DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Type-1 Hypervisors on Desktop-Class Virtualization Hosts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Type-1 Hypervisors on Desktop-Class Virtualization Hosts IADIS International Journal on Computer Science and Information Systems Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 86-101 ISSN: 1646-3692 EVALUATION OF TYPE-1 HYPERVISORS ON DESKTOP-CLASS VIRTUALIZATION HOSTS Duarte Pousa1 and José Rufino2 1Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal 2Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal. Laboratory of Instrumentation and Experimental Particle Physics, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal ABSTRACT System Virtualization has become a fundamental IT tool, whether it is type-2/hosted virtualization, mostly exploited by end-users in their personal computers, or type-1/bare metal, well established in IT departments and thoroughly used in modern datacenters as the very foundation of cloud computing. Though bare metal virtualization is meant to be deployed on server-grade hardware (for performance, stability and reliability reasons), properly configured desktop-class systems or workstations are often used as virtualization servers, due to their attractive performance/cost ratio. This paper presents the results of a study conducted on commodity virtualization servers, aiming to assess the performance of a representative set of the type-1 platforms mostly in use today: VMware ESXi, Citrix XenServer, Microsoft Hyper-V, oVirt and Proxmox. Hypervisor performance is indirectly measured through synthetic benchmarks performed on Windows 10 LTSB and Linux Ubuntu Server 16.04 guests: PassMark for Windows, UnixBench for Linux, and the cross-platform Flexible I/O Tester and iPerf3 benchmarks. The evaluation results may be used to guide the choice of the best type-1 platform (performance-wise), depending on the predominant guest OS, the performance patterns (CPU- bound, IO-bound, or balanced) of that OS, its storage type (local/remote) and the required network-level performance. KEYWORDS Bare Metal Virtualization, Synthetic Benchmarking, Performance Assessment, Commodity Hardware 1. INTRODUCTION System Virtualization allows a physical host to run (simultaneously) many guest operating systems in self-contained software-defined virtual machines, sharing the host hardware, under control of a hypervisor. It comes in two basic forms: a) in hosted (or type-2) virtualization, an operating system (typically desktop-oriented) hosts virtual machines, along with other applications; this is achieved by type-2 platforms, like VMware Workstation 86 EVALUATION OF TYPE-1 HYPERVISORS ON DESKTOP-CLASS VIRTUALIZATION HOSTS (Vmware-a, 2016) or Oracle VM VirtualBox (VirtualBox, 2016); b) in bare metal (or type-1) virtualization, the platform hypervisor has direct hardware access, ensuring a more efficient use of the underlying resources; a common approach to type-1 virtualization is to install a thin hypervisor in the host, along with a management console; this console may be minimal, as in VMware ESXi (Vmware-b, 2016), or a management virtual machine, as in XenServer (XenServer, 2016) or Hyper-V (Hyper-V, 2016); an alternative approach is to have a server-class operating system with kernel modules that convert the operating system into a type-1 platform, like in KVM-based (KVM, 2017) platforms, as oVirt (oVirt, 2017) and Proxmox (Proxmox, 2017). Bare metal virtualization is commonly deployed on server-grade hardware, often vendor-certified for specific type-1 virtualization platforms. This ensures adequate performance, stability and reliability, along with advanced management features, that are essential for mission-critical applications. However, it is usually possible to run most modern type-1 platforms on commodity hardware, and the compromises entailed by such option are acceptable in many scenarios, often related to tight IT budgets (home labs, public schools, SMEs, etc.). This paper presents the results of benchmarks conducted on Windows 10 LTSB and Linux Ubuntu Server 16.04 virtual machines, hosted in well-known bare metal platforms (VMware ESXi, Citrix XenServer, oVirt, Proxmox and Microsoft Hyper-V), running in desktop-class hardware with reasonable (tough not high-end) configurations. The benchmark applications used in this study included OS-specific benchmarks, namely PassMark for Windows and UnixBench for Linux, and also cross-platform I/O-centric benchmarks, specifically Flexible IO Tester (FIO) and iPerf3. FIO was run within virtual machines deployed both on local and remote storage, and several remote storage options were evaluated (NFS and iSCSI). iPerf3 was ran both between virtual-machines on the same host and in different hosts (linked by 1 Gbps Ethernet). In order to provide a comparison baseline, all benchmarks were conducted in native instances of the operating systems selected for this study, installed on the same host hardware. The data collected during this study will help answering performance-centric questions like: what is (are) the most suitable type-1 platforms(s) to host modern Windows and Linux guests in commodity servers for different usage patterns (CPU-bound, IO-bound, mixed) ? what is the impact of different guest storage options ? how is network performance affected ? what is the impact introduced by each type-1 hypervisor, compared to a native scenario ? The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the testbed: type-1 platforms; guest operating systems; benchmarks; hosts, guests and remote storage configuration; evaluation methodology. Section 3 presents the benchmarking results. Section 4 revises related work on virtualization benchmarking. Section 5 concludes and sets future work. 2. TESTBED 2.1 Type-1 Virtualization Platforms The bare metal virtualization platforms selected for this study include proprietary and closed source platforms – VMware ESXi 6.0 (Free License) and Hyper-V (Windows Server 2016 Datacenter Edition) – and also open source alternatives – Citrix XenServer 7.0, oVirt 4.1 and 87 IADIS International Journal on Computer Science and Information Systems Proxmox 4.4. The specific versions used were the latest ones available when this study began (fall 2016). Bearing in mind the distinction between a virtualization platform and a hypervisor, each platform builds on the following hypervisors, respectively: ESXi, Hyper-V, Xen and QEMU/KVM (for both oVirt and Proxmox). These hypervisors rely on different virtualization techniques (Hwang, J. et al, 2013): i) Para-Virtualization (Hyper-V, Xen, KVM); ii) Hardware-Assisted Virtualization, based on ISA extensions like Intel’s VT-x and AMD-V (all hypervisors); iii) Full Virtualization (ESXi, Xen, KVM). In our study, the type-1 hypervisors choose automatically the virtualization technique to run each guest. Also, from this point onwards, the concepts of type-1 platform and type-1 hypervisor will be used interchangeably. 2.2 Guest Operating Systems Benchmarks were ran on a small, yet representative set of guest operating systems (OSs), playing specific roles in this study: Microsoft Windows 10 LTSB and Ubuntu Server 16.04 LTS. The first OS represents the modern line of Windows desktop-centric operating systems. The Windows 10 LTSB (Long Term Servicing Branch) variant is a long-term support version of Windows 10 Enterprise. It is designed for stability, meaning it will seldom (or ever) be updated with new features, but will have security updates and bug fixes for 10 years after its release. The second OS is a “proxy” for the many Linux-based distributions used in infrastructure servers. Canonical’s Ubuntu, specifically, has been consistently present at the top of usage rankings. Also, Ubuntu’s relevance in the cloud space has been steadily growing, becoming a major player, both at infrastructure layers (IaaS) and as an instance (virtual machine). As with the LTSB Windows variant, a Long Term Support (LTS) Ubuntu version was also selected. 2.3 Benchmark Applications One of the original experimental conditions devised for this work was to use only multi-platform, free (if possible open-source), and broad (not focused on a single system component) synthetic benchmarks. This would allow to compare different guest operating systems executed on the same type-1 virtual hardware. However, considering the choice of guest Operating Systems, no such benchmarks were found and we resorted to PassMark Performance Test v9 (PassMark-a, 2016) for Windows, and UnixBench v5.1.3 (UnixBench, 2016) for Linux. These are not multi-platform (and PassMark is not open-source), but all other requisites are fulfilled. PassMark generates CPU, 2D graphics, 3D graphics, Disk and Memory ratings, that are combined in a global PassMark score (PassMark-b, 2017). UnixBench is a system (OS-level) benchmark for Unix-like systems that mostly depends on the OS, libraries and compilers used. It includes tests on General CPU+Memory performance (Dhrystone2), CPU Arithmetic performance (Whetstone), File Copying, Process Creation & Substitution, Context Switching, System Call Overhead, Shell Scripting and 2D/3D Graphics (unfit to Ubuntu Server and so excluded in our study). An overall system index combines the scores of all tests. In order to still be able to establish some comparison between different guest operating systems, two multi-platform benchmarks were selected: Flexible I/O Tester (FIO, 2016) and 88 EVALUATION OF TYPE-1 HYPERVISORS ON DESKTOP-CLASS VIRTUALIZATION HOSTS iPerf3 (iPerf3, 2017). FIO was used to assess the impact of different guest storage options (local disk-based, remote NFS-based, and remote iSCSI-based). iPerf3 was used to measure IPv4 TCP network bandwidth between virtual-machines on the same host (with
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metrics for Performance Advertisement
    Metrics for Performance Advertisement Vojtěch Horký Peter Libič Petr Tůma 2010 – 2021 This work is licensed under a “CC BY-NC-SA 3.0” license. Created to support the Charles University Performance Evaluation lecture. See http://d3s.mff.cuni.cz/teaching/performance-evaluation for details. Contents 1 Overview 1 2 Operation Frequency Related Metrics 2 3 Operation Duration Related Metrics 3 4 Benchmark Workloads 4 1 Overview Performance Advertisement Measuring for the purpose of publishing performance information. Requirements: – Well defined meaning. – Simple to understand. – Difficult to game. Pitfalls: – Publication makes results subject to pressure. – Often too simple to convey meaningful information. – Performance in contemporary computer systems is never simple. Speed Related Metrics Responsiveness Metrics – Time (Task Response Time) – How long does it take to finish the task ? Productivity Metrics – Rate (Task Throughput) – How many tasks can the system complete per time unit ? Utilization Metrics – Resource Use (Utilization) – How much is the system loaded when working on a task ? – Share of time a resource is busy or over given load level. – Helps identify bottlenecks (most utilized resources in the system). 1 Metric for Webmail Performance What metric would you choose to characterize performance of a web mail site ? – User oriented metric would be end-to-end operation time. – Server oriented metric would be request processing time. – How about metrics in between ? – And would you include mail delivery time ? How is throughput related to latency ? How is utilization defined for various resources ? 2 Operation Frequency Related Metrics Clock Rate Clock rate (frequency) of the component (CPU, bus, memory) in MHz. Most often we talk about CPU frequency.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nutanix Design Guide
    The FIRST EDITION Nutanix Design Guide Edited by AngeloLuciani,VCP By Nutanix, RenévandenBedem, incollaborationwith NPX,VCDX4,DECM-EA RoundTowerTechnologies Table of Contents 1 Foreword 3 2 Contributors 5 3 Acknowledgements 7 4 Using This Book 7 5 Introduction To Nutanix 9 6 Why Nutanix? 17 7 The Nutanix Eco-System 37 8 Certification & Training 43 9 Design Methodology 49 & The NPX Program 10 Channel Charter 53 11 Mission-Critical Applications 57 12 SAP On Nutanix 69 13 Hardware Platforms 81 14 Sizer & Collector 93 15 IBM Power Systems 97 16 Remote Office, Branch Office 103 17 Xi Frame & EUC 113 Table of Contents 18 Xi IoT 121 19 Xi Leap, Data Protection, 133 DR & Metro Availability 20 Cloud Management 145 & Automation: Calm, Xi Beam & Xi Epoch 21 Era 161 22 Karbon 165 23 Acropolis Security & Flow 169 24 Files 193 25 Volumes 199 26 Buckets 203 27 Prism 209 28 Life Cycle Manager 213 29 AHV 217 30 Move 225 31 X-Ray 229 32 Foundation 241 33 Data Center Facilities 245 34 People & Process 251 35 Risk Management 255 The Nutanix Design Guide 1 Foreword Iamhonoredtowritethisforewordfor‘TheNutanixDesignGuide’. Wehavealwaysbelievedthatcloudwillbemorethanjustarented modelforenterprises.Computingwithintheenterpriseisnuanced, asittriestobalancethefreedomandfriction-freeaccessofthe publiccloudwiththesecurityandcontroloftheprivatecloud.The privateclouditselfisspreadbetweencoredatacenters,remoteand branchoffices,andedgeoperations.Thetrifectaofthe3laws–(a) LawsoftheLand(dataandapplicationsovereignty),(b)Lawsof Physics(dataandmachinegravity),and(c)LawsofEconomics
    [Show full text]
  • Vmware Fusion 12 Vmware Fusion Pro 12 Using Vmware Fusion
    Using VMware Fusion 8 SEP 2020 VMware Fusion 12 VMware Fusion Pro 12 Using VMware Fusion You can find the most up-to-date technical documentation on the VMware website at: https://docs.vmware.com/ VMware, Inc. 3401 Hillview Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94304 www.vmware.com © Copyright 2020 VMware, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright and trademark information. VMware, Inc. 2 Contents Using VMware Fusion 9 1 Getting Started with Fusion 10 About VMware Fusion 10 About VMware Fusion Pro 11 System Requirements for Fusion 11 Install Fusion 12 Start Fusion 13 How-To Videos 13 Take Advantage of Fusion Online Resources 13 2 Understanding Fusion 15 Virtual Machines and What Fusion Can Do 15 What Is a Virtual Machine? 15 Fusion Capabilities 16 Supported Guest Operating Systems 16 Virtual Hardware Specifications 16 Navigating and Taking Action by Using the Fusion Interface 21 VMware Fusion Toolbar 21 Use the Fusion Toolbar to Access the Virtual-Machine Path 21 Default File Location of a Virtual Machine 22 Change the File Location of a Virtual Machine 22 Perform Actions on Your Virtual Machines from the Virtual Machine Library Window 23 Using the Home Pane to Create a Virtual Machine or Obtain One from Another Source 24 Using the Fusion Applications Menus 25 Using Different Views in the Fusion Interface 29 Resize the Virtual Machine Display to Fit 35 Using Multiple Displays 35 3 Configuring Fusion 37 Setting Fusion Preferences 37 Set General Preferences 37 Select a Keyboard and Mouse Profile 38 Set Key Mappings on the Keyboard and Mouse Preferences Pane 39 Set Mouse Shortcuts on the Keyboard and Mouse Preference Pane 40 Enable or Disable Mac Host Shortcuts on the Keyboard and Mouse Preference Pane 40 Enable Fusion Shortcuts on the Keyboard and Mouse Preference Pane 41 Set Fusion Display Resolution Preferences 41 VMware, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Analysis of Selected Hypervisors (Virtual Machine Monitors - Vmms) Waldemar Graniszewski, Adam Arciszewski
    INTL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS, 2016, VOL. 62, NO. 3, PP. 231–236 Manuscript received August 12, 2016; revised September, 2016. DOI: 10.1515/eletel-2016-0031 Performance analysis of selected hypervisors (Virtual Machine Monitors - VMMs) Waldemar Graniszewski, Adam Arciszewski Abstract—Virtualization of operating systems and network results for CPU, NIC, kernel compilation time and storage infrastructure plays an important role in current IT projects. benchmarks’ tests are presented in Section IV. Finally, in With the number of services running on different hardware Section V, we draw some conclusions. resources it is easy to provide availability, security and efficiency using virtualizers. All virtualization vendors claim that their hypervisor (virtual machine monitor - VMM) is better than their II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK competitors. In this paper we evaluate performance of different In this section we present some general background for solutions: proprietary software products (Hyper-V, ESXi, OVM, VirtualBox), and open source (Xen). We are using standard virtualisation technology (in Subsection II-A) and a short benchmark tools to compare efficiency of main hardware com- review of related work (in Subsection II-B). ponents, i.e. CPU (nbench), NIC (netperf), storage (Filebench), memory (ramspeed). Results of each tests are presented. A. Background Keywords—virtualisation, virtualmachines, benchmark, per- As mentioned earlier, in Section I, cloud computing and formance, hypervisor, virtual machine monitor, vmm services provided by data centers require robust software for their operation. With data center server consolidation, the I. INTRODUCTION portability of each solution plays an important role. In the N recent years the most popular IT projects have been last decade both proprietary software like VMware ESXi, Mi- I based on cloud computing.
    [Show full text]
  • “Freedom” Koan-Sin Tan [email protected] OSDC.Tw, Taipei Apr 11Th, 2014
    Understanding Android Benchmarks “freedom” koan-sin tan [email protected] OSDC.tw, Taipei Apr 11th, 2014 1 disclaimers • many of the materials used in this slide deck are from the Internet and textbooks, e.g., many of the following materials are from “Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach,” 1st ~ 5th ed • opinions expressed here are my personal one, don’t reflect my employer’s view 2 who am i • did some networking and security research before • working for a SoC company, recently on • big.LITTLE scheduling and related stuff • parallel construct evaluation • run benchmarking from time to time • for improving performance of our products, and • know what our colleagues' progress 3 • Focusing on CPU and memory parts of benchmarks • let’s ignore graphics (2d, 3d), storage I/O, etc. 4 Blackbox ! • google image search “benchmark”, you can find many of them are Android-related benchmarks • Similar to recently Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), most benchmarks on Android platform are kinda blackbox 5 Is Apple A7 good? • When Apple released the new iPhone 5s, you saw many technical blog showed some benchmarks for reviews they came up • commonly used ones: • GeekBench • JavaScript benchmarks • Some graphics benchmarks • Why? Are they right ones? etc. e.g., http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review 6 open blackbox 7 Android Benchmarks 8 http:// www.anandtech.com /show/7384/state-of- cheating-in-android- benchmarks No, not improvement in this way 9 Assuming there is not cheating, what we we can do? Outline • Performance benchmark review • Some Android benchmarks • What we did and what still can be done • Future 11 To quote what Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Guide for Managing Vmware Esxi : Vmware, Inc
    INFORMATION GUIDE Managing VMware ESXi VMWARE INFORMATION GUIDE Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 Deployment ........................................................................................................... 3 Large-Scale Standardized Deployment ............................................................. 4 Interactive and Scripted Management ................................................................. 5 VI Client .............................................................................................................. 5 Remote Command Line Interfaces .................................................................... 6 File Management ............................................................................................... 7 Remote Command Line Interface and ESX 3 ..................................................... 8 Third-Party Management Applications ................................................................. 8 Common Information Model ............................................................................. 8 VI API .................................................................................................................. 8 SNMP .................................................................................................................. 9 System Image Design ............................................................................................. 10 Patching and Upgrading
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Virtual Lab Solutions for Online Cyber Security Education
    Communications of the IIMA Volume 12 Issue 4 Article 6 2012 A Comparison of Virtual Lab Solutions for Online Cyber Security Education Joon Son California State University, San Bernardino Chinedum Irrechukwu University of Maryland University College Patrick Fitzgibbons University of Maryland University College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/ciima Recommended Citation Son, Joon; Irrechukwu, Chinedum; and Fitzgibbons, Patrick (2012) "A Comparison of Virtual Lab Solutions for Online Cyber Security Education ," Communications of the IIMA: Vol. 12 : Iss. 4 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/ciima/vol12/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communications of the IIMA by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Virtual Lab for Online Cyber Security Education Son, Irrechukwu & Fitzgibbons Virtual Lab for Online Cyber Security Education Joon Son California State University, San Bernardino [email protected] Chinedum Irrechukwu University of Maryland University College (UMUC) [email protected] Patrick Fitzgibbons University of Maryland University College (UMUC) [email protected] ABSTRACT In this paper the authors describe their experience of designing a virtual lab architecture capable of providing hundreds of students with a hands on learning experience in support of an online educational setting. The authors discuss alternative approaches of designing a virtual lab and address the criteria in selecting the optimal deployment method. The authors conclude that virtualization offers a significant instructional advantage in delivering a cost effective and flexible hands on learning experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Mos - Virtualization
    MOS - VIRTUALIZATION Tobias Stumpf, Marcus H¨ahnel WS 2017/18 Goals Give you an overview about: • virtualization and virtual machines in general, • hardware virtualization on x86, • our research regarding virtualization. We will not discuss: • lots and lots of details, • language runtimes, • how to use XEN/KVM/. MOS - Virtualization slide 3 What is Virtualization? Outline What is Virtualization? Very Short History Virtualization on x86 Example: L4Linux Example: NOVA Example: Karma VMM MOS - Virtualization slide 4 What is Virtualization? Starting Point You want to write a new operating system that is • secure, • trustworthy, • small, • fast, • fancy. but . MOS - Virtualization slide 5 What is Virtualization? Commodity Applications Users expect to run all the software they are used to (\legacy"): • browsers, • Word, • iTunes, • certified business applications, • new (Windows/DirectX) and ancient (DOS) games. Porting or rewriting all is infeasible! MOS - Virtualization slide 6 What is Virtualization? One Solution: Virtualization \By virtualizing a commodity OS [...] we gain support for legacy applications, and devices we don't want to write drivers for." \All this allows the research community to finally escape the straitjacket of POSIX or Windows compatibility [...]" Roscoe:2007:HV:1361397.1361401 MOS - Virtualization slide 7 What is Virtualization? Virtualization virtual existing in essence or effect though not in actual fact http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu \All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection." David Wheeler MOS - Virtualization slide 8 What is Virtualization? Emulation Suppose you develop for a system G (guest, e.g. an ARM-based phone) on your workstation H (host, e.g., an x86 PC). An emulator for G running on H precisely emulates G's • CPU, • memory subsystem, and • I/O devices.
    [Show full text]
  • Guest OS Compatibility Guide
    Guest OS Compatibility Guide Guest OS Compatibility Guide Last Updated: September 29, 2021 For more information go to vmware.com. Introduction VMware provides the widest virtualization support for guest operating systems in the industry to enable your environments and maximize your investments. The VMware Compatibility Guide shows the certification status of operating system releases for use as a Guest OS by the following VMware products: • VMware ESXi/ESX Server 3.0 and later • VMware Workstation 6.0 and later • VMware Fusion 2.0 and later • VMware ACE 2.0 and later • VMware Server 2.0 and later VMware Certification and Support Levels VMware product support for operating system releases can vary depending upon the specific VMware product release or update and can also be subject to: • Installation of specific patches to VMware products • Installation of specific operating system patches • Adherence to guidance and recommendations that are documented in knowledge base articles VMware attempts to provide timely support for new operating system update releases and where possible, certification of new update releases will be added to existing VMware product releases in the VMware Compatibility Guide based upon the results of compatibility testing. Tech Preview Operating system releases that are shown with the Tech Preview level of support are planned for future support by the VMware product but are not certified for use as a Guest OS for one or more of the of the following reasons: • The operating system vendor has not announced the general availability of the OS release. • Not all blocking issues have been resolved by the operating system vendor.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Performance: Specvirt™ Benchmark
    RED HAT ENTERPRISE VIRTUALIZATION PERFORMANCE: SPECVIRT™ BENCHMARK DATASHEET AT A GLANCE OVERVIEW ® • The performance of Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV) is the strategic virtualization alternative for organizations Enterprise Virtualization can looking for better total cost of ownership, faster return on investment, accelerated break-even, and be compared to other freedom from vendor lock-in. virtualization platforms RHEV consists of both a hypervisor technology and an enterprise virtualization manager. The RHEV using the SPECvirt_sc2010 hypervisor, based on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux® kernel and the Kernel-based Virtual Machine benchmark. (KVM) hypervisor technology, offers the high performance and scalability that Red Hat is known for. • SPECvirt_sc2010 measures Hypervisor performance is a key factor in deciding which virtualization platform to implement, and hypervisor performance using Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization performance, as measured by the SPECvirt_sc2010® benchmark, realistic workloads. leads the industry both in terms of highest overall performance and highest number of performant As of March 1, 2013, RHEV virtual machines on a single server. leads VMware in performance on comparable WHAT IS SPECVIRT_SC2010®? servers defined by CPU count. SPECvirt_sc2010 is the first vendor-neutral benchmark designed to measure the performance of • The RHEV subscription model datacenter servers that are used for server virtualization. The benchmark was developed by the provides high performance non-profit Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) virtualization subcommittee, at a lower cost-per-SPECvirt_ whose members and contributors include AMD, Dell, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, Intel, Oracle, Red Hat, Unisys sc2010 than VMware. and VMware. SPECvirt_sc2010 uses realistic workloads and SPEC’s proven performance measurement method- ologies to enable vendors, users and researchers to compare system performance across multiple hardware, virtualization platforms, and applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Setup for Failover Clustering and Microsoft Cluster Service
    Setup for Failover Clustering and Microsoft Cluster Service Update 1 VMware vSphere 6.5 VMware ESXi 6.5 vCenter Server 6.5 Setup for Failover Clustering and Microsoft Cluster Service You can find the most up-to-date technical documentation on the VMware website at: https://docs.vmware.com/ If you have comments about this documentation, submit your feedback to [email protected] VMware, Inc. 3401 Hillview Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94304 www.vmware.com © Copyright 2006-2017 VMware, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright and trademark information. VMware, Inc. 2 Contents About Setup for Failover Clustering and Microsoft Cluster Service 5 1 Getting Started with MSCS 6 Clustering Configuration Overview 6 Clustering MSCS Virtual Machines on a Single Host 7 Clustering Virtual Machines Across Physical Hosts 7 Clustering Physical Machines with Virtual Machines 9 Hardware and Software Requirements for Clustering 10 Supported Shared Storage Configurations 10 PSP_RR Support for MSCS 11 iSCSI Support for MSCS 11 FCoE Support for MSCS 12 vMotion support for MSCS 12 vSphere MSCS Setup Limitations 13 MSCS and Booting from a SAN 14 Set up CCR and DAG Groups 14 Setting up AlwaysOn Availability Groups with SQL Server 2012 15 2 Cluster Virtual Machines on One Physical Host 16 Create the First Node for Clusters on One Physical Host 16 Create Additional Nodes for Clusters on One Physical Host 17 Add Hard Disks to the First Node for Clusters on One Physical Host 18 Add Hard Disks to Additional Nodes for Clusters on One Physical Host 19 3 Cluster Virtual Machines Across
    [Show full text]
  • Vmware Esxi Installation and Setup
    VMware ESXi Installation and Setup 02 APR 2020 Modified on 11 AUG 2020 VMware vSphere 7.0 VMware ESXi 7.0 VMware ESXi Installation and Setup You can find the most up-to-date technical documentation on the VMware website at: https://docs.vmware.com/ VMware, Inc. 3401 Hillview Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94304 www.vmware.com © Copyright 2018-2020 VMware, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright and trademark information. VMware, Inc. 2 Contents 1 About VMware ESXi Installation and Setup 5 Updated Information 6 2 Introduction to vSphere Installation and Setup 7 3 Overview of the vSphere Installation and Setup Process 8 4 About ESXi Evaluation and Licensed Modes 11 5 Installing and Setting Up ESXi 12 ESXi Requirements 12 ESXi Hardware Requirements 12 Supported Remote Management Server Models and Firmware Versions 15 Recommendations for Enhanced ESXi Performance 15 Incoming and Outgoing Firewall Ports for ESXi Hosts 17 Required Free Space for System Logging 19 VMware Host Client System Requirements 20 ESXi Passwords and Account Lockout 20 Preparing for Installing ESXi 22 Download the ESXi Installer 22 Options for Installing ESXi 23 Media Options for Booting the ESXi Installer 24 Using Remote Management Applications 35 Customizing Installations with vSphere ESXi Image Builder 35 Required Information for ESXi Installation 74 Installing ESXi 75 Installing ESXi Interactively 75 Installing or Upgrading Hosts by Using a Script 79 PXE Booting the ESXi Installer 95 Installing ESXi Using vSphere Auto Deploy 102 Troubleshooting vSphere Auto Deploy 191 Setting Up ESXi 198 ESXi Autoconfiguration 198 About the Direct Console ESXi Interface 198 Enable ESXi Shell and SSH Access with the Direct Console User Interface 202 Managing ESXi Remotely 203 Set the Password for the Administrator Account 203 VMware, Inc.
    [Show full text]