize its virtualized


4/46


Why virtualize?

More efficient HW utilization More efficient staff

Long-term matching resources & needs

Quick and nimble server provisioning Testing & Troubleshooting

More effective redundancy

HW maintenance w/o app downtime Simplify system imaging

Disaster Recovery


5/46


Individual ebb and flow of resourcesCumulative usage of 28 servers in the MAIS data

center evaluated for virtualization:

44GB RAM, 138.15Ghz CPU, and 1323GB HD

45% of RAM not used 99.9% of time.

25% of RAM never used concurrently.

85% of CPU not used 99.9% of time.

81% of CPU never used concurrently.

HW Utilization Facts

68% of hard disk space unused


6/46


Hard Disk Utilization

Server Local Disk Total(GB)

Used(GB)

Free(GB)

SAN Manager 48 8 40

IIS app test 68 9 59

TNG Scheduling 68 13 55PeopleSoft 8 HE 34 7 27

PeopelSoft 8 FIN 34 24 10

IIS / SQL:Research app 68 31 37

Small use Citrix 17 9 8

File Servers 136 56 80

Stat Version Control 34 6 28

Stat Version Control 17 6 11

SQL: eLearning dev 68 16 52

IIS: eLearning dev 68 11 57

SQL: eLearning Prod 68 10 58

IIS: eLearning Prod 34 13 21

Machine Room environ 68 6 62

IIS document server 170 88 82

Domain Controller 34 7 27

More Efficient HardDisk Utilization

Total: 1323 GB Used: 418 GB

Free: 905 GB

(68% unused)

SAN in 30GB chunks

1 fibre channel >1 serverVirtual HDs more

granular

Share free space

allocate as needed


7/46Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 7

Virtualization vs. Consolidation

Virtualized servers = separate OSes Consolidation = same OS

Virtualized servers must each beadministered, patched, etc.

Consolidated applications can introduceconflicts and support issues



Virtual Host Licensing

Windows and other Microsoft per-serverapps are licensed per virtual server. (1physical server w/ 6 virtual Windowsservers = 6-7 licenses needed)

As of 4/1/2005, Microsoft per-processorlicenses are per physical processor (1physical server w/ 3 virtual SQL Servers

sharing 1 CPU = 1 per-processor license)Virtualization savings are not in licenses.

Check with other vendors.



Virtualization Software

MS Virtual PC 2004 workstation only

VMWare Workstation 5 workstation only

MS Virtual Server 2005, Standard (4p)

MS Virtual Server 2005, Enterprise (32p)

VMWare GSX Server 3.1 VMWare ESX Server 2.5



Common Features

Up to 3.6GB RAM per virtual host Web-based console for administration Host OS sees HT CPU, virtual do not VMs consist of 1 config file & 1 file / HD

VMs can mount physical CDs or ISOs VMs can be multi-homed Up to 64 VMs per host server

Highly scriptable extensive API Granular permissions for individual VMs Detailed logging



MS Virtual Server 2005

Targeted to increase efficiency in testingand development, and re-hosting

Up to 1 processor per virtual host

Windows = underlying host OS

Only Windows VMs supported

No USB support

2 processor SMP coming soon


12/46


VMWare ESX Server 2.5

Targeted at mission-critical enterpriseservices

Up to 2 processors per host

Custom Linux = underlying OS

Windows & Linux VMs supported

Dedicated NIC for admin (2 total min)

USB support

4 proc SMP coming soon


13/46


Do I need to know Linux?

VMWare ESX Server is based on Linux All administration is possible through web

Dont need any Linux experience for

installation or ongoing admin

SSH and SFTP access to server

Used?

Installed backup software

sFTPed ISOs to server


14/46


Managing Virtual Servers

Web site is primary interface Attach to VM console

Virtual Server = ActiveX control

VMWare = separate application Reboot, power on, power off

Create and manage VMs

Allocate hardware resources Mount CDs and floppies

View recent performance data


15/46


VS Screenshot


16/46


VMWare Screenshot


17/46


Hyper-threading

One physical CPU seen as 2 logical Both products see HT, non-HT VMs

Slows virtualization performance

1 HT CPU < 2 Phy CPU

0-20% performance increase over no HT

http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/


18/46


RAM Allocation

Virtual Server:Max


19/46


VS Screenshot


20/46


VMWare Screenshot


21/46


Monitoring

MOM (or other host monitoring): MonitorsVMs like physical

Virtual Server: MOM Management Pack

Integrates into MOM framework Monitor overall host and VM servers

VMWare: vmkusage

VMWare: VirtualCenter

Database back-end across all servers


22/46


Virtual Center

Central monitoring and management inVMWare environment

Manage all VMs from one interface

Additional software / license Management application

Set thresholds and actions like MOM

SQL or Oracle DB backend

Assign privileges via NTFS


23/46


Virtual Center Screenshot


24/46


Converting Physical Server

Both MS & VMWare offer tools to create virtual systemsfrom physical

Physical HW drivers replaced by VM Ideal for the truly unique server (highly customized) Both vendors recommend loading virtual servers from

scratch Slow for both vendors 6h / 4GB image VSMT (Virtual Server Migration Tool)

many prereqs (DHCP, ADS, SQL) Not in one month eval

P2V (Physical 2 Virtual) Simple boot CD and server piece Licensed per use


25/46


VMotion

Enables seamless transition of live virtualhost between physical servers

Dynamic Resource Allocation across

servers respond to load changes HW maintenance


26/46


Best Practices

Plan out server allocations Create gold image base OS kept up-

to-date patches duplicate for new VMs

Use ISOs for CD access Use standard backup and restore

Take system images as needed


27/46


Summary of VMWare differences

More comprehensive web GUI (forexample, deleting hosts & HDs)

Support for dual processor virtuals

Support for Linux virtuals Virtual Center: central management

Easy-to-use physical-to-virtual support

VMotion: seamlessly move virtual serversbetween physical hosts


28/46


Testing Environment

One month each was spent evaluating MSVirtual Server & VMWare ESX Server

Identical testing was attempted on each.

Load and usability testing: Win 2000, 2003,IIS5, IIS6, SQL Server 2000, 3rd party apps

Test hardware 1.4Ghz x 4 physical processors (8 w/ HT)

8GB of RAM

60GB fibre-channel connected SAN space


29/46


Performance Comparisons

Automated load test of Aspen 2.5 devenvironment (Win 2000/IIS5 & Win 2000/SQL2000)

Citrix / TS load test w/ Helpdesk

IIS6-based memory, CPU, disk, and networkI/O testing

SQL Server add, update, and delete testing

Load testing both as isolated server and withother virtual server processing

Normal usage w/o issue in all cases


30/46



Physical MSVS VMWare

CPU 100% 94% 80%

Memory 100% 91% 91%

Disk&NIC I/O 100% 101% 101%

SQL 100% 57% 87%

Windows 2003 IIS6 and SQL 2000 perfcompare

VMWare CPU : hyper-threaded related, ~93% w/o VS SQL : VS 2005 SP1 has performance enhancements


31/46



Previous stats were isolated tests VMs wont be alone on physical host

How does system perform w/ other VMs

running assorted, intensive tasks?RAM CPU Disk Network

Virtual Server 2005 -/+


32/46


IIS/SQL Load Test Results

Mercury LoadRunner scripted test Overall performance

100@30/min: VM = 60%

1000@12/min: VM = 99%

What made it slow?

CPU queuing

Memory, HD, NetIO nearly identical


33/46


Terminal Services / CitrixLoad Test Results

Currently 14 servers, 4procs (8HT), 4GB RAM load balancing ~700 concurrent

CPU and RAM intensive apps

~60 users max per physical server

CPU = bottleneck (logon & BusObj)

1CPU = 7 users max ; 2 CPU = 12 max

100 v 1CPU or 58 v 2CPU to match 14 physicals

Recommendation: 2 CPU & only for small use


34/46


Business Objects WebI dev

Virtualize? Yes. 900 / 1.4Ghz

24 x 7 sampling Hours of Op sampling

RAM(MB)

Nic KB/sec

HD KB/sec

Proc %Usage

RAM(MB)

Nic KB/sec

HD KB/sec

Proc %Usage

100%847 61 4324 112 847 61 4324 34

99.99%839 45 1548 55 839 47 97 24

99.9%823 19 487 52 821 32 85 22

99%816 17 76 3 816 17 67 7

95%813 4 65 3 814 11 65 6

90%809 2 64 2 812 2 63 5

Av755 2 55 2 759 2 52 1

StDev47 4 86 3 44 4 136 1

Win 2000 / IIS5 / 2400MB RAM / 1.4Ghz x 2 (no HT)


35/46


PSoft 8 Fin Crystal/nVision: Dev

Virtualize? Yes. 900 / 1.4Ghz


RAM(MB)

Nic KB/sec

HD KB/sec

Proc %Usage

RAM(MB)

Nic KB/sec

HD KB/sec

Proc %Usage

100%835 5284 5038 106 835 5284 2529 106

99.99%822 2973 5005 89 829 4542 1555 9299.9%821 31 4912 82 822 72 1494 75

99%814 4 4802 67 819 5 1015 13

95%798 3 910 10 809 3 100 3

90%786 3 61 2 799 3 32 2

Av644 2 205 4 662 3 49 2

StDev91 51 834 8 106 87 181 3

Win 2000 / 2300MB RAM / 1.1Ghz x 2 (no HT)


36/46


PSoft8 HE Crystal/nVision - Prod

Virtualize? NOT at this time CPU needs too high


RAM(MB)

Nic KB/sec

HD KB/sec

Proc %Usage

RAM(MB)

Nic KB/sec

HD KB/sec

Proc %Usage

100%716 11499 3421 350 716 9437 3421 348

99.99%710 9803 3379 329 713 3493 3379 333

99.9%620 1422 2440 244 691 674 779 267

99%534 119 2304 192 460 119 351 220

95%483 8 183 34 440 11 74 32

90%447 1 50 23 437 1 51 22

Av378 10 105 23 363 7 49 21

StDev67 162 356 7 63 109 159 6

Win 2000 / 1500MB RAM / 2.8Ghz x 1 (w/ HT)


37/46


sumTotal Aspen 2.5 eLearning

Virtualize? Yes 2300MB / 1.4Ghz x 2 Note: high NIC=sync ; CPU=imp/exp


RAM(MB)

Nic KB/sec

HD KB/sec

Proc %Usage

RAM(MB)

Nic KB/sec

HD KB/sec

Proc %Usage

100%2077 9061 4477 277 2077 406 1047 155

99.99%2075 5865 3682 233 2075 404 1039 149

99.9%2073 2667 3673 216 2073 206 971 138

99%1984 91 3626 138 2064 70 827 125

95%1777 68 839 101 1684 67 623 59

90%1670 5 517 41 1665 3 459 30

Av1628 16 236 24 1636 5 166 21

StDev76 173 505 5 60 20 183 4

Win 2000 / SQL 2000 / 2358MB RAM / 1.9Ghz x 2 (w/ HT)


38/46


Domain Controllers

Virtualize? Yes 850MB / 1.4Ghz


RAM(MB)

Nic KB/sec

HD KB/sec

Proc %Usage

RAM(MB)

Nic KB/sec

HD KB/sec

Proc %Usage

100%776 5677 4298 146 767 457 1237 92

99.99%771 5326 3674 131 766 98 195 51

99.9%768 2131 3440 78 757 93 194 16

99%753 51 1972 43 753 42 180 13

95%713 24 140 12 713 27 90 11

90%707 15 91 10 707 20 88 10

Av633 12 128 8 646 7 78 8

StDev74 138 302 3 56 11 41 1

Win 2003 / 2000MB RAM / 700Mhz x 4 (no HT)


39/46


Univ of Michigan - Flint

VMWare ESX Server Determining factor: Linux support & MS

Virtual Server wasnt available

Several years of experience, starting withGSX, public web services, onlineteaching, real video server, internal

file/print, 46v on 5 physical (15 on 1),


40/46


NC State University

MS Virtual Server 2005 Determining factor: Cost

PeopleSoft v8 Crystal/nVision app

servers: 18 virtual servers, 7 physicalservers, dual Xeon >2GB, physical v.virtual head-to-head, little difference in

performance.


41/46


Potential Uses from Previous Presentations

NAP - Remediation Servers Big Red Buttonfor critical fix assign additional resources

Keynote - Reliability one of pillars ofTrustworthy Computing

Boston U Matt - NetReg peak usage firstcouple weeks of semester

WSUS 3Ghz, 1GB RAM recommended sitting

idle most of time? Decrease dev system allocation in busy times


42/46


Pricing

MS Virtual Server 2005 (4CPU Server, 8GB RAM) Win 2003 Std: up to 4 processors, Ent: up to 32

VS Std: 4proc/4GB; Ent: 8proc/32GB

2003 Ent/Std: ~$500+~$500 = ~$1000

VMWare Server ESX (4CPU other pricing scales) ESX: $4500/phy server + $945/yr support

ESX+SMP+V-agents: $6000/phy server+ $1764/yr support

VMWare Add-ons VirtualCenter server: $3000 + $1050/yr

P2V Starter kit (25): $2000 + $420/yr


43/46


44/46


Summary / take-aways

More effective resource utilization and responseto changing needs (5-15% to 60-70%)

Virtual Server & VMWare = comparableperformance, VMWare more isolated

VMWare more feature-rich: SMP, VMotion,manage multiple servers

VMWare costs more, but you can do more,virtualize more costly servers

Both platforms have limits, active improvement


45/46


Other Resources

VMWare: www.vmware.com Virtual Server:

www.microsoft.com/virtualserver/

Rapid App: www.rapidapp.com
http://www.vmware.com/http://www.microsoft.com/virtualserver/http://www.rapidapp.com/http://www.rapidapp.com/http://www.microsoft.com/virtualserver/http://www.vmware.com/


46/46

David Sweetman

University of Michigan

[email protected]

Questions?

umich virtualization testing

Documents