calum
Uploaded by
27 SLIDES
411 VUES
270LIKES

Understanding Perceived Performance in Virtualization Environments

DESCRIPTION

This presentation by Tim Mangan from TMurgent Technologies focuses on the critical distinction between computational performance and perceived performance in virtual environments. It explores what users truly care about, how to measure perceived performance, and the components that affect overall system performance. Attendees will learn about methodologies to enhance user productivity by addressing issues that impact their experience. The session will also cover innovative testing frameworks and the evolution of virtualization technologies.

1 / 27

Télécharger la présentation

Understanding Perceived Performance in Virtualization Environments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Understanding Perceived Performance Tim Mangan Kahuna: TMurgent Technologies LLP http://www.tmurgent.com Microsoft MVP for Application Virtualization President, Virtualization Boston http://www.virtg.com

  2. Agenda • Computational VS Perceived Performance • What Do Users Care About? • Measuring Perceived Performance • Virtual Environment Performance

  3. Computational Performance Measurement of discrete components of a system that affect overall performance. Examples include: • Processor time • Bandwidth • Queue lengths • Counters of all kinds

  4. Perceived Performance A methodology where one analyzes the system with a goal of improving user productivity by focusing on issues that affect the performance as perceived by the users.

  5. Differences in Techniques Computational Perceived • Repeatable • Break down to directly measurable components • Variable • Measure “end to end”

  6. Bring in the “V” Word Our systems today are too complex to rely on computational performance (alone). • Multi-system • Networking • Remote Protocols • Virtualization Layering

  7. Computational: Login

  8. Example Rethinking the Progress Bar1 • Good: • Linear • Fast Power • Bad: • Any with variation 1 Harrison, Amento, Kuznetsov, & Bell http://chrisharrison.net/projects/progressbars/ProgBarHarrison.pdf

  9. Measuring P.P

  10. Measuring P.P

  11. Perceived Performance Graph

  12. Perceived Performance Profile

  13. As a Guest VM (no contention)

  14. As a Guest VM (with contention)

  15. Virtualization Reality Check1 1http://www.projectvrc.nl

  16. Project VRC • Independent framework to measure virtual machine performance • Free • Set up your own tests • Understand their results • Virtual Session Index

  17. Typical test scenario

  18. Typical Results

  19. Interpretation?

  20. Bare Metal 32-bit Office 2007 SP1 2003 versus 2008 x86 SWAP Space (RAID5) Add XenApp5.0 2003 versus 2008 x64

  21. Hyper-V (version 1) Bare Metal vs VMs Odd Results TS versus Desktops

  22. Vmware(Esx 3.5) Virtual Desktops Bare Metal vs VMs Page Sharing

  23. It Depends… • Disk I/O Subsystem very important • Scenarios were CPU oriented • I/O subsystem of Hyper-V was bottleneck • New results being published soon • Improved Test Methodologies • New Vendor Releases

  24. New! VRC 2.0 • Nehalem Rocks for TS! 2x Improvement • Hyperthreading great (except ESX) • EPT-D Rocks (Hardware vs Software) • if ESX and EPT-D, turn vMMU software off, • if ESX and no EPT-D, turn vMMU software on • New version Hypervisors did not improve much • Vsphere 4.0, Hyper-V 2.0, XenServer 5.5 • Hyper-V 2.0 improved more than others • Xen & Hyper-V now almost identical, except that a single VM cannot have 8CPU under Hyper-V (limit=4) • Vsphere can be better/worse than others depending on scenario • Office 2007 SP2 fixes “outlook preview pane” performance • IE8 performs on par with IE7

  25. Links Project Virtual Reality Check: http://www.projectvrc.nl Perceived Performance: http://www.tmurgent.com/WhitePapers/PerceivedPerformance.pdf http://www.tmurgent.com/WhitePapers/PerceivedPerformance_VirtualOS.pdf VDI versus TS (video): http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/videos/archive/2007/04/25/vdi-solutions-a-year-later-from-briforum-2007.aspx http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/videos/archive/2007/10/09/xen-versus-esx-a-performance-head-to-head-comparison-from-briforum-europe-2007.aspx Citrix Logon and Logoff Chart: http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/gabeknuth/archive/2008/08/14/briforum-video-the-excruciating-detail-of-the-xenapp-logon-process.aspx Here are some links most relevant to this topic.

More Related