Virtualisation – more than just a passing phase

w1z4rd said:
For loss of performance use a virtual server. If you want a real world solution use BSD Jails.

No matter what you lose performance with a virtual machine. The only people I know who go virtual server are people who bought Vmware`s sales pitch...

The only use I can see for virtual servers is for legacy systems.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective ;)

The impact of virtual versus physical is around 2-10%, depending on the component (e.g. CPU, RAM) measured and the server task. The biggest impact is seen on vdisks with high IO requirements such as databases. So the type of storage used is very important, and it is important that the storage is configured correctly. The (mostly small and unnoticeable) decrease in performance is worth the benefits of virtualising....

Also remember that there is a massive difference between a type one and type two hypervisor....

Perhaps one day I'll show you demo that will make you change your mind :)
 
Conradl said:
Interesting perspective ;)

The impact of virtual versus physical is around 2-10%, depending on the component (e.g. CPU, RAM) measured and the server task. The biggest impact is seen on vdisks with high IO requirements such as databases. So the type of storage used is very important, and it is important that the storage is configured correctly. The (mostly small and unnoticeable) decrease in performance is worth the benefits of virtualising....

Also remember that there is a massive difference between a type one and type two hypervisor....

Perhaps one day I'll show you demo that will make you change your mind :)
Click to expand...

No thanks.. you can pitch your sales elsewhere. As I mentioned.. BSD jails are better and without the performance loss. IE.. if you are running a large scale system.. go jails because with virtual servers.. well.. according to the data ive seen.. in real life (not on the sale brochure).. Virtual servers are 60% slower than BSD jails.
 
w1z4rd said:
If people are worried about performance.. then a virtual server might not be your best option.. or even a good one. For those were performance is not an issue.. by all means.. get a virtual server.

A real world (non-sales-pitch) reality of virtual servers on performance systems:
http://www.playingwithwire.com/2009...iemove-switches-from-vmware-to-freebsd-jails/
Click to expand...

OK so jails is faster and better than VMWare Server1; a type two (hosted hypervisor, such as VMWare server, workstation, VirtualBox. MS VirtualPC). This means that the VM's application system call goes APP > VM > VMSERVER_Application > HOST OS > Hardware. It will be slower; but nobody is going to put a heavily loaded production system on a type two hypervisor ;)

A type one (bare metal; ESXi, XenServer etc), hypervisor, runs directly on the server hardware: APP > VM > HVisor > Hardware. It is this version of hypervisor that is used in mainstream server consolidation described in the original article; and it is this hypervisor that offers performance which is almost near native hardware.

I do, to a certain degree, agree with you about the sales pitch though. Some sales people claim consolidation ratios of 12-15:1 with NO decrease in performance and so on - which is rubbish. The best thing to do is put the various products next to each, test thoroughly and make an educated decision....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X