220 likes | 360 Views
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.
E N D
P2P Session VIEW POC FindingsTopic: Resource and Hardware AllocationJune 2009 James Soler Matt Mancini
Agenda • Topic Overview • Test Criteria • Results • Recommendations
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
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)
View Environment Desktop View Connection Manager Thin Client VCenter Server ESX Host Cluster View Virtual Desktop Pool Notebook
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
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
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
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
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
Logical Test Layout View Virtual Desktop Pool 1 Virtual Desktop running benchmark tool Host Server 10 Virtual Desktops running @ 100% Load
Logical Test Layout View Virtual Desktop Pool 1 Virtual Desktop running benchmark tool Host Server 20 Virtual Desktops running @ 25% Load
Logical Test Layout View Virtual Desktop Pool 1 Virtual Desktop running benchmark tool Host Server 30 Virtual Desktops running @ 25% Load
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.
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
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