Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
9Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
vMotion vs Live Migration 10 11

vMotion vs Live Migration 10 11

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8,160 |Likes:
Published by readwriteweb
Businesses using a virtualized infrastructure have many reasons to move active virtual machines (VMs) from one physical server to another. Whether the migrations are for routine maintenance, balancing performance needs, work distribution (consolidating VMs onto fewer servers during non-peak hours to conserve resources), or another reason, the best virtual infrastructure platform executes the move as quickly as possible and with minimal impact to end users.
Businesses using a virtualized infrastructure have many reasons to move active virtual machines (VMs) from one physical server to another. Whether the migrations are for routine maintenance, balancing performance needs, work distribution (consolidating VMs onto fewer servers during non-peak hours to conserve resources), or another reason, the best virtual infrastructure platform executes the move as quickly as possible and with minimal impact to end users.

More info:

Published by: readwriteweb on Nov 18, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
VIRTUAL MACHINE MIGRATION COMPARISON:VMWARE VSPHERE VS. MICROSOFT HYPER-V
OCTOBER 2011
A PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES TEST REPORT
Commissioned by VMware, Inc.
Businesses using a virtualized infrastructure have many reasons to move activevirtual machines (VMs) from one physical server to another. Whether the migrations arefor routine maintenance, balancing performance needs, work distribution (consolidatingVMs onto fewer servers during non-peak hours to conserve resources), or anotherreason, the best virtual infrastructure platform executes the move as quickly as possibleand with minimal impact to end users.We tested two competing features that move active VMs from one server toanother, VMware vSphere 5 vMotion and Microsoft® Windows Server® 2008 R2 SP1Hyper-V Live Migration. While both perform these moves with no VM downtime, in ourtesting the VMware solution did so faster, with greater application stability, and withless impact to application performance
 
clearly showing that not all live migrationtechnologies are the same. VMware also holds an enormous advantage in concurrency:VMware vSphere 5 can move eight VMs at a time while a Microsoft Hyper-V clusternode can take part only as the source or destination in one live migration at a time. Inour two test scenarios, the VMware vMotion solution was up to 5.4 times faster thanthe Microsoft Hyper-V Live Migration solution.
 
A Principled Technologies test report
2
 Virtual machine migration comparison:VMware vSphere vs. Microsoft Hyper-V
WHY VM MIGRATION PERFORMANCE MATTERS
Being able to move active VMs as quickly and as seamlessly as possible from onephysical server to another with no service interruption is a key element of anyvirtualized infrastructure. With VMware vSphere, maintenance windows are keptshorter and service level agreements (SLAs) are maintained or even improved becauseyour virtual infrastructure platform is shifting your VM workloads faster and with morestability.
 
Maintenance windows.
Maintenance windows are critical slices of time where vitalwork is performed on the hardware that fuels your core business; the smaller themaintenance window, the better. These maintenance windows require time bufferson both ends for evacuating your hosts, then redistributing workloads afterwards.This is where VM migration performance is critical. The industry is trending towardsdenser virtualization; with Hyper-V Live Migration, these larger numbers of VMstake longer and longer to move to other servers. However, with the highperformance of vMotion with VMware vSphere, you can keep maintenancewindows to a minimum, moving VMs up to 5.4 times faster than with Hyper-V.
 
SLAs.
The indicator of your level of quality is the SLA with your customer, and yourability to keep this SLA is critical. Adaptive workload balancing, such as VMwarevSphere Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS), uses migration technologies tobalance workloads across your hosts. This ever-changing, dynamic balancing actmust happen as quickly and efficient as possible
 
vMotion with VMware vSphere isa key enabler of DRS. vSphere shows superior speed and quality of service overHyper-V, as we demonstrate in this report.
 
Low-impact migrations.
Whatever the reason for moving your VMs, whether formaintenance or for SLA and quality of service, the end user should experience aslittle impact as possible from the migration. In our tests, application performancedegradation during the migration window, as we show in this report, wassignificantly greater with Hyper-V than with vSphere.
VMWARE VMOTION ARCHITECTURE AND FEATURES
VMware vMotion transfers the entire execution state of the virtual machinesbeing migrated. To do this, VMware breaks down the elements to be transferred intothree categories: the virtual device state of the VM, the networking and SCSI deviceconnections, and the physical memory of the VM.The virtual device state includes the state of the CPU and hardware adapters,such as network adapters and disk adapters. The contents of the virtual device state aretypically quite small and can be transferred quickly. The networking and SCSI deviceconnections of the VM can also be quickly transferred, given that the MAC address of the VM is indepe
    MAC      
by
 
A Principled Technologies test report
3
 Virtual machine migration comparison:VMware vSphere vs. Microsoft Hyper-V
the destination host via a RARP packet of the VM migration and shared storage makesseamless disk connection changes possible.The largest data component transferred as part of a vMotion event is thephysical memory. To accomplish this transfer, VMware implements the technology instages: first is a guest trace phase where memory pages are traced to track alterations indata; next is an iterative precopy phase where memory pages are copied to thedestination host and then copies are repeated to capture changes pages during the priorcopies; and finally comes the switchover phase, where the VM actually switches fromone host to another. For more details on vMotion architecture, see the paper
VMwarevSphere vMotion Architecture, Performance and Best Practices in VMware vSphere 5
.
1
 In vSphere 5, VMware has added new features to improve its already solidvMotion technology. Some of the most important features include the following:
 
Multi-NIC vMotion capabilities.
New with VMware vSphere 5, the hypervisor usesmultiple NICs to push vMotion traffic over the vMotion network as fast as possible,using all available bandwidth on your multiple vMotion NICs. You simply assignmultiple NICs to vMotion traffic in vSphere, and need not make any changes on thephysical switch. For our testing, we used only a single 10Gb NIC and still achievedsuperior migration performance over Hyper-V.
 
Metro vMotion - support for higher-latency links.
New with VMware vSphere 5,vMotion support now extends to links with latencies of up to 10 milliseconds,adding flexibility for customers moving VMs across metropolitan distances.
 
Stun During Page Send (SDPS).
In the rare case that a VM workload modifiesmemory pages faster than they can be transferred over the high-speed vMotionnetwork, vSphere 5 will slow the VM activity by injecting tiny sleeps in the vCPU of the VM, allowing the vMotion to complete.
HOW WE TESTED
To explore the migration speed and stability advantages of VMware vMotionover Hyper-V Live Migration, we tested two scenarios: a host evacuation test and a tier-one application test. For each scenario, we set up three servers in a cluster for eachplatform, along with their respective management tools: vCenter Server and SystemCenter Virtual Machine Manager (SCVMM). Each server contained a single dedicated10Gb network interface card (NIC) for vMotion or Live Migration. In both testingscenarios, we used DVD Store Version 2 (DS2),
2
a benchmark that measures databaseperformance. Whereas some other benchmarking tools exercise only certain elementsof a system, such as CPU or storage, this database benchmarking tool is an ideal
1
2
For more details about DS2, see http://www.delltechcenter.com/page/DVD+Store. 

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->