> Currently, we run about 10 VM's on a 2003 x64 box.. with 12GB of memory..
> this box is a dual CPU quad core xeon 2.4GHZ box with a SATA2 32mb cache
> raid6 array, consisting of 8, 500GB drives.. Our network has about 40 users
> and 35 machines roughly.. i dont think our sql box gets hit that frequently
> either..
>
> The performance Passmark rating of this box on the D drive array test is
> about 3850 (This is with passmark software located at
> http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm there is also a free trial)
>
> For the Virtual Servers, even with 10 of them.. i get about 565 for an
> average on each one (this is the equivalent of a dual core system)..
> technically (i think) this is about 90% slower than the physical machine, if
> you go by passmark ratings.. which maybe i shoudlnt ..
>
> Things run fine.. i run virtually: Office Comm server, both Domain
> controllers (anyone else doing DC's completely virtually?) with one on this
> server and another DC on another virtual server that only runs a DC, i also
> run Virtual Machine manager (guessing i wont need this with hyperV).. I run
> MS Dynamics Great Plains, a sql 2005 box with 7 virtual instances..
> sharepoint virtually.. Team Foundation server.. Configuration Manager..
> antivirus trendmicro box.. etc..
>
> In the case of the virtual SQL, i've installed the sql portion of say the
> configuration manager or dynamics in these instances (seperately).. anyone
> else doing this?
>
> So my question is..
>
> How is the performance of Hyper-V.. either barebones hyper-V or the software
> overlayed Hypervisor..
>
> Would anyone be willing to run the passmark test on the Host machine then on
> a virtual server in either of these cases?
>
> Is it really 85% that of the host machine with the barebones.. what is it
> with the software version ontop of 2008 server?
>
> How is everyone else's performance with VS 2005? Anyone running actual file
> systems/non-passthrough inside a VM rather than on a host?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance..
>
>

> In preparation for our user group event on September 29, we may want to show
> some performance data for Hyper-V. I could run some of these benchmarks on
> the systems we will be demonstrating. However, I won't be able to run these
> until sometime in September, due to other projects in the queue ahead of this.
>
> My servers are dual-Xeon, quad-core with 32GB of memory, with internal SAS
> drive array and connections to iSCSI and Fibre Channel disk storage. What
> applications are you running on your VMs? How much memory are you allocating
> to each of your VMs?
>

>
>
> "Dennis29" wrote:
>
> > In preparation for our user group event on September 29, we may want to show
> > some performance data for Hyper-V. I could run some of these benchmarks on
> > the systems we will be demonstrating. However, I won't be able to run these
> > until sometime in September, due to other projects in the queue ahead of this.
> >
> > My servers are dual-Xeon, quad-core with 32GB of memory, with internal SAS
> > drive array and connections to iSCSI and Fibre Channel disk storage. What
> > applications are you running on your VMs? How much memory are you allocating
> > to each of your VMs?
> >
>
> That would be great, particularly comparison of the same system on Virtual
> Server vs Hypervisor.. but either way that is good info..
>
> I allocate anywhere from 1GB to 4GB depending on the application.. I isolate
> applications per individual VM's..
>
> IE: Configuration Manager 2007 on a VM called VMCM01 (say 1 or 2GB
> memory).. then all sql instances on a sql VM called VMSQL01 with 4GB memory..
>
> Then another with antivirus software.. call it VSAV01 with say 1GB of memory..
>
> usually i do fixed discs, some i do dynamic.. though with our 40 user load,
> i could see a difference in performance, even on the sql box.
>
> Curious.. what type of motherboard are you using giving you 32GB? Our next
> board was going to be one that could do more than 16GB.. the Supermicro
> motherboard we use now cant do more than 16GB.
>
> Thanks

> These servers are Dell PowerEdge 2900 that support up to 48GB RAM. I
> currently have 32GB but may increase them to 48GB.
>
> Are you running any 64-bit VMs or applications? I usually run 64-bit
> all-around and can allocate more than 4GB to a VM if needed. SQL 2005 and
> Exchange 2007 like lots of memory.
>

>
>
> "Dennis29" wrote:
>
> > These servers are Dell PowerEdge 2900 that support up to 48GB RAM. I
> > currently have 32GB but may increase them to 48GB.
> >
> > Are you running any 64-bit VMs or applications? I usually run 64-bit
> > all-around and can allocate more than 4GB to a VM if needed. SQL 2005 and
> > Exchange 2007 like lots of memory.
> >
>
>
> As of now no 64bit VM's.. we are still at Virtual Server 2005 R2 sp1 etc..
> once we get this new box in, ill be putting server 2008 on it, then hyper-V
> so we can have 64bit guests..
>
> Ideally i was hoping to wait for the barebones hyper-v.. but i havent seen
> an eta on when that will be out, or how much improvement in performance you
> would gain over the standard hyper-v that gets installed ontop of 2008 server.
>
>

> I'll keep you posted. I expect to be able to run these tests probably early
> to mid-September. If you're in or planning to be in Denver on Sept. 29, you
> can see these systems in person at our user group event
> (http://www.rmwtug.org/Virtualization_Event.htm).
>
> "markm75" wrote:
>

>
>
> "Dennis29" wrote:
>
> > I'll keep you posted. I expect to be able to run these tests probably early
> > to mid-September. If you're in or planning to be in Denver on Sept. 29, you
> > can see these systems in person at our user group event
> > (http://www.rmwtug.org/Virtualization_Event.htm).
> >
> > "markm75" wrote:
> >
>
>
> Thanks for that info.. look forward to hearing some stats when you get to it.
>
> Curious.. on our server right now its dual, quad core 5000 series xeon at
> 2.5GHZ (667mhz ram) with sata II drives (8 of them in raid6, seems very fast,
> 3 TB)..
>
> Your 2900 dell.. is it more than 2 CPU's.. are you running the 5000 series
> Xeons?
>
> I'm guessing the 5000 series should be good enough in this new server i'm
> specing out right now.. sticking with SATA II's again (with only 40-100
> users, i figure the cost of SAS isnt worth it).
>
> Like i mentioned, even with 10 instances, things still seem ok.
>
> Do you think that 5000 series Xeon is still a good choice on the new server
> (dual quad core again).. though once on the new server, ill probably split
> the load from the old to new, maybe 7 at most on each data center server.
>
> I have made the switch to a motherboard (for $80 more) that can do 128GB
> (supermicro).. I'm able to build this whole (3u sas/sata, 16 bay) system with
> 16GB of memory and 800mhz memory and areca controller for $4390, compared to
> some of these dells or hps that run $6k or more. (our budget is basically
> $4500 or less)
>
> Any thoughts?

> Each of my Dell 2900 servers have two Intel Xeon E5345 (quad-core, 2.33 Ghz,
> 1333 MHz FSB, 667 MHz ECC RAM) for a total of 8 cores and have done very well
> with every workload I've thrown at them. They also have internal SAS disk
> arrays (each drive is 73GB, 15K RPM). These types of disk are better for SQL
> Server and Exchange Server workloads. I also use iSCSI and Fibre Channel
> external disk storage for projects that require large amounts of storage.
>
> The Intel Xeon 5xxx series in your systems should do well, especially if
> they are the 53xx or 54xx series, which are quad-core. The 50xx and 51xx are
> dual-core only, with smaller L2 caches and generally slower FSB.
>
> The Intel Xeon 7xxx series support up to 32 processors and the 73xx are
> quad-core. If you have massive CPU processing needs, then go with one of
> those. I would only do this if you have very large workloads and you've
> measured the CPU utilization on your current systems and found them severely
> lacking.
>
>

>
>
> "Dennis29" wrote:
>
> > Each of my Dell 2900 servers have two Intel Xeon E5345 (quad-core, 2.33 Ghz,
> > 1333 MHz FSB, 667 MHz ECC RAM) for a total of 8 cores and have done very well
> > with every workload I've thrown at them. They also have internal SAS disk
> > arrays (each drive is 73GB, 15K RPM). These types of disk are better for SQL
> > Server and Exchange Server workloads. I also use iSCSI and Fibre Channel
> > external disk storage for projects that require large amounts of storage.
> >
> > The Intel Xeon 5xxx series in your systems should do well, especially if
> > they are the 53xx or 54xx series, which are quad-core. The 50xx and 51xx are
> > dual-core only, with smaller L2 caches and generally slower FSB.
> >
> > The Intel Xeon 7xxx series support up to 32 processors and the 73xx are
> > quad-core. If you have massive CPU processing needs, then go with one of
> > those. I would only do this if you have very large workloads and you've
> > measured the CPU utilization on your current systems and found them severely
> > lacking.
> >
> >
>
> Sounds like CPU/FSB/Memory speed wise, our systems match up. Thanks for the
> info.
>
> I did actually try raid10 with 4 drives on each side at one point, but i ran
> passmark diskmark tests and found that the raid6 was faster (for some reason,
> perhaps because i didnt have enough disks).
>
> I guess with our 40 user load, usually maybe 10 sql hits at a time, the SATA
> drives will be ok for now.. I'm pretty sure the same 3TB (one big array) SAS
> setup is about 4x the cost of the sata, hence they are unlikely to go for
> that idea, though i'd prefer it as well.
>
> You mention the iSCSI external discs.. is this a SAN?
>
> I was trying to convince management that we should start looking into
> replacing our 6TB of free space, scattered over 3 servers into a SAN in the
> near future, but the prices seem daunting. IE: it seems that a dual
> controller, with the ability to go beyond the initial 8 or 16 drive chasis
> (chain them?), is pretty pricey.. in the 15K range. They did make some
> hitachi closed systems that would have to be duplicated and replaced with
> larger systems as they ran out for around $7k i think, but even those i
> believe were 1 controller models.
>
> I figured if we had a san, we could go with "blade" or smaller chasis and
> save on actual server cost, but still be able to run Hyper-V/Virtual Server
> work loads off of the designated LUNs on the SAN.. or perhaps this would be
> too resource intensive for a san, especially a SATA based one.
>
>

> Yes, iSCSI is one form of a SAN. The benefits of a SAN are that you can have
> your primary storage available to all the application servers in a big "pool"
> of storage. The storage is not "captive" to any one server so that as storage
> needs change, storage is allocated where it is needed. Also, when a server
> needs to be replaced, you don't have to move the data from the old server to
> the new server, it's just there on the SAN.
>
> In Logical Disk Manager, SAN storage (iSCSI or Fibre Channel) appears to the
> host server the same way that internal direct attached storage does. So the
> applications and users don't know (or care) that the storage is on a SAN.
>
> There are many good SAN storage solutions that use iSCSI as the interface. I
> did a large iSCSI deployment white paper for Microsoft last year that is
> available on Microsoft's website and on mine at:
> http://www.demartek.com/Demartek_Deploying_iSCSI_Storage_Solutions_2007-06.html.
>

>
>
> "Dennis29" wrote:
>
> > Yes, iSCSI is one form of a SAN. The benefits of a SAN are that you can have
> > your primary storage available to all the application servers in a big "pool"
> > of storage. The storage is not "captive" to any one server so that as storage
> > needs change, storage is allocated where it is needed. Also, when a server
> > needs to be replaced, you don't have to move the data from the old server to
> > the new server, it's just there on the SAN.
> >
> > In Logical Disk Manager, SAN storage (iSCSI or Fibre Channel) appears to the
> > host server the same way that internal direct attached storage does. So the
> > applications and users don't know (or care) that the storage is on a SAN.
> >
> > There are many good SAN storage solutions that use iSCSI as the interface. I
> > did a large iSCSI deployment white paper for Microsoft last year that is
> > available on Microsoft's website and on mine at:
> > http://www.demartek.com/Demartek_Deploying_iSCSI_Storage_Solutions_2007-06.html.
> >
>
> Nice, i've added that document to my list of things to explore here in the
> near future.
>
> Do you feel iSCSI to be superior to Fibre channel as a whole though?
>
> I guess in terms of a SAN, for us, since doing Virtual hosting, SAS would be
> the only way to go, especially for longevity.
>
> With a SAS, would you still recommend having a seperate 3rd party addon
> controller card, ie: Areca Pciex8 etc, as oppossed to using the built in
> motherboard raid functions?
>
> (I usually go with raid1 for the OS, then raid6 for the data, or in the case
> of exchange, raid1 for the logs, raid6 for the data, but its hardware raid
> off of a dedicated card, which also does the other arrays, ie: all in one).
> I've not used motherboard raid as of yet.
>
> I figured motherboard raid could save a few bucks but not sure that its
> worth it.
>
> Cheers

> Regarding iSCSI and Fibre Channel, I wouldn't say one is superior to the
> other. They fill different needs.
>
> In high-end enterprises, Fibre Channel is the dominant SAN technology and
> provides very high speed, reliability, scalability and its traffic doesn't
> interfere with the LAN. Typically in high-end enterprises, there are
> full-time staff dedicated to storage, so Fibre Channel fits in very nicely.
> Fibre Channel gear uses optical networking hardware and adapters that fully
> offload all the I/O processing from the host CPUs, so you get tremendous I/O
> throughput with low CPU utilization. However, all this comes at a price, as
> the HBAs and switches are not cheap.
>

>
>
> "Dennis29" wrote:
>
> > Regarding iSCSI and Fibre Channel, I wouldn't say one is superior to the
> > other. They fill different needs.
> >
> > In high-end enterprises, Fibre Channel is the dominant SAN technology and
> > provides very high speed, reliability, scalability and its traffic doesn't
> > interfere with the LAN. Typically in high-end enterprises, there are
> > full-time staff dedicated to storage, so Fibre Channel fits in very nicely.
> > Fibre Channel gear uses optical networking hardware and adapters that fully
> > offload all the I/O processing from the host CPUs, so you get tremendous I/O
> > throughput with low CPU utilization. However, all this comes at a price, as
> > the HBAs and switches are not cheap.
> >
>
>
> Since I'm a one man shop here at our company of 40 users and 3-4 servers
> (host servers).. i'd probably have to favor the iSCSI..
>
> However, i did find what seems to be an unreal deal..
>
> A SAS dual controller (and expandable beyond the one chasis) unit for $6800
> plus drives and it supports SAS and SATA at the same time.
>
> The combo of the unit plus 1TB seagate 7200RPM SAS drives runs $9168. (fibre
> channel though)
>
> (link:
> http://www.superwarehouse.com/Promise_VTrak_E610fD_16_Bay_Hard_Drive_Array/VTE610FD/ps/1518783 )
>
> I dont, however, think i would ultimately do our DPM backup server onto the
> same SAN device, i'd probably stick with the dedicated DPM drives on the same
> chassis.
>
> Thanks for all this incite as this is very useful for our near term
> planning, especially virtual server related.
>
>