Our Virtual Test Drives - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Software
News
4/29/2009
05:45 PM
Joe Hernick
Joe Hernick
Features
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Our Virtual Test Drives

Vendors had to virtualize older servers, new gear in real-world tests.

InformationWeek Green - May 4, 2009 InformationWeek Green
Download the entire InformationWeek "green" issue,
our May 4 magazine distributed solely in pdf form.
(Registration required.)
We will plant a tree
for each of the first 5,000 downloads.

Straight hypervisor performance doesn';t reflect the entire cluster management-performance experience. This Rolling Review was, first and foremost, a qualitative assessment, so we built our test bed to gauge each product's setup, physical-to-virtual conversions, and day-to-day manageability.

We ran all five platforms on a variety of server hardware, then put all of the virtualization suites except Parallels through a final series of tests on identical hardware. The test cluster included four quad-core Hewlett-Packard DL385-G2 servers, two configured with 12 GB of RAM and two configured with 8 GB of RAM. Within each, host hypervisors were installed on a pair of hardware-RAID mirrored 72-GB 10,000- rpm SAS drives. VMware, Citrix, and Virtual Iron installations were bare metal, and Microsoft Hyper-V was installed on top of Windows 2008.

All hosts were connected via Cisco's 3750G for iSCSI SAN access to Dell EqualLogic PS5000-series SAS and SATA storage devices. We base-tested connectivity with legacy Fibre Channel storage arrays to verify functionality, while a 16-drive SAS array and 48-drive SATA array allowed us to test compatibility and performance reflecting commodity solutions. The Dell system was very easy to set up, configure, and maintain throughout testing. Small and midsize businesses would do well to investigate entry-level, expandable iSCSI SANs from Dell or other vendors. We formatted the 48 TB of raw storage as one 32.3-TB RAID-50 pool, from which we sliced out 5-TB resource pools for each virtual machine cluster.

Each host had one dedicated gigabit network interface card for iSCSI traffic, and the 3750G was dedicated to storage only; no other communications traversed the physically isolated switch. All Ethernet data connections for the VM clusters ran over a second 3750G, with one gigabit NIC per host for network communications and one gigabit NIC for VM management. Three virtual LANs separated network traffic: one subnet for VM management and two subnets for VM testing.

All servers were rolled into four-host VM clusters for the four mainstream hypervisors, yielding a virtual pool of resources encompassing 16 2.6-GHz cores, 40 GB of RAM, and 5 TB of storage on the storage area network. It's easy to see why old-school mainframe wonks smile whenever 20-something IT admins get excited about virtualization.

We tested Parallels Server on four- and eight-core Apple Xserves running 8 GB and 32 GB, respectively, with the hypervisor installed atop Mac OS X Server 10.5.5 on hardware-RAID mirrored 80-GB SAS drives. Apple doesn't officially support iSCSI connections, only Fibre Channel SANs. We tested Parallels with a legacy Fibre Channel storage device and local storage. To guarantee support from Apple and Parallels, we recommend sticking to the Fibre Channel SANs on Apple's short vendor list for any Parallels Server installation.

We chose a Windows 2003 host running on older, nonvirtualization-optimized hardware as our physical-to-virtual guinea pig. During the course of this Rolling Review, we virtualized many varieties of Windows and Linux with decent results. For the wrap-up, we stuck with simple 32-bit Windows server conversions on the assumption that most SMBs initially consolidate older legacy servers to get aging hardware offline. The host ran file services serving up local storage, IIS for basic static pages, and DNS. Each vendor's (or vendor's partner's) physical-to-virtual converter worked without issue, capturing the Windows 2003 host as a VM.

We installed each vendor's virtualization tools to optimize drivers for video and system performance, then took snapshots of the completed base images. Then we cloned the heck out of our images to populate our clusters with Windows and Debian VMs, and ran with the ball.

Return to the story:
Rolling Review Wrap-Up: Server Virtualization

Continue to the sidebar:
Save Money, Save The Planet

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
InformationWeek Is Getting an Upgrade!

Find out more about our plans to improve the look, functionality, and performance of the InformationWeek site in the coming months.

News
Remote Work Tops SF, NYC for Most High-Paying Job Openings
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  7/20/2021
Slideshows
Blockchain Gets Real Across Industries
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  7/22/2021
Commentary
Seeking a Competitive Edge vs. Chasing Savings in the Cloud
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  7/19/2021
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
2021 State of ITOps and SecOps Report
2021 State of ITOps and SecOps Report
This new report from InformationWeek explores what we've learned over the past year, critical trends around ITOps and SecOps, and where leaders are focusing their time and efforts to support a growing digital economy. Download it today!
Video
Current Issue
Monitoring Critical Cloud Workloads Report
In this report, our experts will discuss how to advance your ability to monitor critical workloads as they move about the various cloud platforms in your company.
Slideshows
Flash Poll