Testing(VM(density(–why(it(...

Testing VM density – why it matters, and the 3PAR impact

Jeff Boles – Sr. Analyst / Director of Validation Services [email protected]

2 © 2013 Taneja Group

Agenda

•  What is VM density?

•  How does it impact the IT infrastructure and TCO?

•  The common culprit that decreases VM density.

•  Tackling the common culprit, and a look at some hands-‐on tesJng.


What is VM density?

Physical World Virtual World

" Many:1 relationship between applications and hardware

" 1:1 relationship between applications and hardware

1:1

1:1

1:1 Many:1

1:1

1:1

1:1

VM density is the “Many:1” raJo, and idenJfies how many applicaJons you can consolidate on one hypervisor


VirtualizaJon has changed the way we pay for IT

Virtual World

" Much licensing is performed at the hypervisor level, and even more licensing can be controlled through the intelligent use of virtual processors.

Physical World

" Everything licensed at the OS and Application


There is lots that we pay for…

Factor in Significant AcquisiJon Costs

Management

•  Servers •  Networking •  Storage •  Electricity •  Datacenter

space

" Licenses for Virtual machines operating system

" Management software

" Management servers and other infrastructure cost

" Databases software and servers

VM Guest OS Management Hardware

" Licenses for virtualization software

Virtualization software


Virtual Infrastructure Costs MaXer

6 Confidential

vCloud Suite Edition Lineup

$4,995 $7,495 $11,495

Cloud Infrastructure

Price (per CPU, license only)

Virtualization vSphere Enterprise Plus Virtualized infrastructure with policy-based automation

vCloud Director & vCloud Connector Virtualized datacenters with multi-tenancy and public cloud extensibility

vFabric Application Director Multi-tier application service catalog publishing and provisioning

vCenter Operations Management Suite - Performance monitoring and alerting - Capacity planning, reporting, and optimization

Standard vCloud Networking and Security Software defined networking, security, and ecosystem integration

vCenter Infrastructure Navigator Application discovery, dependency mapping, and management vCenter Chargeback Manager Metered chargeback reporting and accountability

vCenter Configuration Manager Configuration and compliance management of virtual infrastructure Operations

Management

Advanced vCloud Networking and Security Continuous firewall and network availability

vCOps Advanced vCOps Enterprise

vCenter Site Recovery Manager Enterprise Automated disaster recovery planning, testing, and execution

Note: vCloud Suite Editions are licensed per CPU; Unlimited VMs, Unlimited vRAM

vCloud Net & Sec Advanced

vCloud Net & Sec Standard

vCenter SRM

vCloud Suite Standard

vCloud Suite Advanced

vCloud Suite Enterprise

vCloud Net & Sec Advanced


These costs shouldn’t be ignored

Scale

Cos

t OpExSavings

CapExSavings

Total Cost of Ownership

Low VM density increases Opex costsand diminishes savings


These costs shouldn’t be ignored

Leading Drivers of Server Virtualization

50.1%

51.3%

59.1%

66.3%

30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70%

Improved availability and/or disaster recovery

Ease of management and increased flexibil ity ofIT operation

Power/cooling/space and related operationalsavings

Capital (CAPEX) savings from consolidatingphysical servers


What is VM density?

Physical World Virtual World

" Many:1 relationship between applications and hardware

" Relevant cost metric = COST PER APPLICATION

" 1:1 relationship between applications and hardware

" Relevant cost metric = cost per server

1:1

1:1

1:1 Many:1

1:1

1:1

1:1

VM density matters!


The Common Culprit

Storage!


A few data points (1 of 4) Average Number of Virtual Servers Per Physical Production Server

24.4%33.1%

15.4%9.3%

7.3%9.0%

1.5%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

1 to 56 to 10

11 to 1516 to 2021 to 25

26 or moreDon't know

Storage Factors Preventing or Slowing the Virtualization of "Mission Critical" Applications

37.6%

14.8%

15.3%

18.1%

18.4%

19.8%

20.9%

21.2%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

None of the above

Storage availability/uptime issues or concerns

Disaster recovery issues or concerns

Data protection issues or concerns

Insufficient storage capacity

Lack of required tools for visibil ity and management

Insufficient storage performance

Security issues or concerns


A few data points (2 of 4)

Impact of Storage Costs on Overall Server Virtualization ROI

20.1%

21.2%

35.1%

39.8%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Don't know

Storage operational costs (incl:troubleshooting, management, etc.) have

detracted from my return on investment (ROI)

Storage has not impacted my ROI one way oranother

Storage capital costs (buying more storage)have detracted from my ROI


A few data points (4 of 4)

Which of the following application areas have the greatest need for greater storage performance in your

business?


The 3PAR VM Density Difference

Number of simultaneous VM tiles

3PAR Other

Storage VM Density

2X VM

Density


What we tested… !"#$"%&#'()*+,(-.(/#

0.+).+#012/.-# !"###$%&'()*+,-).$/0%1/2#3$45$%&'(),$

0.+).+#"+,3.22,+2#

605$!78)$9)7:$;<=62<#$>?2$378),$-7-'&@$

0.+).+#&%4# A24%$

5./6,+7#012/.-#

BC$!"###$DE8-F'&$!7::)3-$>G&)0EH&+$I87JE,E7:,$JB%K,$':($JLM!,$G78$E:(EJE(F'&$IN+,E3'&$%1/2#3$H&'(),@$

89#9,((.3/*)*/1#

DE'$DE8-F'&$!7::)3-$O&)0=?#$?#4H$;-N)8:)-$P7(F&)$

'/:.+(./#9,((.3/*)*/1#

DE'$DE8-F'&$!7::)3-$5$4H$6/=C78-$OEH8)$!N'::)&$P7(F&)$

0/,+;<.#012/.-#

BC$QCKR$O6##$

=*272# Q6$?/24%$?<S$(E,T,U$,E:V&)$JE8-F'&EW)($('-',-78)$J7&F.)U$RKMX$<$

9;3:.# 54%$!7:-87&$Y$?64%$X'-'$$

!"#$%&%'(#)*+""#,*-(.%"'(/0(&*10".0"*1,2&0/* !"###$%&'()*+,-).$

/0%1/2#3$45$%&'(),$10".0"*3"'4022'"2*

605$!78)$9)7:$;<=62<#$>?2$378),$-7-'&@$

10".0"*5+6* A24%$

70&8'"9*1,2&0/*

BC$!"###$DE8-F'&$!7::)3-$>G&)0EH&+$I87JE,E7:,$JB%K,$':($JLM!,$G78$E:(EJE(F'&$IN+,E3'&$%1/2#3$H&'(),@$

:;*;'((04&%.%&,*

DE'$DE8-F'&$!7::)3-$O&)0=?#$?#4H$;-N)8:)-$P7(F&)$

-&<0"(0&*;'((04&%.%&,*

DE'$DE8-F'&$!7::)3-$5$4H$6/=C78-$OEH8)$!N'::)&$P7(F&)$

1&'"#=0*1,2&0/*

*E.E&'8$3&',,$$6$37:-87&&)8$'88'+$

>%292* Q6$?/24%$?<R$(E,S,T$,E:U&)$JE8-F'&EV)($('-',-78)$J7&F.)T$WKMX$<$

;#4<0* 54%$!'3N)$I)8$37:-87&&)8$$


What we tested with…

!

!"#$%&#'()%*+%#%$,-(.%%/01,2,1*#-%345'-4#1)%

%%

"#$%&#'(! )*$+#,-!

./01'23-!4565! 7'$3-8!#9!:#'(;-2!4565!8-,8!8##&!<!=>)?,@!6A;B!=CDE!

./01'23-!>&F-28! ./-0*8-(!:#'(;-2!4565!8-,8@!F2F8F'8-(!$-G#8-&H!=F'!)I.J.>!4!=>)?,@!4;B!=CDE!

IK:!I-$=-$!455<C4!

LML!I8#$-!4!L'8'N',-!O9#$!+1H,F0'&!8-,8!0&F-28!'00-,,P!Q!=>)?,@!<;B!=CDE!

MH'88'!ARQ! S'2(&-(!-/8-$2'&!0#22-08F=F8H!9#$!LML!I8#$-!4!+1H,F0'&!0&F-28!4!=>)?,@!T64EB!=CDE!

•  A virtualized applicaJon Jle consisJng of several workloads, much like VMware’s VM Mark.

•  Each applicaJon executed different syntheJc benchmarks that were selected for their reasonable ability to simulate real world workloads.


How we tested…

•  We tested by cloning each of these test Jles repeatedly

•  And then running simultaneous

workloads via a proprietary TG Labs test harness unJl failures occurred in the syntheJc tests


What this did…


Success or failure


Demanding performance, but now with a twist…


Measuring results... without snaps

210 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

35,000

0

5000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Number of VMs

Ope

rati

ons

Per

Min

ute

- D

VD

Sto

re 2 HP 3PAR F200

Traditional Array

With HP 3PARperformance scales to16 VM tiles

Traditional arrayperformance peakat 8 VM tiles


Measuring results… with snaps

210 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

35,000

0

5000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Number of VMs

Ope

rati

ons

Per

Min

ute

- D

VD

Sto

re 2 HP 3PAR F200

Traditional Array

Traditional Arraycould not supportmore than 4 VM tiles

HP 3PAR F200performance peakedat approximately8 VM tiles


Latency makes a difference – 3PAR

Green is write latency, blue is read latency


Latency makes a difference – TradiJonal Array

Orange is write latency, red is read latency


A snapshot-‐induced latency melt down…


So does storage make a difference? •  Our 4 blades were still only

seeing slightly more than 50% utilization.

•  But the traditional array really fell apart from a lack of controller horsepower and disk efficiency.

•  The F200 appeared to have more headroom if we scaled it with more disks.

•  The traditional storage system wouldn’t take density anywhere near most customer targets.

Testing(VM(density(–why(it(...

Documents

Transcript of Testing(VM(density(–why(it(...