![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| Welcome to Windows Vista Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find solutions with any problems, errors or issues you are experiencing with Windows Vista. The Vista forum also covers news and updates and has an extensive Windows Vista tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks. |
| |||||||
![]() |
| |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| | Performance of Virtual Server vs Hyper-V? Currently, we run about 10 VM's on a 2003 x64 box.. with 12GB of memory.. this box is a dual CPU quad core xeon 2.4GHZ box with a SATA2 32mb cache raid6 array, consisting of 8, 500GB drives.. Our network has about 40 users and 35 machines roughly.. i dont think our sql box gets hit that frequently either.. The performance Passmark rating of this box on the D drive array test is about 3850 (This is with passmark software located at http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm there is also a free trial) For the Virtual Servers, even with 10 of them.. i get about 565 for an average on each one (this is the equivalent of a dual core system).. technically (i think) this is about 90% slower than the physical machine, if you go by passmark ratings.. which maybe i shoudlnt .. Things run fine.. i run virtually: Office Comm server, both Domain controllers (anyone else doing DC's completely virtually?) with one on this server and another DC on another virtual server that only runs a DC, i also run Virtual Machine manager (guessing i wont need this with hyperV).. I run MS Dynamics Great Plains, a sql 2005 box with 7 virtual instances.. sharepoint virtually.. Team Foundation server.. Configuration Manager.. antivirus trendmicro box.. etc.. In the case of the virtual SQL, i've installed the sql portion of say the configuration manager or dynamics in these instances (seperately).. anyone else doing this? So my question is.. How is the performance of Hyper-V.. either barebones hyper-V or the software overlayed Hypervisor.. Would anyone be willing to run the passmark test on the Host machine then on a virtual server in either of these cases? Is it really 85% that of the host machine with the barebones.. what is it with the software version ontop of 2008 server? How is everyone else's performance with VS 2005? Anyone running actual file systems/non-passthrough inside a VM rather than on a host? Thanks in advance.. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| | RE: Performance of Virtual Server vs Hyper-V? In preparation for our user group event on September 29, we may want to show some performance data for Hyper-V. I could run some of these benchmarks on the systems we will be demonstrating. However, I won't be able to run these until sometime in September, due to other projects in the queue ahead of this. My servers are dual-Xeon, quad-core with 32GB of memory, with internal SAS drive array and connections to iSCSI and Fibre Channel disk storage. What applications are you running on your VMs? How much memory are you allocating to each of your VMs? "markm75" wrote: Quote: > Currently, we run about 10 VM's on a 2003 x64 box.. with 12GB of memory.. > this box is a dual CPU quad core xeon 2.4GHZ box with a SATA2 32mb cache > raid6 array, consisting of 8, 500GB drives.. Our network has about 40 users > and 35 machines roughly.. i dont think our sql box gets hit that frequently > either.. > > The performance Passmark rating of this box on the D drive array test is > about 3850 (This is with passmark software located at > http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm there is also a free trial) > > For the Virtual Servers, even with 10 of them.. i get about 565 for an > average on each one (this is the equivalent of a dual core system).. > technically (i think) this is about 90% slower than the physical machine, if > you go by passmark ratings.. which maybe i shoudlnt .. > > Things run fine.. i run virtually: Office Comm server, both Domain > controllers (anyone else doing DC's completely virtually?) with one on this > server and another DC on another virtual server that only runs a DC, i also > run Virtual Machine manager (guessing i wont need this with hyperV).. I run > MS Dynamics Great Plains, a sql 2005 box with 7 virtual instances.. > sharepoint virtually.. Team Foundation server.. Configuration Manager.. > antivirus trendmicro box.. etc.. > > In the case of the virtual SQL, i've installed the sql portion of say the > configuration manager or dynamics in these instances (seperately).. anyone > else doing this? > > So my question is.. > > How is the performance of Hyper-V.. either barebones hyper-V or the software > overlayed Hypervisor.. > > Would anyone be willing to run the passmark test on the Host machine then on > a virtual server in either of these cases? > > Is it really 85% that of the host machine with the barebones.. what is it > with the software version ontop of 2008 server? > > How is everyone else's performance with VS 2005? Anyone running actual file > systems/non-passthrough inside a VM rather than on a host? > > > > Thanks in advance.. > > |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| | RE: Performance of Virtual Server vs Hyper-V? "Dennis29" wrote: Quote: > In preparation for our user group event on September 29, we may want to show > some performance data for Hyper-V. I could run some of these benchmarks on > the systems we will be demonstrating. However, I won't be able to run these > until sometime in September, due to other projects in the queue ahead of this. > > My servers are dual-Xeon, quad-core with 32GB of memory, with internal SAS > drive array and connections to iSCSI and Fibre Channel disk storage. What > applications are you running on your VMs? How much memory are you allocating > to each of your VMs? > Server vs Hypervisor.. but either way that is good info.. I allocate anywhere from 1GB to 4GB depending on the application.. I isolate applications per individual VM's.. IE: Configuration Manager 2007 on a VM called VMCM01 (say 1 or 2GB memory).. then all sql instances on a sql VM called VMSQL01 with 4GB memory.. Then another with antivirus software.. call it VSAV01 with say 1GB of memory.. usually i do fixed discs, some i do dynamic.. though with our 40 user load, i could see a difference in performance, even on the sql box. Curious.. what type of motherboard are you using giving you 32GB? Our next board was going to be one that could do more than 16GB.. the Supermicro motherboard we use now cant do more than 16GB. Thanks |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #4 (permalink) |
| | RE: Performance of Virtual Server vs Hyper-V? These servers are Dell PowerEdge 2900 that support up to 48GB RAM. I currently have 32GB but may increase them to 48GB. Are you running any 64-bit VMs or applications? I usually run 64-bit all-around and can allocate more than 4GB to a VM if needed. SQL 2005 and Exchange 2007 like lots of memory. "markm75" wrote: Quote: > > > "Dennis29" wrote: > Quote: > > In preparation for our user group event on September 29, we may want to show > > some performance data for Hyper-V. I could run some of these benchmarks on > > the systems we will be demonstrating. However, I won't be able to run these > > until sometime in September, due to other projects in the queue ahead of this. > > > > My servers are dual-Xeon, quad-core with 32GB of memory, with internal SAS > > drive array and connections to iSCSI and Fibre Channel disk storage. What > > applications are you running on your VMs? How much memory are you allocating > > to each of your VMs? > > > That would be great, particularly comparison of the same system on Virtual > Server vs Hypervisor.. but either way that is good info.. > > I allocate anywhere from 1GB to 4GB depending on the application.. I isolate > applications per individual VM's.. > > IE: Configuration Manager 2007 on a VM called VMCM01 (say 1 or 2GB > memory).. then all sql instances on a sql VM called VMSQL01 with 4GB memory.. > > Then another with antivirus software.. call it VSAV01 with say 1GB of memory.. > > usually i do fixed discs, some i do dynamic.. though with our 40 user load, > i could see a difference in performance, even on the sql box. > > Curious.. what type of motherboard are you using giving you 32GB? Our next > board was going to be one that could do more than 16GB.. the Supermicro > motherboard we use now cant do more than 16GB. > > Thanks |
My System Specs![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Virtual Server vs. Hyper-V | Virtual Server | |||
| Windows 2000 Server poor performance under Hyper-V | Virtual Server | |||
| Moving Virtual Machine from Hyper-v to Virtual Server 2005 | Virtual Server | |||
| Windows 2000 Server From Virtual Server 2005 to Hyper-V | Virtual Server | |||
| VMWare Server and Virtual Server --> Hyper-V | Virtual Server | |||