Skip to main content

VMware : VMmark studies the VMware DRS



Vroom guys/gals are busy.

A two-node DRS cluster was created for these experiments using IBM eserver 336 systems. Two modified VMmark tiles, consisting of five server VMs each (file, database, java, standby, and web servers), were used. A baseline throughput measurement was first taken to determine the optimal expected throughput (Scenario 1 in the slide). Subsequent tests were started with all workloads running on a single server within the DRS cluster (Scenario 2). The DRS scheduler was then run with both moderate and aggressive settings. The resulting VM placements are shown in Scenario 2a and Scenario 2b, respectively. The aggressive setting results in the intuitive placement of essentially splitting the tiles across the two systems except for the standby server. That the standby server does not migrate is not surprising since it is consuming few resources.


Good stuff there. Hopefully someday we could also study the RAC with VMware. But I'll hear when I'll hear ;-)

Check it out.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more