White Paper - Technical & Business Validation · Edison: IBM . Virtualization Performance White...

89 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor

New York, NY 10003

www.TheEdison.com

212.367.7400

White Paper

IBM PowerVM Virtualization

Technology on IBM POWER7 Systems

A Comparison of PowerVM and

VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1

Virtualization Performance

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright 2011 Edison Group, Inc. New York. Edison Group offers no warranty either

expressed or implied on the information contained herein and shall be held harmless for errors

resulting from its use.

All products are trademarks of their respective owners.

First Publication: September 2011

Produced by: Craig Norris, Sr Analyst; Barry Cohen, Editor-in-Chief; Manny Frishburn, Editor

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3

Objective .................................................................................................................................. 3

Audience .................................................................................................................................. 3

Contents of this Report .......................................................................................................... 3

The Business Value of Virtualization ...................................................................................... 4

Benchmark Comparison Study: PowerVM vs. VMware ...................................................... 6

AIM7 Benchmark .................................................................................................................... 6

TPoX Benchmark .................................................................................................................. 10

Summary of Results ............................................................................................................. 21

IBM’s Virtualization Infrastructure: POWER7 Systems .................................................... 22

PowerVM ............................................................................................................................... 23

Processor Virtualization ...................................................................................................... 23

Memory Virtualization ........................................................................................................ 24

I/O Virtualization .................................................................................................................. 24

Partition Mobility ................................................................................................................. 24

Partition Hibernation ........................................................................................................... 24

Workload Partitioning ......................................................................................................... 25

Systems Management .......................................................................................................... 25

PowerVM Advantages ......................................................................................................... 26

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 29

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix 1 — Benchmark Configuration Information ........................................................ 32

Appendix 2 — General Benchmark Descriptions .................................................................. 34

Edison: IBM – Virtualization Performance White Paper: A Comparison of PowerVM and VMware Page 1

Executive Summary

Today’s business organizations need to rein in IT costs, but without sacrificing

performance, security, reliability, and flexibility. A new era has emerged in which it is

now possible, through intelligent and strategic use of new and/or advanced technology,

to achieve breakthrough economics, considerably reducing the cost of delivering the

workloads central to a business’s operation.

IBM has been aggressively making strides in pioneering IT infrastructure designed to

harness trends and innovation to deliver top-notch functionality with the greatest

efficiency and with the greatest data center savings. The vendor’s initiative — defined

by IBM as Smarter Computing — has helped many forward-thinking organizations to

design, tune, and manage their IT infrastructures to make them designed for data, tuned

to the task, and managed in the cloud.

A cornerstone of this initiative is a move toward architectures optimized for specific

purposes and built around deep domain knowledge. The goals here comprise reducing

deployment times for systems from months to days, improving performance with

utilization rates of up to 90 percent, and reducing floor space, power consumption,

labor, and total cost per workload. The key operative technology advancement

harnessed in achieving these goals is server consolidation through virtualization.

Using virtualization technology to consolidate data center servers has become an

integral component of how successful companies approach the design of their IT

systems. However, the majority of businesses fall far short of realizing the full potential

of server consolidation. On average, consolidation ratios are only around six virtual

machines (VMs) per physical server. Even world-class organizations are only

consolidating at a ratio of about 18 to 1 at best. Much higher VM densities are possible

without degrading system performance, reducing data center consolidation expenses

significantly and yielding a considerable economic advantage to organizations.

Under the banner of “Power is performance redefined,” IBM has introduced an

impressive profile of servers with the 2010 launch and 2011 release of Power Systems

servers and blades. These products are based on the IBM POWER7 processor

architecture, ranging from 2-socket to 32-socket with up to 256 cores.

To evaluate the value IBM’s virtualization technology can offer clients, IBM engaged

Edison Group to help provide a clear understanding of the benefits that can be seen

when organizations implement virtualization technology as part of their IT

environment. IBM virtualization technologies support a server virtualization ratio of

1,000 to 1, outdoing competitors and providing for massive data center consolidation.


Clients using POWER7 systems and PowerVM virtualization technology achieve higher

operational savings by using greater VM density. Many of the advantages stem from the

fact that PowerVM technology is built directly into the firmware of all Power Systems

servers. The widely-deployed VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 and other x86-based

virtualization products are typically third-party software add-ons, sold and installed

separately.

This technical white paper presents benchmark results showing greater VM

consolidation ratios than demonstrated in previous benchmarks and demonstrating the

extent of the performance lead that PowerVM virtualization technologies deliver over

x86-based add-on virtualization products. The tests, running two workload benchmarks

of different consolidation ratios on POWER7 processor-based and comparable Intel-

based systems, demonstrate the exceptional performance and scalability of PowerVM

virtualization technologies compared to VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 on an x86-based

platform. Key findings include the following:

PowerVM technology on an IBM Power 750 system performs up to 115 percent

better than VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 in whole core configuration with a

consolidation ratio of 32 to 1.

PowerVM technology on an IBM Power 750 system performs up to 200 percent

better than VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 in a processor resource over-commit

configuration (five virtual machines share a core) with a consolidation ratio of 40 to

1.

PowerVM technology on a 4-socket IBM Power 750 system demonstrated linear

scaling with 50 percent more absolute throughput performance compared to

VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 on a 4-socket Intel Xeon 7560 system.

The benchmark results clearly reveal that PowerVM virtualization technology on

POWER7 processor-based platforms offers greater performance than that offered by

VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 on Intel x86 platforms. They enable high consolidation

ratios, broader scalability, and increased flexibility for a far superior virtualization

solution. PowerVM virtualization technology on POWER7 processor-based platforms

not only uses system resources in shared processor mode more efficiently, but also

delivers superior performance when resources are over-committed with a higher

consolidation ratio. Together they establish PowerVM virtualization technology as the

consolidation system of choice for organizations wishing to realize the full advantages of

greater VM density.


Introduction

Objective

The objective of this white paper is to compare the performance of PowerVM

virtualization technologies on POWER7 processor-based server platforms against

VMware vSphere 4.1 update 11 on comparable Intel x86 platforms. It describes tests

using industry-standard benchmarks to compare virtualization technologies. The results

were reviewed, analyzed, and presented by Edison Group.

Audience

This paper is intended for anyone interested in the advantages of server consolidation

through virtualization. IT managers, CIOs, system architects, and others will find

valuable information that will help them further enhance and adopt virtualization

technology within their IT environments.

Contents of this Report

This white paper contains the following major sections:

The Business Value of Virtualization — This section discusses the business value

propositions underlying the benchmark evaluations presented in this paper.

Benchmark Comparison Study: PowerVM Virtualization Technology versus

VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 — This section presents the comparative testing

itself, describing the test bed setup, the benchmarks, the actual tests, and the results

of the tests.

IBM’s Virtualization Infrastructure: POWER7 Processor-Based Systems — This

section describes the Power Systems virtualization infrastructure, its components,

and its advantages.

Appendices — The appendices contain configuration information and general

descriptions for the benchmarks used in the tests discussed in this paper.

1 The benchmarks and analysis were done with an n-1 Intel Xeon-based server and VMware vSphere 4.1

rather than the most recent versions of Intel Xeon servers and VMware vSphere because , the Intel Xeon

processor used in the HP DL 580 G7 server for these benchmarks is the most widely-used x86 processor in

the field, OEM vendors are continuing to ship servers based on this technology, the VMware vSphere

version benchmarked is the most widely-used x86 version in the field., and the test runs of benchmarks

typically take several months to plan, approve, configure, execute, analyze, and report.


The Business Value of Virtualization

Inefficiencies have cropped up in data center operations as applications, workloads, and

data have multiplied. These include: underutilization of server processor capacity,

memory bottlenecks that restrict performance, server sprawl and its related difficulties

in deployment and management, as well as higher energy bills from excessive power

demands. Such inefficiencies increase costs, both through expenditures for equipment

purchases and licensing, as well as through greater demands on administrative staff

resources, etc.

Virtualization technologies allow IT organizations to consolidate workloads running on

multiple operating systems and software stacks, and to dynamically allocate platform

resources to meet specific business and application requirements. Server virtualization,

the foundation platform for today’s data center, is quickly reaching maturity. More than

half of business server workloads are now deployed on virtual machines. According to

IDC, 2 virtualization has become the default build for new server installations, driving

down costs and establishing the foundation for more efficient and flexible configurations

and technology platforms. The average size of virtualized workloads increased threefold

between 2006 and 2009. The performance of virtualization is a critical factor to realize

success of server pools and cloud computing (and is also a key component in IBM’s

roadmap in its Smarter Computing initiative).

Well-implemented virtualization solutions may be employed to:

Reduce hardware expenditures by consolidating multiple environments, including

underutilized servers, and systems with varied and dynamic resource requirements.

Reduce costs for power and cooling, floor space, hardware maintenance, and

software licensing.

Grow and shrink resources dynamically according to business needs.

Deploy new workloads through provisioning VMs or new systems rapidly to meet

changing business demands.

Develop and test applications in secure, independent domains while allocating

production to its own domain on the same system.

Transfer live workloads to support server migrations, balance system load, or avoid

planned downtime that can otherwise adversely impact productivity.

Control server sprawl, reducing system management costs.

2 The Value of Memory-Dense Servers: IBM’s System x MAX5 for its eX5 Server Family, March 2010, IDC


Despite this, the majority of businesses fall far short of seizing upon the full potential of

server consolidation. Their average consolidation ratio hovers around six VMs per

server,3 yet economic advantages from data center consolidation increase significantly at

much higher VM densities. By increasing the consolidation ratio per system, businesses

can reduce capital expenditures and operational costs by reducing the number of

systems in their data center or IT organization.

IBM’s Smarter Computing systems, which allow for greater VM density without

degrading system performance, can deliver considerable economic advantages to

organizations using them. This study examines the performance and scaling aspects of

PowerVM and VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 virtualization at high consolidation ratios

(32:1 and 40:1) across two different commonly employed industry benchmarks (AIM7

and TpoX). The case of 40:1 consolidation ratio — “five virtual machines per core”—

was mapped to achieve a higher amount of compression than the client deployment

consolidation ratio surveyed in 2010.4

3 According to a recent Aberdeen Group report, Best-in-Class Practices for Virtualizing Microsoft Applications,

August 2010, even the best-in-class organizations in the study consolidate at only an 18:1 ratio. 4 http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/121510-vmware-server.html

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/121510-vmware-server.html


Benchmark Comparison Study:

PowerVM vs. VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1

AIM7 Benchmark

AIM7 is a well-known open source benchmark. It is widely used by UNIX computer

system vendors to compare system performance. It comprises three pre-defined tests

suites (compute, multi-user, and database). Each suite is a mix of compute-, memory-

and I/O-intensive atomic tests covering a wide range of operations. AIM7 also stresses

the guest operating system’s kernel performance within virtualized environments. The

testing described in this paper used the compute server test suite.

Methodology

For AIM7 scaling tests, all 32 available cores were used to scale from one to 32 virtual

machines on both platforms. The Power Linux version used on PowerVM virtualization

technology was SuSE 11 SP1, while SuSE 11 SP1 x86_64 version was used as guest OS on

VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1. (Configuration details of the tests are in the appendices)

Results

AIM7 was scaled in one, two, four, eight, 16, and 32 virtual machines (each virtual

machine having one virtual processor). Scaling was close to linear on both the POWER7

processor-/PowerVM technology-based systems and the Intel/VMware vSphere 4.1

update 1 platforms. The tests were run at close to 100 percent utilization to measure the

absolute performance of AIM7 in each VM configuration.

POWER7 processor-/PowerVM technology-based systems demonstrated more than two

times (110 percent) better performance than Intel/VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 at one,

two, four, eight, and 16 VM configurations, while at 32 VM, PowerVM technology

demonstrated a 115 percent advantage (Figure 1).

NOTE: The VM configuration and the test results can be found in the tables

following the graphs for each test in this paper, starting with Figure 1.

Table 1 shows the details on throughput and CPU utilization for each configuration. In

this test, the VMs on both platforms were configured as close to identically as possible.

In the case of PowerVM, each logical partitioning (LPAR) was given one core

entitlement, one vCPU (virtual CPU), and 3 GB RAM; in the case of VMware vSphere 4.1


update 1, each VM was given one vCPU and 3 GB RAM, with the remainder left at

default options.

Figure 1. AIM7 Benchmark Virtual Machine Scaling Performance

System Configuration for AIM7

Benchmark (1 to 32 VM Scaling)

# of

VMs

Total

Virtual

CPUs

% CPU

Utilization Jobs / min

IBM Power 750 3.5 GHz DPSM mode, 4

sockets, 512 GB RAM, SMT4 enabled,

PowerVM and SLES11 SP1 (Power Linux)

1

1

94.6

19048.5

2 2 94.3 38120.5

4 4 97.8 76189.5

8 8 94.6 152249.8

16 16 98 303983.8

32 32 96.9 603085.1

HP ProLiant DL580 G7, 2.26 GHz, 8 cores /

24 MB cache (4 sockets Intel Xeon 7560

Processors, 512 GB system RAM, (HT and

Turbo enabled in BIOS Intel VTx with EPT

HW virtualization assist) VMware

vSphere 4.1, SLES11 SP1 (GA x86_64)

1

1

100

9068.6

2 2 99.89 18137.2

4 4 94.15 36180.1

8 8 100 72398.3

16 16 92.5 144365.4

32 32 95.2 280726.8

Table 1. AIM7 Benchmark Multiple Virtual Machine Scaling Results


PowerVM and VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 technologies differ in the way they map a

physical processor to a virtual processor. PowerVM virtualization technology maps all

four threads of a core (SMT4, introduced with POWER7 processor-based systems) to a

virtual processor. So, PowerVM technology leveraged POWER7 SMT4 technology with

one vCPU configuration. VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 maps one of the two threads of

a core (Intel’s HT technology) to a virtual processor. Therefore, VMware vSphere 4.1

update 1 was not able to leverage Intel’s HT technology with one vCPU configuration

per VM.

The tests on VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 were thus repeated with two vCPU per VM

configuration in order to observe performance with two threads running on a core.

Because the VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 VM was reconfigured to have two virtual

processors, the test team wished to ensure that each VM was assigned a core to match

with PowerVM technology. So, CPU affinity was used to assign two threads (the

primary and secondary thread of a core) to two virtual processors of each VM.5 This set

of tests was a fair comparison with PowerVM test results, since it allowed the workload

to consume all the capacity of the system in a manner similar to POWER/PowerVM

technology. The results of the second test are shown below (Figure 2).

The second test results with two vCPU reveal that results for the Intel Xeon processor

running VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 had improved, but still lagged behind

POWER/PowerVM results. PowerVM technology still demonstrated up to 59 percent

higher throughput performance than Intel 7560 /VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 at close

to 100 percent utilization in each of the tests.

Power 750/PowerVM technology demonstrated higher AIM7 throughput performance

than the HP system with Intel 7560 processor using VMware technologies. Many factors

contributed to this superior performance, including: PowerVM technology efficiency,

IBM POWER7 SMT4 technology, and IBM POWER7 processor core frequency

(specifically, the fact that IBM POWER7 technology supports higher frequency with the

same processor capacity than does Intel Xeon technology).

5 That is, one vCPU of a VM was assigned to an even number logical processor, and a second vCPU of a VM

was assigned to an odd number logical processor. For example, the first vCPU of the first VM was assigned

to logical cpu0, and the second vCPU of the first VM was assigned to logical cpu1, so that all the primary

and secondary threads of cores were consumed by the workload running on that VM.


Figure 2. AIM7 Benchmark Multiple Virtual Machine Scaling with two vCPU for VMware

vSphere 4.1 update 1

System Configuration for AIM7


# of

VMs

Total

Virtual

CPUs

% CPU

Utilization

Jobs /

min



PowerVM and SLES11SP1 (Power Linux)

1 1 94.6 19048.5

2 2 94.3 38120.5

4 4 97.8 76189.5

8 8 94.6 152249.8

16 16 98 303983.8

32 32 96.9 603085.1


24 MB cache (4 sockets) Intel Xeon 7560

Processors, 512 GB system RAM, (HT and


HW virtualization assist),VMware

vSphere 4.1, SLES11 SP1 (GA x86_64)

1 2 95.19 12274.8

2 4 99.67 24351.7

4 8 95.75 48671.4

8 16 95.32 97531.6

16 32 99.8 190598.1

32 64 92.09 379976.1

Table 2. AIM7 Benchmark Multiple Virtual Machine Scaling with two vCPU for VMware vSphere

4.1 update 1


TPoX Benchmark

TPoX (Transaction Processing over XML) is an application-level “XML database”

benchmark based on a financial application scenario. It simulates an actual application

that performs queries, inserts, updates, and deletes in a concurrent multi-user workload.

It is an XML OLTP benchmark using data-oriented XML structures, very large numbers

of relatively small XML documents (1 kb to 20 kb), short read/write transactions, and a

high degree of concurrency. It models a security-trading scenario that uses a real-world

XML Schema (FIXML). TPoX is an open-source benchmark developed by IBM in

collaboration with Intel and others. It is available at:

http://tpox.sourceforge.net/tpoxresults.htm 6

A database application, TPoX stresses CPU, memory, and storage I/O; however, in a

multi-VM environment, this benchmark also stresses the virtualization infrastructure

supporting these resources on both platforms.

Methodology

The next set of tests were conducted using the TPoX benchmark. These tests involve a

higher degree of processor contention, using a VM-to-core ratio of 5 to 1. Because of this

increased ratio, the shared pool configuration was reduced in these tests to eight cores

on both platforms in order to limit the maximum VMs to 40 on each platform.

The TPoX benchmark is I/O-intensive and its performance has a dependency on storage

performance. Identical storage subsystems were used on both of the VM platforms. A

logical array (12 spindles) with RAID5 was used to host four VMs on each in order to

avoid I/O blender 7. Both the data and logs for the database are configured on the same

set of disks in order to simplify the configuration for hosting 40 VMs.

Each VM used a 1 GB database in order to match up with each VM’s CPU (0.2 core) and

memory capacity (3 GB). A single-tier TPoX configuration was chosen for each VM

where the client and the database reside in the same VM.

The VM configuration has multiple options on both PowerVM and VMware vSphere 4.1

update 1 technologies. 8

6 Reference: http://nativexmldatabase.com/2011/03/04/new-tpox-benchmark-results-available/ 7 http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/102510-burning-questions-virtualization-storage.html 8 On PowerVM, each VM was configured with 0.2 core/one vCPU/uncapped mode/3 GB RAM with shared

processor pool allocated with one, two, four and eight cores (up to one socket) for five-VM, 10-VM, 20-

VM, and 40-VM, respectively. There were three dedicated LPARs configured to consume the other three

sockets on Power 750 system. On VMware, two sets of configurations were used; the first set includes a

http://tpox.sourceforge.net/tpoxresults.htm

http://nativexmldatabase.com/2011/03/04/new-tpox-benchmark-results-available/

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/102510-burning-questions-virtualization-storage.html


Results

The database for each VM on each of the platforms was populated with the same

configuration set. The transaction rate for populating the database is shown in Table 3,

below.

Power 750/PowerVM

HP DL580G7/ VMware

vSphere 4.1 update 1

1vCPU

Order (inserts per second) 1,591 746

Custacc (inserts per second) 684 271

Table 3. TPoX Database Populated Rate for First Configuration Set

As these results indicate, the performance rate for populating the database is two to two-

and-a-half times better for POWER/PowerVM technology than with Intel Xeon 7560

/VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1. Figure 3, below, presents results demonstrating that the

transactions throughput performance on POWER/PowerVM technology is as much as

three times better than Intel Xeon 7560 /VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1. 9

configuration where each VM was given one vCPU/20 percent of a core — 452 MHz limit/4 GB RAM, and

advanced shared panel settings that included 1) hyperthread core sharing and, 2) Scheduling affinity set to

0-15 (logical processors). The idea was to run five VMs on a single core; with five vCPUs the entire core

should be utilized in hyperthreading mode. 9 Because processor utilization in the first VMware configuration set made it harder to report total

percentage, in this case pool utilization was used. With a single virtual processor per VM, it would not be

realistic to map to either a primary or secondary thread per VM. For example, in the five-VM test, where the

goal was to use 20 percent of a core, binding a VM could be done either to a primary or to a secondary

thread, in which case some VMs would be running on primary and others would running on secondary.

Thus, the decision was made to use the pool to assign cpu0 to cpu15 for all the tests. At a lower number of

VMs, VMware used around 20 percent from each of the cores in the pool; at 40 VMs the pool utilization

matched with PowerVM as it is shown in Figure 3.


Figure 3. TPoX Benchmark Results in 40:1 Consolidation Ratio

Table 4, on the following page, presents detailed information on the total number of

TPoX users used in each test, pool utilization, throughput, and VM configuration for

each tests.


System Configuration for TPoX


# of

VMs

Total

Virtual

CPUs

Total # of

TPoX

Users

% Pool

Utilization

Transactions

per second



PowerVM, AIX 7.1 is the host OS for

each VM. VIOS is configured with 0.2

core/1 vCPU/ uncapped mode/ 4 GB

RAM. Each LPAR is configured with 1

vCPU/ uncapped/3 GB RAM 3 LPARs

have 0.2 cores and 2 LPARs have 0.1

core Shared pool has 1 core

5 5 50 12.5 612.2

8 LPARs are configured each with 0.2/1

vCPU/ uncapped/ 3 GB memory, 2

LPARs are configured with 0.1/1

vCPU/uncapped/3 GB memory, vios

has 0.2/1 vCPU/uncapped/4 GB

memory. Shared pool has 2 cores

10 10 100 24.5 1155

18 LPARs are configured each with

0.2/1 vCPU/ uncapped/ 3 GB memory,

2 LPARs are configured with 0.1/1




20 20 200 49 2137

38 LPARs configured with 0.2core/

1vCPU/uncapped and 2 LPARs

configured with 0.1core/1vCPU/

uncapped. Shared pool has 8 cores

40 40 400 98 4169.8

HP ProLiant DL580 G7, 2.26 GHz, 8

cores / 24 MB cache (4 sockets) Intel

Xeon 7560 Processors, 512 GB system

RAM (HT and Turbo enabled in BIOS

Intel VTx with EPT HW virtualization

assist) VMware vSphere 4.1 update1.

Each VM has guest OS RHEL6 GA.

Each VM is given 0.2 of a core/1

vCPU/3 GB memory. DB2 buffer pool

for data is configured in each VM.

Schedule affinity is set to cpu0 and

cpu1.

5 5 50 21.8 203.18

Schedule affinity is set to cpu0 to cpu3 10 10 100 33.89 397.15



Table 4. TPoX Benchmark Results


Figures 4A and 4B depict the response time for each transaction type — query, update,

delete, and insert — for each test on both platforms.

Figure 4A. TPoX Query and Update Response Time


Figure 4B. TPoX Delete and Insert Response Time

As shown in Figure 4A and 4B, the response time on VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 was

two to six times higher compared to PowerVM virtualization technology as the number

of VMs scaled from five to 40 VMs. The pool utilization was higher as well, while

throughput was lower on VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 than on PowerVM technology.

Even though hyper threading (HT) technology was leveraged in this test, VMware

vSphere 4.1 update 1 performance remained one-third of that demonstrated by

PowerVM technology.


# of

VMs

Total

Virtual

CPUs

Avg

query

rsp

(sec)

Avg

update

rsp

(sec)

Avg

delete

rsp

(sec)

Avg

insert

rsp

(sec)









core. Shared pool has 1 core

5

5

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05




vCPU/uncapped/3 GB memory, vios has

0.2/1 vCPU/uncapped/4 GB memory.

Shared pool has 2 cores

10 10 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.06







20 20 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.07

38 LPARs configured with 0.2core/ 1

vCPU/uncapped and 2 LPARs

configured with 0.1core/1 vCPU/


40 40 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.12







Each VM has guest OS RHEL6 GA. Each

VM is given 0.2 of a core/1 vCPU/3 GB

memory. DB2 buffer pool for data is

configured in each VM. Schedule

affinity is set to cpu0 and cpu1.

5

5

0.22

0.33

0.205

0.26

Schedule affinity is set to cpu0 to cpu3 10 10 0.22 0.376 0.26 0.3



Table 5. TPoX Response Time for Each Transaction Type


Power 750/PowerVM

HP DL580G7/ VMware

vSphere 2vCPU

Order (inserts per second) 1591 1176

Custacc (inserts per second) 684 333

Table 5A. TPoX Database Populated Rate for Second Set (2 vCPU) of Configuration

A second configuration set on VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 was added in order to

restrict the VMs to run within the core similar to the PowerVM virtualization

configuration.10 Again, the database of each VM in this new configuration on VMware

vSphere 4.1 update 1 was populated. The transaction rate for populating the database is

shown in the table A. The results of this set of tests were compared with results for

PowerVM technology, as shown in Figures 5, A and B.

POWER/PowerVM still retained 2.3 times better performance than HP Intel/VMware

vSphere 4.1 update 1 technologies, even with reconfiguration using CPU affinity

(VMware Scheduling Affinity group) on VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1. CPU utilization

on both platforms remained close to identical.

Figure 5. TPoX Performances with VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 Virtual Machine

Reconfiguration

10 In this set each virtual machine was configured to have two vCPUs, using the CPU affinity feature in

VMware; the first vCPU was bound to the primary thread while the second vCPU of a VM was bound to

secondary thread of a core. For the five-VM test, all 10 vCPUs were bound to one core (both primary and the

secondary thread); for the 10-VM test, all 20 vCPUs were bound to two cores; for the 20-VM test, all 40

vCPUs were bound to four cores; and for 40-VM test, all 80 vCPUs were bound to eight cores. In each case

each VM was able to leverage both primary and secondary threads concurrently.




# of

VMs

Total

Virtual

CPUs

% CPU

Utilization

Transactions

per second



PowerVM, AIX 7.1 is the host OS for each

VM. VIOS is configured with 0.2 core/1

vCPU/ uncapped mode/ 4 GB RAM. Each

LPAR is configured with 1 vCPU/

uncapped/3 GB RAM 3 LPARs have 0.2

cores and 2 LPARs have 0.1 core. Shared

pool has 1 core

5

5

100

612.2


vCPU/ uncapped/ 3 GB memory, 2 LPARs

are configured with 0.1/1




10 10 98 1155


vCPU/ uncapped/ 3 GB memory, 2 LPARs

are configured with 0.1/1




20 20 98 2137

38 LPARs configured with 0.2core/ 1

vCPU/uncapped and 2 LPARs configured

with 0.1 core/1 vCPU/ uncapped. Shared

pool has 8 cores

40 40 98 4169.8


24 MB cache (4 sockets) Intel Xeon 7560

processors, 512 GB system RAM (HT and


HW virtualization assist) VMware

vSphere 4.1 update1. Each VM has guest

OS RHEL6 GA. Each VM is given 2 vCPUs

unlimited/3 GB memory. DB2 buffer pool

for data is configured in each VM.

Schedule affinity is set to cpu0 and cpu1.

5

10

100

259

Schedule affinity is set to cpu0 to cpu3 10 20 100 490.5



Table 6 TPoX Performance with VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 Virtual Machine Reconfiguration


Consider how the response time improved with CPU scheduling affinity on VMware

vSphere 4.1 update 1. The query response time was reduced by approximately 30

percent. However, the impact on other transactions’ response time was negligible.

The question arose as to how these results would compare to previously published

TPoX benchmark results. No published results using virtualization technologies existed,

so Edison Group compared these results with those of published results for testing non-

virtualized systems on a comparable Intel Xeon 7560 system.11

Figure 6A. TPoX Query and Update Response Time

Figure 6B. TPoX Delete and Insert Response Time

11 In March 2010, Intel had published TPoX benchmark results on an Intel Xeon 7560 system with 32

cores/256 GB RAM using a 1 TB database in a non-virtualized environment. Further results can be found at

http://tpox.sourceforge.net/TPoX_Results_X7560.pdf

http://tpox.sourceforge.net/TPoX_Results_X7560.pdf



Benchmark (5 to 40 VM scaling)

# of

VMs

Total

Virtual

CPUs

Avg

query

rsp

(sec)

Avg

update

rsp

(sec)

Avg

delete

rsp

(sec)

Avg

insert

rsp

(sec)









core Shared pool has 1 core

5

5

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05



LPARs are configured with 0.1/ 1




10 10 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.06

18 LPARs are configured each with

0.2/1 vCPU/ uncapped/ 3 GB memory, 2





20 20 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.07

38 LPARs are configured with 0.2core/ 1

vCPU/uncapped and 2 LPARs

configured with 0.1core/1 vCPU/


40 40 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.12







Each VM has guest OS RHEL6 GA.

Each VM is given 2 vCPU unlimited/3

GB memory. DB2 buffer pool for data is

configured in each VM. Schedule

affinity is set to cpu0 and cpu1.

5

10

0.145

0.3

0.245

0.26




Table 7 TPoX Response Time with VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 Reconfiguration


These previously-published results were better than what was achieved in tests using

the HP Intel Xeon 7560 system described here. The difference in these results could be

attributed to differences in storage subsystem, database size, execution of a large

number of software images such as guest OS, database middleware, etc. Most

significant, however, is that the tests described here were conducted in a virtualized

environment using VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1, which adds overhead in comparison

to a non-virtualized environment.

Summary of Results

Overall, PowerVM virtualization technology demonstrated superior performance over

VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 in two different configurations, each configuration

covering two different virtual machine densities featuring high resource contention. As

demonstrated using the AIM7 and TPoX benchmarks, the difference in throughput

performance was quite considerable throughout, ranging from 50 percent better to as

much as 200 percent better on PowerVM technology.


IBM’s Virtualization Infrastructure:

POWER7 Processor-Based Systems

The currently available POWER7 processor-based systems combine excellent

performance, scalability, and modularity. IBM’s clients realize a high return on their

investments with flexible, responsive infrastructures that easily adapt and grow based

on business needs. A virtualization hypervisor is built into Power Systems to provide

superior performance over competitive systems which rely on third-party virtualization

software such as the widely-deployed VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1.

POWER7 processor-based systems offer balanced systems designs that automatically

optimize workload performance and capacity at either a system or a virtual machine

level. Features include:

TurboCore workload-optimizing mode for maximum per-core performance for

databases.

MaxCore for parallelization and maximum capacity throughput.

Intelligent threading technology to utilize more threads when it benefits workloads.

Intelligent Cache technology to optimize cache utilization, flowing from core to core.

Intelligent Energy that maximizes performance dynamically when thermal

conditions allow.

Active Memory Expansion 12 that dynamically provides more memory on an as-

needed basis.

Active Memory Sharing that allows for logical over-commitment of physical

memory and de-duplication.

IBM PowerVM technology — the virtualization software built into the POWER7

processor-based systems — offers an unprecedented level of platform support,

scalability, efficient resource utilization, flexibility, and heterogeneous server

management. IBM PowerVM virtualization offers autonomic resource affinity, resulting

in higher workload performance in a virtualized environment. IBM POWER7 Systems,

and PowerVM technology with its efficient virtualization, are an excellent foundation

for cloud computing environments.

12 Supported on AIX operating systems only.


PowerVM Virtualization Technology

With IBM POWER processor-based systems and IBM PowerVM virtualization

technologies, an organization can consolidate applications and servers using

partitioning and virtualized system resources to achieve a more flexible and dynamic IT

infrastructure. PowerVM delivers robust virtualization for IBM i, IBM i, and Linux

environments on IBM POWER processor-based systems. The POWER Hypervisor is

integrated as part of the system firmware and supports multiple operating

environments on a single system. PowerVM virtualization technology offers the

flexibility of combining dedicated and shared resources in the same partition. IBM

Power Systems servers and PowerVM technology are designed to deliver a dynamic

infrastructure that can help reduce costs, manage risk, and improve service levels.

Processor Virtualization

PowerVM technology’s advanced dynamic logical partitioning (LPAR) capabilities

allow a single partition to act as a completely separate AIX, IBM i, or Linux operating

environment. Partitions can be assigned either dedicated or shared processor resources.

With shared resources, PowerVM virtualization technology can automatically adjust

pooled processor resources across multiple operating systems, borrowing processing

power from idle partitions to handle high transaction volumes in other partitions.

PowerVM technology’s Micro-Partitioning supports up to 10 dynamic logical partitions

per processor core. Depending upon the Power server, up to 1,000 independent

virtualized servers can be run on a single physical Power server — each virtualized

server with its own fractional processor share, memory, and I/O resources. These

partitions can be assigned at a granularity of 1/100th of a core. Consolidating systems

with PowerVM technology can reduce operational costs, improve availability, ease

management, and improve service levels, while allowing businesses to deploy

applications quickly.

Shared processor pools increase throughput by allowing for the automatic non-

disruptive balancing of processing power between partitions assigned to shared pools. It

also provides for the ability to reduce processor-based software licensing costs by

capping the processor core resources used by a group of partitions.

Shared dedicated capacity allows for the “donation” of spare CPU cycles from dedicated

processor partitions to a shared processor pool. The dedicated partition maintains

absolute priority for dedicated CPU cycles. Enabling this feature can help to increase

system utilization without compromising the computing power for critical workloads in

a dedicated processor.


Memory Virtualization

PowerVM technology features Active Memory Sharing, a technology that intelligently

and dynamically reallocates memory from one partition to another for increased

utilization, flexibility, and performance. Active Memory Sharing enables the sharing of a

pool of physical memory among logical partitions on a single server. This helps reduce

the need for reserve memory resource capacity in a consolidated environment by

increasing the efficiency of memory utilization, driving down system costs. The memory

is dynamically allocated among the partitions as needed, to optimize the usage of

physical memory in the pool. Along with shared memory, PowerVM technology also

supports dedicated memory allocation, which enables partitions having shared memory

to coexist in the same system as partitions having dedicated memory.

I/O Virtualization

The Virtual I/O Server (VIOS) is an integral part of PowerVM technology. A special-

purpose partition, VIOS eliminates the need for dedicated network adapters, disk

adapters and disk drives, and tape adapters and tape drives in the guest partitions

running as VMs. It can reduce costs by virtualizing I/O resources to those partitions.

VIOS owns the resources that are shared with clients; a physical adapter assigned to the

VIOS partition can be shared by one or more other partitions. With VIOS, guest

partitions can easily be created for test, development, or production purposes. PowerVM

technology also supports dedicated I/O along with VIOS on the same system. Therefore,

a single system can have I/O hosted by VIOS for some partitions and other partitions

with dedicated I/O devices. An organization can thus reserve a dedicated VM of a given

capacity that can be relied upon for high-priority and/or mission-critical workloads,

while assigning other VMs to a general resource pool.

Partition Mobility

Live Partition Mobility facilitates the migration of a running AIX or Linux partition from

one physical server to another without requiring application downtime for planned

system maintenance, migrations, provisioning, and workload management.

Partition Hibernation

IBM POWER7 systems support Partition Hibernation, where a partition can be

suspended and resumed at a later time. In a suspended state, a partition’s resources can

be used by other partitions while the suspended partition’s state is stored in a paging


space on a persistent storage device. Partition Hibernation can be used for resource

balancing and for planned CEC outages for maintenance or upgrades.

Workload Partitioning

PowerVM technology also supports a software partitioning technology provided by the

AIX operating system, a mode of virtualization capability called Workload Partitions

(WPARs). Introduced with AIX Version 6, WPAR is independent of hardware features.

It enables consolidation of workloads on a single AIX operating system by providing

isolation between workloads running in different WPARs. From an application

perspective, each workload is running in its own operating system environment. A key

feature of WPAR is mobility; a running WPAR can be relocated from one VM to another

on the same operating system platform. This enables applications to be migrated to

another system during planned maintenance operations, to balance workloads, to

provision rapidly to meet growth dynamically, and to improve energy efficiency by

further consolidating on the fly during low load periods.

Systems Management

IBM Systems Director (Express, Standard, and Enterprise Editions) for Power servers

supports the PowerVM environment. It is IBM’s tool for heterogeneous platform

management of Power Systems, IBM System x, IBM System z, and IBM System Storage

systems. IBM Systems Director Editions support advanced management functions such

as system discovery, workload lifecycle management, health monitoring, system

updates, and topology mappings. It also provides the ability to take action on defined

event thresholds of monitored system components.

IBM Systems Director VMControl transforms Systems Director from managing

virtualization to using virtualization in order to better manage an entire IT

infrastructure. It is offered as a plug-in option included with the Systems Director

Standard and Enterprise Editions. Together, IBM Systems Director and VMControl help

reduce the total cost of ownership in a virtual environment by increasing asset

utilization and reducing the time and effort required to deploy workloads. Using them,

administrators can maintain high levels of availability through proactive monitoring

and collaborative troubleshooting, reducing costs further.

VMControl is available in three editions, to suit the varying levels of virtualization

deployment at client sites:

VMControl Express Edition provides basic VM lifecycle management.


VMControl Standard Edition adds virtual appliance lifecycle management to capture

information from active systems and store it in a repository as reusable system

images (called virtual appliances).

VMControl Enterprise Edition adds system pool lifecycle management. It allows

users to create and manage system pools – or groups of virtual appliances deployed

across multiple physical servers – as easily as managing a single entity. The

advanced virtualization management capabilities of VMControl provide a pathway

for organizations to build sophisticated cloud computing environments.

PowerVM Virtualization Technology Advantages

PowerVM virtualization technology offers a secure virtualization environment built on

the advanced RAS features and excellent performance of the Power Systems platform.

PowerVM technology delivers numerous advantages, including:

High resource utilization — PowerVM technology makes the most efficient

utilization of IT investments by virtualizing resources that include processors,

memory, and I/O across multiple virtual machines.

Flexibility — PowerVM technology runs on all Power Systems servers, from blades

to high-end servers. It provides the greatest flexibility by supporting both dedicated

and shared resource models. Unlike VMware vSphere on the x86 platform,

PowerVM virtualization technology allows virtual machines to have all dedicated

resources (CPU, memory and I/O) , or all shared resources (virtual processors,

virtual memory, virtual I/O), or a mix of dedicated and shared resources in the same

LPAR.

Quality of Service — PowerVM technology ensures that workloads achieve high

quality of service even when LPARs share processors from a shared pool.

Scalability — PowerVM technology can reduce server purchases by supporting

partitions as small as 1/10 of a processor. POWER7 processor-based high-end

systems support up to 256 physical processors in a single LPAR and up to 1,000

partitions in a system.

Availability — Live Partition Mobility (LPM) helps eliminate planned downtime by

allowing partitions to be moved to another server while running, freeing hardware

for upgrades or maintenance without interrupting productive operations. In a

system pool, LPM enables autonomic load balancing across multiple systems.

Resource pools — IBM PowerVM technology has enhanced CPU and memory

affinity to improve performance of resource-intensive workloads, such as database

workloads, across multiple virtual machines sharing resources in a system. IBM

VMControl enhancements make it easier to deploy and manage large numbers of


these virtual machines in a shared resource pool spanning one or more physical

systems.

Integrated Virtualization

Because of its level of sophistication and maturity, PowerVM technology is commonly

employed with enterprise-class applications and workloads. Power Systems servers

implement virtualization architecture with components embedded in the hardware,

firmware, and operating system software, all while running with significantly less

overhead. The capabilities of this integrated virtualization architecture are significantly

different and, in many areas, more advanced than VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 and

other third-party software, which must be installed on x86 hardware that leverages

hardware-assist virtualization optimizations.

Power Systems servers and PowerVM virtualization technology capabilities are more

granular and more closely integrated than are those of VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 or

Microsoft Hyper-V (or equivalent x86-based virtualization tools), as well as Oracle VM

for SPARC. The Power Systems platform also benefits from numerous industry-leading

availability optimization features. These distinctive capabilities have led to widespread

adoption of Power Systems servers to support the significantly more demanding

performance and uptime requirements of transaction- and database-intensive systems.

Greater Partition Isolation

By enabling “firmware-based” partitions, PowerVM technology provides greater

partition isolation than software-based virtualization technologies. Firmware-based

logical partitions (or virtual machines) reduce the potential for performance bottlenecks

and contribute to higher levels of availability and security than may be realized with

software-based virtualization. They also contribute to increased linear scalability.

Partitioning and Workload Management Integration

The importance of workload management cannot be overstated. Partitioning creates the

potential to utilize capacity very efficiently. The extent that this potential is realized in

practice depends on the mechanisms that allocate system resources, monitor, and

control workload execution across partitions. If these mechanisms are ineffective, a high

proportion of system capacity may remain idle at any given time.

Close integration of partitioning and workload management capabilities help prevent

surges in workloads running in individual partitions from impacting performance and

availability. POWER7 processor-based systems have a large number of cores per socket,


abundant memory, and a great deal of I/O bandwidth per core. They also support a high

number of threads per core with simultaneous multithreading (SMT). Different

workloads can benefit from different processor core thread settings; processor-intensive

workloads might benefit from using one thread (SMT1) while workloads that are I/O-

intensive can benefit from using several. POWER7 processor-based systems support up

to an SMT4 setting.

Thus, POWER7 processor-based systems consolidate an unprecedented number of

partitions and can handle workload surges more effectively, for demonstrably higher

performance.

Accommodating Greater Consolidation Density

PowerVM technology is optimized to handle business-critical systems and complex

multi-partition production environments. IBM Power Systems and PowerVM

technologies allow a high consolidation ratio and thus greater levels of efficiency in

utilization.


Conclusions

Virtualization has become a pervasive means of consolidating workloads on fewer

systems, controlling server sprawl and minimizing costs. With IBM Power Systems and

PowerVM virtualization technologies, organizations can achieve virtualization with

outstanding performance. For every benchmark and every scenario covered in this

paper, IBM Power Systems with PowerVM technology demonstrated superior

performance and greater efficiency in using system capacity at higher utilization, as well

as at higher resource contention (over-commit levels), and superior scaling with higher

throughput performance.

In summary, this study has shown that IBM POWER7 systems and PowerVM

technology have demonstrated:

Higher throughput performance for both AIM7 and TPoX benchmarks, ranging from

50 percent better to as much as 200 percent better.

Higher efficiency in resource over-commit mode (higher consolidation ratio), with

the response time on PowerVM virtualization technology two to six times shorter

compared to response time for VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 as the number of VMs

scaled from five to 40 VMs.

Higher processor affinity by default (40 VMs sharing eight cores), retaining 2.3 times

better performance than HP Intel/VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 technologies, even

with reconfiguration using CPU affinity (VMware Scheduling Affinity group) on

VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1.

Efficient leveraging of maximum configured processor capacity.

Accurate accounting of resource usage within a VM.

Tighter integration across system, hypervisor, and guest OS.

Better performance overall than Intel Xeon 7560 /VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1.

The charts that follow summarize the results of the tests described in this paper.

The first — the AIM7 performance benchmark 32-core VM scaling (scale-up) results—

shows that PowerVM on POWER7 delivers superior scale-up efficiency that

outperforms VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 by up to 115 percent while running the same

Linux workloads and virtualized resources.


0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

Jo

bs

/min

1VM 2VM 4VM 8VM 16VM 32VM

Number of Virtual Machines

AIM7 Performance Benchmark

32 VM Scale-out on 32 cores

VMware vSphere 4.1 on HP DL580(1vcpu) VMware vSphere 4.1 on HP DL580(2vcpu)

PowerVM on Power 750(1vcpu)

In fact, PowerVM on POWER7 retains its superiority even configured with an additional

virtual CPU per VM.

The second chart — the TPOX performance benchmark 5 VM per core (scale-out) —

shows that PowerVM on POWER7 delivers robust scale-out efficiency that outperforms

VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 by up to 201 percent while running the same workloads

and virtualized resources.


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Jo

bs

/min

5VM 10VM 20VM 40VM

Number of Virtual Machines

TPOX Performance Benchmark

40 VM Scale-out on 8 cores

5 VMs per core

VMware vSphere 4.1 on HP DL580(1vcpu) VMware vSphere 4.1 on HP DL580(2vcpu)

PowerVM on Power 750(1vcpu)

PowerVM maximizes workload performance and system resources while running

multiple virtual machines on a core better than does VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1.

IBM Power Systems — with the superior performance of PowerVM virtualization

technology and with features such as reliability, security, high availability, and

resiliency — are well positioned for cloud computing and smarter planet solutions today

and in the future.


Appendices

Appendix 1 — Benchmark Configuration Information

IBM started competitive research on PowerVM virtualization in 2009 and published two

papers 13 comparing IBM POWER processor-based systems and PowerVM virtualization

technologies to Microsoft Hyper-V and VMware vSphere 4.0 update 1 running on an HP

ProLiant DL 370 G6/ Intel Xeon 5570 processors. Both these studies, which show the

superior performance of POWER processors and PowerVM technology, took a

simplified approach to answering the two most commonly expressed considerations in

deploying virtualization technologies:

1. How efficient is the technology?

2. How well does the technology scale?

The current study builds upon those simple premises to include two additional

considerations:

1. How efficient is the technology when resources are in high contention?

2. How well does it scale as virtual machine density increases?

Test Bed Setup

The servers employed for this study were chosen for their equivalencies from the

standpoint of core and socket count.

IBM POWER7 Processor-Based Server

The IBM POWER7 processor-based IBM Power 750 Express system was used in this

study to demonstrate the capabilities of IBM’s PowerVM virtualization technology. The

system was configured with four sockets, 3.5 GHz, 32 cores (eight per socket) supporting

up to four threads (SMT4) per core, and 512 GB of RAM.

13 A Comparison of PowerVM and x86-Based Virtualization Performance, Oct 2009

http://www-03.IBM.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/WP101574

A Comparison of PowerVM and VMware Virtualization Performance, April 2010

http://www.spectrumconsulting.co.nz/aix/wp-content/uploads/PowerVM_VMware.pdf

http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/WP101574

http://www.spectrumconsulting.co.nz/aix/wp-content/uploads/PowerVM_VMware.pdf


HP ProLiant DL580 G7 Intel Xeon X7560 (2.26GHz/8-core/24MB/130W)

Processor

HP ProLiant DL580 G7 is a rack-mounted, high-performance Intel Xeon 7560-based

server; this system was selected to demonstrate the capabilities of VMware vSphere 4.1

update 1 virtualization technologies. The system was configured with four sockets, with

eight cores each, supporting up to two threads per core (HT mode). The system was also

enabled for Turbo Mode, Intel VTx with EPT HW Virtualization assist.

Infrastructure Configuration

System Configuration Storage Configuration

IBM Power 750, 3.5 GHz, 8 cores per

socket

POWER7 Processors, 128 GB RAM per

socket.

IBM DS4800 (4 GB cache), one 4 Gb Fiber

Channel adapter.

Each array has 12 (32 GB) disks using

RAID5.

Each array is shared by 4 virtual

machines, each getting 40 GB virtual

disk space.

HP ProLiant DL 580 G7, 2.26 GHz, 8

cores / 24 MB(4 sockets) Intel Xeon 7560

Processors, 512 GB system RAM.

IBM DS4800 (4 GB cache), one 4 Gb Fiber

Channel adapter.

Each array has 12 (32 GB) disks using

RAID5.

Each array is shared by 4 virtual

machines, each getting 40 GB virtual

disk space.

Software Used

Category PowerVM Technology VMware vSphere

Hypervisor Power Hypervisor (IBM Power

750 in-built hypervisor)

VMware vSphere 4.1 Update 1

Guest OS SuSE 11, SP1

AIX 7.1

SuSE 11, SP1 GA x86_64

RHEL6 GAx86_64

Middleware IBM DB2 v9.7 IBM DB2 v9.7


VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 Virtual Machine Technical Configuration Details

1. VMware Virtual Machine was created using Virtual Machine version 7, which is

compatible with vSphere 4.0 hosts and greater, and provided greater virtual machine

functionality than earlier versions.

2. A Virtual Disk LSI Logic Parallel adapter was used. It was noted (in vSphere Help)

that the LSI Logic Parallel adapter and the LSI Logic SAS adapter offer equivalent

performance.

3. The VMware vSphere 4.1 update 1 system was updated to the latest VMware Tools.

4. Scheduling affinity group was used to bind cores to virtual machines.

5. Memory affinity was enabled.

6. vSpheretop –ab and vmstat were collected from the virtual machine.

Appendix 2 — General Benchmark Descriptions

The performance tests described here characterized hypervisor efficiency and scalability.

Both benchmarks stress the entire stack of application, middleware, OS, and

hypervisors. Neither benchmark requires external clients to drive the load.

The following tests were conducted:

1. Demonstrate the effect that adding virtual processors incrementally has on

throughput performance in a single VM. Where direct performance comparisons

were to be made, the testing team limited the number of virtual processors to the

lesser of the maximum supported across the two virtualization platforms.

Note: While consolidation deployments by definition entail multiple VMs,

understanding how each technology deals with processor scaling in the simplest

possible configuration within a single VM provides insights into hypervisor

efficiency.

2. Demonstrate the effect that adding VMs has on throughput performance.

Throughput is monitored as the number of VMs is scaled from 1 to n. Throughput in

each VM was also evaluated using varying numbers of virtual processors and load.

Note: This will show the effect of multiple VMs running on a system in a non-

over-commit as well as an over-commit resource environment.

Each of these tests (1 and 2) was run on different workloads. The tests included running

the same workloads (homogeneous) or a mix of workloads (heterogeneous) across


multiple VMs concurrently. This revealed how each class of workload is affected by the

respective types of resource scaling in each test.

To ensure fair comparison across platforms and to remove variability across each set of

tests, the following actions were taken:

Similar VM configurations were deployed in terms of virtual processors and

memory allocated per VM.

The same set of “benchmark parameters” was used across platforms.

Tuning was performed based on best practices of respective platforms (VMware

vSphere 4.1 update 1, RHEL 6.0, AIX 7.1, DB2 tuning).

Date post:	28-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	8 times
Download:	0 times

White Paper - Technical & Business Validation · Edison: IBM . Virtualization Performance White...

Documents