Performance comparison between VMWare and VMLite The ...

feastcanadianDéveloppement de logiciels

14 déc. 2013 (il y a 7 années et 7 mois)

263 vue(s)

Performance comparison between VMWare and VMLite

The performance data was captured using Windows Performance Monitor on the Host and the
virtual machine. I captured
%
-
Processor time and
%
-
User time.

The host operating system is running on a Dell E6410 laptop using Windows 7
-

Enterprise 64
-
bit
with 8 GB of memory and an Intel I5 Processor that shows four CPU’s in Task Manager.


The laptop has two internal esata drives and an external esata drive. Th
e host OS runs from one of
the

internal

drives whereby the other two drives

are used by the virtual client
. This applies for both
VMWare and VMLite.

The application that is tested is a heavy Java based application which showed significant
performance degra
dations during startup
\
initialisation under VMLite workstation 3.2.6.

The performance data was captured during the startup of the application under VMWare and
VMLite. For completeness performance data was
also
collected on the Host

OS
.
However there was
n
ever any shortage on host capacity in regards to CPU or Memory.

The virtual client is a
64
-
bit,
Windows 2003 Server
(
SP1
)
. The client has been assigned two CPU’s in
VMWare as well as in VMLite 4.x. Memory allocation is 4 GB and the application is configure
d
equally under both virtual appliances.
The disk configuration is also the same and uses SCSI as disk
controller

in both VMWare and VMLite
.

The virtual client uses 4 virtual disks, one for OS, one for paging, one for database and one for data
base log f
iles. The OS and Paging virtual disks are together on one physical esata drive and the
database and database log file virtual disks are on
the external
esata drive.

There is no host activity on either of these two physical esata drives.

Results:

Under VM
Lite 4.0 the startup time is now equal or close to the startup time under VMWare.

Under VMLite 3.2.x it was approx.. 2
-
3 times longer than the vmware startup time.

When I started testing with VMLite 4.x I experienced 50 % higher startup times (e.g 7 mi
n under
vmware and 11 min. under vmlite) until I changed the setting for
the
nested paging to enabled.

The
startup time than dropped significantly and got close to the startup time under vmware.

I also experienced sluggish behaviour of the mouse which I r
esolved by enabling absolute pointing
device.

I can now confirm that all of my intial performance issues with VMLite 3.x are resolved with this new
release of the product
. Well done guys.

I thought I share some of the screenshots I have captured during te
sting.

The graph was updated by
perfmon every 10 seconds.

Between each of the test the Host system was completely restarted to ensure all OS buffers, etc. are
flushed
.

Startup under VMWare (7
:
10

minutes)

Perfmon collected on H
ost


% Processor time
-


Max.
-

49.106, Avg.


31.6

% User time

-

Max.
-

5.7, Avg. 3.3

Perfmon collected on VMWare client


% Processor time
-


Max.


84.6, Avg.


48.1

% User time

-

Max.
-

71.4, Avg.


36.7




Startup under VMLite without nested paging

(
13
:
03

minutes)


Perfmon collected on H
ost


% Processor time
-


Max.
-

49.
067
, Avg.


3
5.4


% User time

-

Max.
-

8
.
2, Avg. 4.1



Perfmon collected on VM
Lite

client


% Processor time
-


Max.


98.2, Avg.


63
.
3


% User time

-

Max.


66.6, Avg.


24.9




Startup under
VMLite with nested paging

enabled

(
6
:
46

minutes)


Perfmon collected on H
ost


% Processor time
-


Max.
-

48
.
209, Avg.


25.2

% User time

-

Max.


19.7, Avg. 4.6



Perfmon collected on VM
Lite

client


%

Processor time
-


Max.


89.3, Avg.


37.4

%
User tim
e

-

Max.


73.5, Avg.


28.2


We can see that setting the nested paging and absolute pointing device made a huge difference and
brought the elapsed time of the application startup close to what it is under VMWare
. I have done
these same tests many times to confirm the elapsed times.

Summary

VMWare server appears to use approx. 500 MB more memory on the host compared to
VMLite even that the clients memory allocation is the same under both (4 GB). This is
another p
lus I have seen while comparing the two products.

I have been trying to further improve the elapsed time under VMLite by adding another CPU and
also adding another GB of memory. However the elapsed time didn’t improve which indicates to me
that most of tha
t time is spent in IO.

I have also tried using the Sata drivers instead of SCSI
and could see
a
n improvement of 5 % in
elapsed time for the startup of the application
. However when activating the caching at the
Controller level the memory consumption on
the host increased by about 500 MB and the restart
time of the application improved by approx. 25 % compared to not using the caching option.

I also removed all network adapters and only used the bridged network adapter to make sure the
network doesn’t cau
se any overhead.

As you can also see

using the above graphs

there is no issue on the host in regards to CPU shortage
or memory shortage. The host was never an issue here.

I would appreciate if you could give me some more recommendations on what configur
ation
settings I could try in VMLite to further improve the startup times of the application. I would assume
it would be at the IO level only (e.g. using different drivers). Also please keep in mind that I can
’t

change the OS of the client.

Again, I am ve
ry impressed with the results and the work you have done with the new release. I am
now a candidate to move over to VMLite workstation.

Let me know if you would like to have more detailed performance data captured (e.g. IO’s, Disk
queue lengths, etc.). I
can repeat the tests at any time.

Congratulation and t
hanks again for the great work
.