Upload
sivapathipati
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
3/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 3
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
4/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 4
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
5/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 5
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
6/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 6
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
8/46Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 8
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.
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
9/46Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 9
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
10/46Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 10
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
11/46Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 11
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
12/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 12
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
13/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 13
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
14/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 14
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
15/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 15
VS Screenshot
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
16/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 16
VMWare Screenshot
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
17/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 17
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/
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
18/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 18
RAM Allocation
Virtual Server:Max
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
19/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 19
VS Screenshot
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
20/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 20
VMWare Screenshot
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
21/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 21
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
22/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 22
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
23/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 23
Virtual Center Screenshot
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
24/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 24
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
25/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 25
VMotion
Enables seamless transition of live virtualhost between physical servers
Dynamic Resource Allocation across
servers respond to load changes HW maintenance
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
26/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 26
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
27/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 27
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
28/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 28
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
29/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 29
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
30/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 30
Performance Comparisons
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
31/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 31
Performance Comparisons
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 -/+
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
32/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 32
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
33/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 33
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
34/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 34
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)
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
35/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 35
PSoft 8 Fin Crystal/nVision: 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%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)
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
36/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 36
PSoft8 HE Crystal/nVision - Prod
Virtualize? NOT at this time CPU needs too high
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%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)
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
37/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 37
sumTotal Aspen 2.5 eLearning
Virtualize? Yes 2300MB / 1.4Ghz x 2 Note: high NIC=sync ; CPU=imp/exp
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%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)
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
38/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 38
Domain Controllers
Virtualize? Yes 850MB / 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%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)
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
39/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 39
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),
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
40/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 40
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.
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
41/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 41
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
42/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 42
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
43/46
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
44/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 44
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
7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
45/46
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization 45
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/7/31/2019 UMich Virtualization Testing
46/46
David Sweetman
University of Michigan
Questions?