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 [email protected]
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
University of
Michigan Administrative Information Services
Server Virtualization Technologies: Uses, Comparisons, and Implications
David Sweetman Windows Enterprise Systems AdminAdministrative Information Services
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 2
Presentation Overview
• The What and Why of virtualization
• Comparing Product Features
• Comparing Product Performance
• Evaluating Physical Servers for virtualization
• Costs
• Questions
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 5
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.
HW Utilization Facts
68% of hard disk space unused
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 6
Hard Disk UtilizationServer Local Disk Total
(GB)Used (GB)
Free (GB)
SAN Manager 48 8 40
IIS app test 68 9 59
TNG Scheduling 68 13 55
PeopleSoft 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 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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.
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 15
VS Screenshot
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 16
VMWare Screenshot
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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/
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 19
VS Screenshot
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 20
VMWare Screenshot
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 23
Virtual Center Screenshot
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 25
VMotion
• Enables seamless transition of live virtual host between physical servers
• Dynamic Resource Allocation across servers – respond to load changes
• HW maintenance
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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 perf compare
• VMWare CPU : hyper-threaded related, ~93% w/o
• VS SQL : VS 2005 SP1 has performance enhancements
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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?
RAM CPU Disk Network
Virtual Server 2005 -/+ <10% -/+ <10% - <5% - <5%
VMWare ESX Server Same Same - <5% - <5%
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 33
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Av 633 12 128 8 646 7 78 8
StDev 74 138 302 3 56 11 41 1
Win 2003 / 2000MB RAM / 700Mhz x 4 (no HT)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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.
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 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