1 / 46

Server Virtualization Technologies: Uses, Comparisons, and Implications

University of Michigan Administrative Information Services. Server Virtualization Technologies: Uses, Comparisons, and Implications. David Sweetman Windows Enterprise Systems Admin Administrative Information Services University of Michigan dsweetma@umich.edu. Presentation Overview.

Philip
Download Presentation

Server Virtualization Technologies: Uses, Comparisons, and Implications

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. University of Michigan Administrative Information Services Server Virtualization Technologies: Uses, Comparisons, and Implications David Sweetman Windows Enterprise Systems Admin Administrative Information Services University of Michigan dsweetma@umich.edu

  2. Presentation Overview • The What and Why of virtualization • Comparing Product Features • Comparing Product Performance • Evaluating Physical Servers for virtualization • Costs • Questions

  3. What is server virtualization? • Creating multiple logical server OS instances on one physical piece of hardware • All HW drivers are virtualized – same virtual HW regardless of physical HW • Each virtual machine is completely independent of the others and doesn’t ‘realize’ it’s virtualized

  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

  5. HW Utilization Facts Individual ebb and flow of resources Cumulative 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. 68% of hard disk space unused

  6. More Efficient Hard Disk Utilization • Total: 1323 GB • Used: 418 GB • Free: 905 GB • (68% unused) SAN in 30GB chunks 1 fibre channel >1 server Virtual HDs more granular Share free space – allocate as needed Hard Disk Utilization

  7. Virtualization vs. Consolidation • Virtualized servers = separate OSes • Consolidation = same OS • Virtualized servers must each be administered, patched, etc. • Consolidated applications can introduce conflicts and support issues

  8. Virtual Host Licensing Windows and other Microsoft per-server apps are licensed per virtual server. (1 physical server w/ 6 virtual Windows servers = 6-7 licenses needed) As of 4/1/2005, Microsoft per-processor licenses are per physical processor (1 physical server w/ 3 virtual SQL Servers sharing 1 CPU = 1 per-processor license) Virtualization savings are not in licenses. Check with other vendors.

  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

  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

  11. MS Virtual Server 2005 • Targeted to increase efficiency in testing and development, and “re-hosting” • Up to 1 processor per virtual host • Windows = underlying host OS • Only Windows VM’s supported • No USB support • 2 processor SMP coming soon

  12. VMWare ESX Server 2.5 • Targeted at mission-critical enterprise services • Up to 2 processors per host • Custom Linux = underlying OS • Windows & Linux VM’s supported • Dedicated NIC for admin (2 total min) • USB support • 4 proc SMP coming soon

  13. Do I need to know Linux? • VMWare ESX Server is based on Linux • All administration is possible through web • Don’t need any Linux experience for installation or ongoing admin • SSH and SFTP access to server • Used? • Installed backup software • sFTP’ed ISO’s to server

  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 VM’s • Allocate hardware resources • Mount CDs and floppies • View recent performance data

  15. VS Screenshot

  16. VMWare Screenshot

  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/

  18. RAM Allocation • Virtual Server: Max <= total physical memory • VMWare: Max <> total physical • RAM Ballooning • RAM pooled across multiple VMs • Enables more efficient RAM utilization • If max out, goes to paging file

  19. VS Screenshot

  20. VMWare Screenshot

  21. Monitoring • MOM (or other host monitoring): Monitors VMs 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. Virtual Center • Central monitoring and management in VMWare 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. Virtual Center Screenshot

  24. Converting Physical Server • Both MS & VMWare offer tools to create virtual systems from 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. VMotion • Enables seamless transition of live virtual host between physical servers • Dynamic Resource Allocation across servers – respond to load changes • HW maintenance

  26. Best Practices • Plan out server allocations • Create “gold image” – base OS kept up-to-date patches – duplicate for new VMs • Use ISO’s for CD access • Use standard backup and restore • Take system images as needed

  27. Summary of VMWare differences • More comprehensive web GUI (for example, 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 servers between physical hosts

  28. Testing Environment • One month each was spent evaluating MS Virtual 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. Performance Comparisons • Automated load test of Aspen 2.5 dev environment (Win 2000/IIS5 & Win 2000/SQL 2000) • Citrix / TS load test w/ Helpdesk • IIS6-based memory, CPU, disk, and network I/O testing • SQL Server add, update, and delete testing • Load testing both as isolated server and with other virtual server processing • ‘Normal usage’ w/o issue in all cases

  30. Performance Comparisons • Windows 2003 IIS6 and SQL 2000 perf compare • VMWare CPU : hyper-threaded related, ~93% w/o • VS SQL : VS 2005 SP1 has performance enhancements

  31. Performance Comparisons • Previous stats were isolated tests • VMs won’t be alone on physical host • How does system perform w/ other VMs running assorted, intensive tasks?

  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

  33. Terminal Services / Citrix Load 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. Business Objects WebI dev Win 2000 / IIS5 / 2400MB RAM / 1.4Ghz x 2 (no HT) Virtualize? Yes. 900 / 1.4Ghz

  35. PSoft 8 Fin Crystal/nVision: Dev Win 2000 / 2300MB RAM / 1.1Ghz x 2 (no HT) Virtualize? Yes. 900 / 1.4Ghz

  36. PSoft8 HE Crystal/nVision - Prod Win 2000 / 1500MB RAM / 2.8Ghz x 1 (w/ HT) Virtualize? NOT at this time – CPU needs too high

  37. sumTotal Aspen 2.5 eLearning Win 2000 / SQL 2000 / 2358MB RAM / 1.9Ghz x 2 (w/ HT) Virtualize? Yes 2300MB / 1.4Ghz x 2 Note: high NIC=sync ; CPU=imp/exp

  38. Domain Controllers Win 2003 / 2000MB RAM / 700Mhz x 4 (no HT) Virtualize? Yes – 850MB / 1.4Ghz

  39. Univ of Michigan - Flint • VMWare ESX Server • Determining factor: Linux support & MS Virtual Server wasn’t available • Several years of experience, starting with GSX, public web services, online teaching, real video server, internal file/print, 46v on 5 physical (15 on 1), <10% slower, Dell 2650’s & 4600’s, 2 proc, 12GB RAM

  40. NC State University • MS Virtual Server 2005 • Determining factor: Cost • PeopleSoft v8 Crystal/nVision app servers: 18 virtual servers, 7 physical servers, dual Xeon >2GB, physical v. virtual head-to-head, little difference in performance.

  41. Potential Uses from Previous Presentations • NAP - Remediation Servers – “Big Red Button” for critical fix – assign additional resources • Keynote - Reliability – one of pillars of Trustworthy Computing • Boston U – Matt - NetReg peak usage first couple weeks of semester • WSUS 3Ghz, 1GB RAM recommended – sitting idle most of time? • Decrease dev system allocation in busy times

  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

  43. Cost / Benefit Example • VMWare Server ESX • $45K separate HW purchase price • $29K + $2K/yr (ESX w/SMP): ~35% • MS Virtual Server Std • $33K separate HW purchase price • $30K virtual HW + software: ~10% Note: In both cases, estimates are conservative

  44. Summary / take-aways • More effective resource utilization and response to changing needs (5-15% to 60-70%) • Virtual Server & VMWare = comparable performance, 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. Other Resources • VMWare: www.vmware.com • Virtual Server: www.microsoft.com/virtualserver/ • Rapid App: www.rapidapp.com

  46. David SweetmanUniversity of Michigandsweetma@umich.edu Questions?

More Related