vmfs and rdm performance characteristics


It seems as if one of the most debated topics related to VMware and I/O performance is the mystery sounding the relative performance characteristics of vmfs volumes and rdm (Raw Device Mode) volumes.

Admittedly it is difficult to argue with the flexibility and operational benefits of vmfs volumes but I wanted to measure the characteristics of each approach and provide some documentation that could be leveraged when making the decision to use vmfs or rdm.? By no means are these test concluded but I thought as a gathered the data I would blog it so it could be used prior to me completing the whitepaper which all these tests will be part of.

Benchmark configuration:
The benchmarks contained in this document were performed in a lab environment with the following configuration:

  • Physical Server:? Dell dual CPU 2850 w/ 4 GB RAM
    • Windows 2003 SP2 Virtual Machine
    • Single 2.99 Ghz CPU
    • 256 MB RAM (RAM configured this low to remove the effects of kernel file system caching)
  • Disk array
    • EMC CLARiiON CX500
    • Dedicated RAID 1 Device
    • 2 LUNs Created on the RAID 1 Storage Group
    • Two dedicated 10 GB file systems
      • c:\benchmark\vmfs
        • 10 GB .vmdk created and vmfs and NTFS file system created
      • c:\benchmark\rdm
        • 10 GB rdm volume mapped to VM and NTFS file system created?

Benchmark tools:
Benchmark tests thus far were run using?two popular?disk and file system benchmarking tools.

IOzone Benchmarks:

HDtune benchmarks:

HD Tune: VMware Virtual disk Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 54.1 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 543.7 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 476.4 MB/sec
Access Time : 0.4 ms
Burst Rate : 83.3 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 36.9%

HD Tune: DGC RAID 1 Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 57.1 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 65.3 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 62.4 MB/sec
Access Time : 5.4 ms
Burst Rate : 83.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 13.8%

One thing that is very obvious is that VMFS makes extensive use of system/kernel cache.? This is most obvious in the HDtune benchmarks.? The increased CPU utilization is a bit of a concern, most likely due to the caching overhead.? I am going to test small block random writes while monitoring CPU overhead, my gut tells me that small block random writes to a VMFS volume will tax the CPU.? More to come….

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

PSTs on network file shares…


Not a good idea. Someone I know implemented Cisco WAAS and is experiencing performance problems. Specifically the CPU on the WAE device is spiked to 100% utilized. They are attempting to per-position 80GB of data including large 1-2GB PSTs to the WAE (Wide Area Application Engine). In my opinion this is a recipe for disaster. First off Microsoft does not support PST access via network shares, and once you read why you will understand why caching PSTs is an even worse idea.

http://logs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/01/21/network-stored-pst-files-don-t-do-it.aspx

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/297019

I ran my own little test by moving a PST to a share, starting wireshark (ethereal) and watching the activity. Accessing the PST over the network makes CIFS alone look very efficient.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

I hereby declare today and next week blog catch-up days!


I have just been so darn busy that the blog has suffered, I have about 15 half-started blogs that need to be completed and posted. Today I plan to try to work on a number of them so hope fully I can get some of them posted. Next week I will be at EMC World, the sessions provide a great blogging opportunity so I should be fairly active next week as well. Keep the faith!

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Two must have utilities for Windows


Admittedly I still sparingly use Internet Explorer but I found a cool little plug-in that allows me to now run windows updates from a non-IE browser, further limiting my need for IE. Check out it out at http://windowsupdate.62nds.com.

The second utility removes the Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) from your computer, another fine piece of Microshaft nuisanceware. The original location of the “removewga” was here http://www.firewallleaktester.com/removewga.htm but it appears Microsoft forced the developer to disable the links. You can still grab the utility here http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/Uninstallers/RemoveWGA.shtml .

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)