1 / 22

P2P Session VIEW POC Findings Topic: Resource and Hardware Allocation June 2009

P2P Session VIEW POC Findings Topic: Resource and Hardware Allocation June 2009. James Soler Matt Mancini. Agenda. Topic Overview Test Criteria Results Recommendations. Topic Overview.

yoshe
Download Presentation

P2P Session VIEW POC Findings Topic: Resource and Hardware Allocation June 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. P2P Session VIEW POC FindingsTopic: Resource and Hardware AllocationJune 2009 James Soler Matt Mancini

  2. Agenda • Topic Overview • Test Criteria • Results • Recommendations

  3. Topic Overview • During the 2nd and 3rd weeks of June 2009 we benchmarked and tested the functionality of VMWARE View 3.1 against our current POC hardware • Our goals were • Document how our hardware performed under loads • Document how we could control the load • Establish a baseline for hardware and resource loads • Recommend View Server hardware based on our findings

  4. Test Criteria • The Blades • POC Blade is a BL460c / 32GB RAM / 6 NIC / 2 x Quad Core Xeon x5355 Clovertown Core 2.66Ghz CPU ~21.5Ghz / 2 Fiber HBA / ESX 3.5 U4 • The Rack Servers • Demo Servers are DL380 G6/ 108GB RAM / 10 NIC / 2 x Quad Core Xeon x5560 Gainstown Nehalem 2.8 GHz CPU ~ 22.4 GHz / 6 Fiber HBA / ESX 3.5 U4 • Test VM’s • MAX 1 x vCPU 2.66Ghz / 1GB RAM • Normal 1 x vCPU 1.5Ghz / 1GB Ram Limits (Limited using Vcenter Resource Pool)

  5. View Environment Desktop View Connection Manager Thin Client VCenter Server ESX Host Cluster View Virtual Desktop Pool Notebook

  6. Test Criteria • How we Tested the Blades and VM’s • We would deploy between 1 to 41 VM’s across each server • VM’s were deployed with XP using VMWare’s XP deployment guide • We would use one VM as the benchmark and the others as the load • The load VM’s would run PassMark’s Burn in Test which would enable us to drive the CPU / RAM / NIC / HD at different saturation levels • Situations levels were tested in different combinations of 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100% • While the Burn In Test was running we’d run Passmark’s Performance Test to establish a benchmark score. This score was double and often triple verified

  7. Base Line Performance Test

  8. Environment • We did test Vista, however it seamed to make no difference in performance. In fact it seamed to waste resources as it wouldn’t settle down when idle • During testing if VM’s were unlimited they would saturate the blades and the benchmark PC will score very low with BL460c blades • If VM’s are restricted by CPU GHz then the tend to work better together and score higher even at full loads with the BL460c blades • Limiting Resources on the DL380 G6 did not have same effect as the BL460c blades. In most cases it actually hurt overall performance even with 20+ VM’s

  9. Resource Pool • BL460c 10 VM’s Running @ 100% • Resource Limited @ 1.5 GHz – 331 Resources Unlimited – 308 • BL460c 20VM’s Running @ 100% • Resource Limited @ 1.5 GHz – 169 Resources Unlimited – 128 • DL380 G6 10 VM’s Running @ 100% • Resource Limited @ 1.5 GHz – 447 Resources Unlimited – 535 • DL380 G6 30VM’s Running @ 25% • Resource Limited @ 1.5 GHz – 358 Resources Unlimited – 370

  10. Multi Pathing • We also found early on that the Virtual Desktops were scoring very low in the Disk Mark compared to Physical systems • Once we enabled Multi Pathing with in VCenter our Disk I/O doubled improving the overall score of the View Desktops

  11. Multi Path Disk I/O Comparison • BL460c 10 VM’s Running @ 100% with out Multi Path configured • Disk Mark – 31.3 • Passmark Rating – 193 • BL460c 10 VM’s Running @ 100% with Multi Path configured • Disk Mark – 69.5 • Passmark Rating – 308

  12. Multipathing

  13. Multipathing

  14. Logical Test Layout View Virtual Desktop Pool 1 Virtual Desktop running benchmark tool Host Server 10 Virtual Desktops running @ 100% Load

  15. 10 VM’s @ 100%

  16. Logical Test Layout View Virtual Desktop Pool 1 Virtual Desktop running benchmark tool Host Server 20 Virtual Desktops running @ 25% Load

  17. 20 VM’s @ 25%

  18. Logical Test Layout View Virtual Desktop Pool 1 Virtual Desktop running benchmark tool Host Server 30 Virtual Desktops running @ 25% Load

  19. 30 VM’s @ 25%

  20. Recommendations for BL460c • We should enable VM Resource limits to • 1 vCPU at 1.5Ghz • 1GB of RAM • Resource Pools should be limited to 1.5GHz less the max for an ESX servers CPU • Disk I/O is a performance issues. By enabling multipathing and keeping HBA to LUN relationship as low as possible our performance issues should be minimized. • If we are to deploy 600 VM’s across 2TB with 4 to 8 LUNS then we should consider a 1:1 or 1:2 HBA / LUN relationship • 4 VM’s per core due to performance issues at Max capacity.

  21. Recommendations for DL380 • Physical Servers • Resource Limits are not necessary with new processors • Minimum 4 to 6 HBA’s per server • NIC’s 6 to 8 are adequate • 96 GB Memory or more per server • 5 VM’s per core – Conservative to VMWare’s 8 VM’s per core

  22. Conclusion • Depending on your hardware and performance requirements View 3.1 will easily support 4-8 VM’s per Core. • VCenter configuration is very important to performance of View • Build you environment based on what your needs are

More Related