Skip to main content

Monster.com uses balancepoint to balance out its virtual infrastructure



For Monster, managing this challenge required multiple tools, a situation that's not uncommon. Monster uses Akorri's BalancePoint to augment the capabilities of VMware's two main management products, VMotion (which increases hardware utilization by migrating VMs on failing or underperforming servers to another machine) and Distributed Resource Scheduler (which couples with VMotion to allocate resources to high-priority VMs based on preestablished rules you set).

A key point: DRS and VMotion show where to balance workload, but they aren't analytical and don't see contention with other apps outside of VMware, King says. Since BalancePoint isn't tied to the OS, it can see if VMware performance is impacted by other apps residing on the same SAN resources, he says. "DRS just sees what it sees for performance through the host (CPU, memory and storage), but it can't see what the database server that's on the same side as the SAN is doing," says King.


Using BalancePoint from Akkori helped them manage the evergrowing farm of the VMs. Remember that it will happen to you too. Do make sure you go ahead with the right partner when managing your Virtual Infrastructure.

Rest of the news here.
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