prezentációt
-
Upload
webhostingguy -
Category
Documents
-
view
953 -
download
0
Transcript of prezentációt
![Page 1: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
University of
Michigan Administrative Information Services
Server Virtualization Technologies: Uses, Comparisons, and Implications
David Sweetman Windows Enterprise Systems AdminAdministrative Information Services
University of Michigan
![Page 2: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 2
Presentation Overview
• The What and Why of virtualization
• Comparing Product Features
• Comparing Product Performance
• Evaluating Physical Servers for virtualization
• Costs
• Questions
![Page 3: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 3
What is server virtualization?
• Creating multiple logical server OS instances on one physical piece of hardware
• All HW drivers are virtualized – same virtual HW regardless of physical HW
• Each virtual machine is completely independent of the others and doesn’t ‘realize’ it’s virtualized
![Page 4: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 4
Why virtualize?
• More efficient HW utilization
• More efficient staff
• Long-term matching resources & needs
• Quick and nimble server provisioning
• Testing & Troubleshooting
• More effective redundancy
• HW maintenance w/o app downtime
• Simplify system imaging
• Disaster Recovery
![Page 5: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 5
Individual ebb and flow of resources
Cumulative usage of 28 servers in the MAIS data center evaluated for virtualization:
44GB RAM, 138.15Ghz CPU, and 1323GB HD
45% of RAM not used 99.9% of time.
25% of RAM never used concurrently.85% of CPU not used 99.9% of time.
81% of CPU never used concurrently.
HW Utilization Facts
68% of hard disk space unused
![Page 6: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 6
Hard Disk UtilizationServer Local Disk Total
(GB)Used (GB)
Free (GB)
SAN Manager 48 8 40
IIS app test 68 9 59
TNG Scheduling 68 13 55
PeopleSoft 8 HE 34 7 27
PeopelSoft 8 FIN 34 24 10
IIS / SQL:Research app 68 31 37
Small use Citrix 17 9 8
File Servers 136 56 80
Stat Version Control 34 6 28
Stat Version Control 17 6 11
SQL: eLearning dev 68 16 52
IIS: eLearning dev 68 11 57
SQL: eLearning Prod 68 10 58
IIS: eLearning Prod 34 13 21
Machine Room environ 68 6 62
IIS document server 170 88 82
Domain Controller 34 7 27
More Efficient Hard Disk Utilization Total: 1323 GB Used: 418 GB Free: 905 GB (68% unused)
SAN in 30GB chunks
1 fibre channel >1 server
Virtual HDs more granular
Share free space – allocate as needed
![Page 7: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 7
Virtualization vs. Consolidation
• Virtualized servers = separate OSes
• Consolidation = same OS
• Virtualized servers must each be administered, patched, etc.
• Consolidated applications can introduce conflicts and support issues
![Page 8: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 8
Virtual Host Licensing
Windows and other Microsoft per-server apps are licensed per virtual server. (1 physical server w/ 6 virtual Windows servers = 6-7 licenses needed)
As of 4/1/2005, Microsoft per-processor licenses are per physical processor (1 physical server w/ 3 virtual SQL Servers sharing 1 CPU = 1 per-processor license)
Virtualization savings are not in licenses.Check with other vendors.
![Page 9: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 9
Virtualization Software
• MS Virtual PC 2004 – workstation only
• VMWare Workstation 5 – workstation only
• MS Virtual Server 2005, Standard (4p)
• MS Virtual Server 2005, Enterprise (32p)
• VMWare GSX Server 3.1
• VMWare ESX Server 2.5
![Page 10: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 10
Common Features
• Up to 3.6GB RAM per virtual host• Web-based console for administration• Host OS sees HT CPU, virtual do not• VMs consist of 1 config file & 1 file / HD• VMs can mount physical CDs or ISOs• VMs can be multi-homed• Up to 64 VMs per host server• Highly scriptable – extensive API• Granular permissions for individual VMs• Detailed logging
![Page 11: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 11
MS Virtual Server 2005
• Targeted to increase efficiency in testing and development, and “re-hosting”
• Up to 1 processor per virtual host
• Windows = underlying host OS
• Only Windows VM’s supported
• No USB support
• 2 processor SMP coming soon
![Page 12: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 12
VMWare ESX Server 2.5
• Targeted at mission-critical enterprise services
• Up to 2 processors per host
• Custom Linux = underlying OS
• Windows & Linux VM’s supported
• Dedicated NIC for admin (2 total min)
• USB support
• 4 proc SMP coming soon
![Page 13: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 13
Do I need to know Linux?
• VMWare ESX Server is based on Linux
• All administration is possible through web
• Don’t need any Linux experience for installation or ongoing admin
• SSH and SFTP access to server
• Used? Installed backup software sFTP’ed ISO’s to server
![Page 14: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 14
Managing Virtual Servers
• Web site is primary interface• Attach to VM console
Virtual Server = ActiveX control VMWare = separate application
• Reboot, power on, power off• Create and manage VM’s• Allocate hardware resources• Mount CDs and floppies• View recent performance data
![Page 15: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 15
VS Screenshot
![Page 16: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 16
VMWare Screenshot
![Page 17: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 17
Hyper-threading
• One physical CPU seen as 2 logical
• Both products see HT, non-HT VMs
• Slows virtualization performance
• 1 HT CPU < 2 Phy CPU
• 0-20% performance increase over no HT
• http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/
![Page 18: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 18
RAM Allocation
• Virtual Server: Max <= total physical memory
• VMWare: Max <> total physical RAM Ballooning RAM pooled across multiple VMs Enables more efficient RAM utilization If max out, goes to paging file
![Page 19: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 19
VS Screenshot
![Page 20: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 20
VMWare Screenshot
![Page 21: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 21
Monitoring
• MOM (or other host monitoring): Monitors VMs like physical
• Virtual Server: MOM Management Pack Integrates into MOM framework Monitor overall host and VM servers
• VMWare: vmkusage
• VMWare: VirtualCenter Database back-end across all servers
![Page 22: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 22
Virtual Center
• Central monitoring and management in VMWare environment
• Manage all VMs from one interface
• Additional software / license
• Management application
• Set thresholds and actions – like MOM
• SQL or Oracle DB backend
• Assign privileges via NTFS
![Page 23: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 23
Virtual Center Screenshot
![Page 24: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 24
Converting Physical Server
• Both MS & VMWare offer tools to create virtual systems from physical
• Physical HW drivers replaced by VM• Ideal for the truly unique server (highly customized)• Both vendors recommend loading virtual servers from
scratch• Slow for both vendors – 6h / 4GB image• VSMT (Virtual Server Migration Tool)
many prereqs (DHCP, ADS, SQL) Not in one month eval
• P2V (Physical 2 Virtual) Simple boot CD and ‘server’ piece Licensed per use
![Page 25: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 25
VMotion
• Enables seamless transition of live virtual host between physical servers
• Dynamic Resource Allocation across servers – respond to load changes
• HW maintenance
![Page 26: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 26
Best Practices
• Plan out server allocations
• Create “gold image” – base OS kept up-to-date patches – duplicate for new VMs
• Use ISO’s for CD access
• Use standard backup and restore
• Take system images as needed
![Page 27: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 27
Summary of VMWare differences
• More comprehensive web GUI (for example, deleting hosts & HDs)
• Support for dual processor virtuals
• Support for Linux virtuals
• Virtual Center: central management
• Easy-to-use physical-to-virtual support
• VMotion: seamlessly move virtual servers between physical hosts
![Page 28: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 28
Testing Environment
• One month each was spent evaluating MS Virtual Server & VMWare ESX Server
• Identical testing was attempted on each. Load and usability testing: Win 2000, 2003, IIS5, IIS6, SQL Server 2000, 3rd party apps
• Test hardware 1.4Ghz x 4 physical processors (8 w/ HT) 8GB of RAM 60GB fibre-channel connected SAN space
![Page 29: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 29
Performance Comparisons
• Automated load test of Aspen 2.5 dev environment (Win 2000/IIS5 & Win 2000/SQL 2000)
• Citrix / TS load test w/ Helpdesk• IIS6-based memory, CPU, disk, and network
I/O testing• SQL Server add, update, and delete testing• Load testing both as isolated server and with
other virtual server processing• ‘Normal usage’ w/o issue in all cases
![Page 30: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 30
Performance Comparisons
Physical MSVS VMWare
CPU 100% 94% 80%
Memory 100% 91% 91%
Disk&NIC I/O 100% 101% 101%
SQL 100% 57% 87%
• Windows 2003 IIS6 and SQL 2000 perf compare
• VMWare CPU : hyper-threaded related, ~93% w/o
• VS SQL : VS 2005 SP1 has performance enhancements
![Page 31: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 31
Performance Comparisons
• Previous stats were isolated tests
• VMs won’t be alone on physical host
• How does system perform w/ other VMs running assorted, intensive tasks?
RAM CPU Disk Network
Virtual Server 2005 -/+ <10% -/+ <10% - <5% - <5%
VMWare ESX Server Same Same - <5% - <5%
![Page 32: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 32
IIS/SQL Load Test Results
• Mercury LoadRunner scripted test
• Overall performance 100@30/min: VM = 60% 1000@12/min: VM = 99%
• What made it slow? CPU queuing Memory, HD, NetIO – nearly identical
![Page 33: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 33
Terminal Services / Citrix Load Test Results
Currently 14 servers, 4procs (8HT), 4GB RAM –load balancing ~700 concurrent
CPU and RAM intensive apps~60 users max per physical server
CPU = bottleneck (logon & BusObj)1CPU = 7 users max ; 2 CPU = 12 max100 v 1CPU or 58 v 2CPU to match 14 physicals
Recommendation: 2 CPU & only for small use
![Page 34: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 34
Business Objects WebI dev
Virtualize? Yes. 900 / 1.4Ghz
24 x 7 sampling Hours of Op sampling
RAM (MB)
Nic KB/sec
HD KB/sec
Proc % Usage
RAM (MB)
Nic KB/sec
HD KB/sec
Proc % Usage
100% 847 61 4324 112 847 61 4324 34
99.99% 839 45 1548 55 839 47 97 24
99.9% 823 19 487 52 821 32 85 22
99% 816 17 76 3 816 17 67 7
95% 813 4 65 3 814 11 65 6
90% 809 2 64 2 812 2 63 5
Av 755 2 55 2 759 2 52 1
StDev 47 4 86 3 44 4 136 1
Win 2000 / IIS5 / 2400MB RAM / 1.4Ghz x 2 (no HT)
![Page 35: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 35
PSoft 8 Fin Crystal/nVision: Dev
Virtualize? Yes. 900 / 1.4Ghz
24 x 7 sampling Hours of Op sampling
RAM (MB)
Nic KB/sec
HD KB/sec
Proc % Usage
RAM (MB)
Nic KB/sec
HD KB/sec
Proc % Usage
100% 835 5284 5038 106 835 5284 2529 106
99.99% 822 2973 5005 89 829 4542 1555 92
99.9% 821 31 4912 82 822 72 1494 75
99% 814 4 4802 67 819 5 1015 13
95% 798 3 910 10 809 3 100 3
90% 786 3 61 2 799 3 32 2
Av 644 2 205 4 662 3 49 2
StDev 91 51 834 8 106 87 181 3
Win 2000 / 2300MB RAM / 1.1Ghz x 2 (no HT)
![Page 36: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 36
PSoft8 HE Crystal/nVision - Prod
Virtualize? NOT at this time – CPU needs too high
24 x 7 sampling Hours of Op sampling
RAM (MB)
Nic KB/sec
HD KB/sec
Proc % Usage
RAM (MB)
Nic KB/sec
HD KB/sec
Proc % Usage
100% 716 11499 3421 350 716 9437 3421 348
99.99% 710 9803 3379 329 713 3493 3379 333
99.9% 620 1422 2440 244 691 674 779 267
99% 534 119 2304 192 460 119 351 220
95% 483 8 183 34 440 11 74 32
90% 447 1 50 23 437 1 51 22
Av 378 10 105 23 363 7 49 21
StDev 67 162 356 7 63 109 159 6
Win 2000 / 1500MB RAM / 2.8Ghz x 1 (w/ HT)
![Page 37: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 37
sumTotal Aspen 2.5 eLearning
Virtualize? Yes 2300MB / 1.4Ghz x 2 Note: high NIC=sync ; CPU=imp/exp
24 x 7 sampling Hours of Op sampling
RAM (MB)
Nic KB/sec
HD KB/sec
Proc % Usage
RAM (MB)
Nic KB/sec
HD KB/sec
Proc % Usage
100% 2077 9061 4477 277 2077 406 1047 155
99.99% 2075 5865 3682 233 2075 404 1039 149
99.9% 2073 2667 3673 216 2073 206 971 138
99% 1984 91 3626 138 2064 70 827 125
95% 1777 68 839 101 1684 67 623 59
90% 1670 5 517 41 1665 3 459 30
Av 1628 16 236 24 1636 5 166 21
StDev 76 173 505 5 60 20 183 4
Win 2000 / SQL 2000 / 2358MB RAM / 1.9Ghz x 2 (w/ HT)
![Page 38: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 38
Domain Controllers
Virtualize? Yes – 850MB / 1.4Ghz
24 x 7 sampling Hours of Op sampling
RAM (MB)
Nic KB/sec
HD KB/sec
Proc % Usage
RAM (MB)
Nic KB/sec
HD KB/sec
Proc % Usage
100% 776 5677 4298 146 767 457 1237 92
99.99% 771 5326 3674 131 766 98 195 51
99.9% 768 2131 3440 78 757 93 194 16
99% 753 51 1972 43 753 42 180 13
95% 713 24 140 12 713 27 90 11
90% 707 15 91 10 707 20 88 10
Av 633 12 128 8 646 7 78 8
StDev 74 138 302 3 56 11 41 1
Win 2003 / 2000MB RAM / 700Mhz x 4 (no HT)
![Page 39: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 39
Univ of Michigan - Flint
• VMWare ESX Server
• Determining factor: Linux support & MS Virtual Server wasn’t available
• Several years of experience, starting with GSX, public web services, online teaching, real video server, internal file/print, 46v on 5 physical (15 on 1), <10% slower, Dell 2650’s & 4600’s, 2 proc, 12GB RAM
![Page 40: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 40
NC State University
• MS Virtual Server 2005
• Determining factor: Cost
• PeopleSoft v8 Crystal/nVision app servers: 18 virtual servers, 7 physical servers, dual Xeon >2GB, physical v. virtual head-to-head, little difference in performance.
![Page 41: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 41
Potential Uses from Previous Presentations
• NAP - Remediation Servers – “Big Red Button” for critical fix – assign additional resources
• Keynote - Reliability – one of pillars of Trustworthy Computing
• Boston U – Matt - NetReg peak usage first couple weeks of semester
• WSUS 3Ghz, 1GB RAM recommended – sitting idle most of time?
• Decrease dev system allocation in busy times
![Page 42: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 42
Pricing
MS Virtual Server 2005 (4CPU Server, 8GB RAM) Win 2003 Std: up to 4 processors, Ent: up to 32 VS Std: 4proc/4GB; Ent: 8proc/32GB 2003 Ent/Std: ~$500+~$500 = ~$1000
VMWare Server ESX (4CPU – other pricing scales) ESX: $4500/phy server + $945/yr support ESX+SMP+V-agents: $6000/phy server
+ $1764/yr support
VMWare Add-ons VirtualCenter server: $3000 + $1050/yr P2V Starter kit (25): $2000 + $420/yr
![Page 43: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 43
Cost / Benefit Example
• VMWare Server ESX $45K separate HW purchase price $29K + $2K/yr (ESX w/SMP): ~35%
• MS Virtual Server Std $33K separate HW purchase price $30K virtual HW + software: ~10%
Note: In both cases, estimates are conservative
![Page 44: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 44
Summary / take-aways
• More effective resource utilization and response to changing needs (5-15% to 60-70%)
• Virtual Server & VMWare = comparable performance, VMWare more isolated
• VMWare more feature-rich: SMP, VMotion, manage multiple servers
• VMWare costs more, but you can do more, virtualize more costly servers
• Both platforms have limits, active improvement
![Page 45: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 45
Other Resources
• VMWare: www.vmware.com
• Virtual Server: www.microsoft.com/virtualserver/
• Rapid App: www.rapidapp.com
![Page 46: prezentációt](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062419/5584ae15d8b42a125c8b4fa3/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Spring, 2005 Windows Virtualization Technologies 46
David SweetmanUniversity of [email protected]
Questions?