Comments on: Say it isn’t so: Hyper-V and XenServer outperform ESX http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:01:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Rick Vanover http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-625 Rick Vanover Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:34:06 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-625 Also - note that I plan on more of these type of tests... So, give me ideas! Also – note that I plan on more of these type of tests… So, give me ideas!

]]> By: Rick Vanover http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-624 Rick Vanover Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:40:50 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-624 A couple of comments here. I made very clear in the review not to declare a winner - this is because the 'winning' criteria was not established. The one comment I made that flirted with that is where Hyper-V exceeded my expectations. Stuart Yarost informed me - well you've done a good test if your preconceptions are broken. As I would 'write the plan' to meet the expected results. Back to topic - everyone is assuming I'm offering this as information for the enterprise. Not so. I really am targeting this to the customer who is going to select the free hypervisors for small, unmanaged installations. This is very relevant to them, and as for local storage vs. SAN - yeah, I'll test SAN - but then get flamed for this configuration or lack of that configuration. And I'd be happy to run 3 weeks of test on your SAN! A couple of comments here. I made very clear in the review not to declare a winner – this is because the ‘winning’ criteria was not established. The one comment I made that flirted with that is where Hyper-V exceeded my expectations. Stuart Yarost informed me – well you’ve done a good test if your preconceptions are broken. As I would ‘write the plan’ to meet the expected results.

Back to topic – everyone is assuming I’m offering this as information for the enterprise. Not so. I really am targeting this to the customer who is going to select the free hypervisors for small, unmanaged installations. This is very relevant to them, and as for local storage vs. SAN – yeah, I’ll test SAN – but then get flamed for this configuration or lack of that configuration. And I’d be happy to run 3 weeks of test on your SAN!

]]> By: Massimo Re Ferre' http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-620 Massimo Re Ferre' Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:59:59 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-620 >Rick is saying that both Hyper-V and XenServer >deliver better performance for the heavy workloads. >ESX is better suited for lighter workloads and >actually will handle more of them than Microsoft and >Citrix making it the better “scale up” solution This reminds me of what my "high-end" colleagues say about the difference between the mainframe (a truck) and an x86 server (a car). Sure the car is faster but you can bring more stuff with a truck. It's interesting how all these concepts are now scaling down into my x86 realm as well and into the software space. Massimo. P.S. my comment assumes the test is realistic. I am sure there are many people at VMware that would like to challenge the results. >Rick is saying that both Hyper-V and XenServer
>deliver better performance for the heavy workloads.
>ESX is better suited for lighter workloads and
>actually will handle more of them than Microsoft and
>Citrix making it the better “scale up” solution

This reminds me of what my “high-end” colleagues say about the difference between the mainframe (a truck) and an x86 server (a car). Sure the car is faster but you can bring more stuff with a truck. It’s interesting how all these concepts are now scaling down into my x86 realm as well and into the software space.

Massimo.

P.S. my comment assumes the test is realistic. I am sure there are many people at VMware that would like to challenge the results.

]]> By: Prestaties van Hyper-V, XenServer en ESX vergeleken « EarlyBert http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-617 Prestaties van Hyper-V, XenServer en ESX vergeleken « EarlyBert Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:40:22 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-617 [...] Jason Boche verbaast zich ook over het resultaat. In het commentaar daarop komt onder andere naar voren dat het begrip “zware workloads” een wat uitgeholde mening heeft in het onderzoek. Dit omdat er alleen van local storage gebruik is gemaakt, en niet van shared SAN’s. Een enterprise oplossing - waar je de zware workloads mag verwachten - zal altijd shared storage gebruiken. [...] [...] Jason Boche verbaast zich ook over het resultaat. In het commentaar daarop komt onder andere naar voren dat het begrip “zware workloads” een wat uitgeholde mening heeft in het onderzoek. Dit omdat er alleen van local storage gebruik is gemaakt, en niet van shared SAN’s. Een enterprise oplossing – waar je de zware workloads mag verwachten – zal altijd shared storage gebruiken. [...]

]]> By: Christiaan Roeleveld http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-616 Christiaan Roeleveld Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:49:50 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-616 Hyper-V and Xen use the hardware virtualization assist from the cpu's. VMware is using software binary translation for 32bit guests. In the early days of Intel VT en AMD-v vmware's software binary translation was faster then the hardware assist. These days the hardware assist seems to outperform software virtualization. This is why xen and hyper-v are outperforming vmware on 32bit guests. Just wait for ESX4 :) VMware will also start using the hardware assist more and more. just wondering: did they test 64bit guests? since esx uses hardware assist for these guest one can assume this wil perform the same as xen and hyper-v. Hyper-V and Xen use the hardware virtualization assist from the cpu’s. VMware is using software binary translation for 32bit guests. In the early days of Intel VT en AMD-v vmware’s software binary translation was faster then the hardware assist. These days the hardware assist seems to outperform software virtualization. This is why xen and hyper-v are outperforming vmware on 32bit guests.

Just wait for ESX4 :) VMware will also start using the hardware assist more and more.

just wondering: did they test 64bit guests? since esx uses hardware assist for these guest one can assume this wil perform the same as xen and hyper-v.

]]> By: Heino Skov http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-614 Heino Skov Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:23:23 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-614 And forgot this point. Normally you would also mix and match your heavy workloads with your smaller workloads in a ESX environment. And forgot this point. Normally you would also mix and match your heavy workloads with your smaller workloads in a ESX environment.

]]> By: Heino Skov http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-613 Heino Skov Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:15:37 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-613 Interesting. I'm with Larstr on this one. I do think the paravirtulized architecture has an influence on this. Could it have something to do with ESX's 32-bit hypervisor as well, where both XenServer and Hyper-V has 64-bit on their hypervisor. Any could see this as a reason? Interesting. I’m with Larstr on this one. I do think the paravirtulized architecture has an influence on this.

Could it have something to do with ESX’s 32-bit hypervisor as well, where both XenServer and Hyper-V has 64-bit on their hypervisor. Any could see this as a reason?

]]> By: Sean Clark http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-612 Sean Clark Sun, 08 Mar 2009 04:45:38 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-612 Must resist urge to comment on vReligion.....Focus, Sean. Focus! Okay, I'm back from the ledge. All the hypervisor performance bake-offs have been with local storage. Ron's bake-off: http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/gabeknuth/archive/2008/04/03/xen-vs-esx-head-to-head-video.aspx and the VRC bake-offs http://www.virtualrealitycheck.net/ have all been with local storage. Have there been any bake-offs with SAN storage for the back-end? If this same performance benefit doesn't exist in a shared storage environment, then why would the results matter? The environments small enough to not afford a SAN, wouldn't have a workload that could benefit from the added performance. Good post to get people talking, Jason. Must resist urge to comment on vReligion…..Focus, Sean. Focus! Okay, I’m back from the ledge.

All the hypervisor performance bake-offs have been with local storage. Ron’s bake-off: http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/gabeknuth/archive/2008/04/03/xen-vs-esx-head-to-head-video.aspx and the VRC bake-offs http://www.virtualrealitycheck.net/ have all been with local storage. Have there been any bake-offs with SAN storage for the back-end? If this same performance benefit doesn’t exist in a shared storage environment, then why would the results matter? The environments small enough to not afford a SAN, wouldn’t have a workload that could benefit from the added performance.

Good post to get people talking, Jason.

]]> By: Ken Cline http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-611 Ken Cline Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:46:44 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-611 Jason, Great article...see my response <a href="http://kensvirtualreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/reaction-to-say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> Thanks! KLC Jason,

Great article…see my response here

Thanks!
KLC

]]> By: Tarry Singh http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-610 Tarry Singh Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:57:52 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-610 Couldn't agree more with Keen here. Tarry Couldn’t agree more with Keen here.

Tarry

]]> By: Shawn http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-609 Shawn Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:49:51 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-609 I would like to see some more thorough testing across many different hardware platforms before I would conclude that any of the solutions outperforms another. Even though the config was equal, it was only one. If you don't have 'enterprise' infrastructure (ie no SAN) you don't get HA, live migration, etc, either. You can't have those features without shared storage so any of the 'free' options will meet your needs. Who is making revenue on that? I would like to see some more thorough testing across many different hardware platforms before I would conclude that any of the solutions outperforms another. Even though the config was equal, it was only one. If you don’t have ‘enterprise’ infrastructure (ie no SAN) you don’t get HA, live migration, etc, either. You can’t have those features without shared storage so any of the ‘free’ options will meet your needs. Who is making revenue on that?

]]> By: Michael Keen http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-608 Michael Keen Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:13:17 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-608 Jason, I know it had to really hurt to say that, but look at it this way; no matter what "religion" you are if customers are "getting religion" everyone wins right? Like my grandfather used to say, "a rising tide floats all boats". Cheers Michael Jason,

I know it had to really hurt to say that, but look at it this way; no matter what “religion” you are if customers are “getting religion” everyone wins right? Like my grandfather used to say, “a rising tide floats all boats”.

Cheers
Michael

]]> By: larstr http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-607 larstr Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:45:15 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-607 As XenServer has a paravirtualized scsi driver (while ESX is emulating a scsi card (lsilogic/buslogic)), it's storage performance is actually slightly outperforming ESX in most situations (but not much). This is also what I found here: http://vmfaq.com/entry/33/ ..and also what Ron Oglesby found in his testing here: http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/gabeknuth/archive/2008/04/03/xen-vs-esx-head-to-head-video.aspx Lars As XenServer has a paravirtualized scsi driver (while ESX is emulating a scsi card (lsilogic/buslogic)), it’s storage performance is actually slightly outperforming ESX in most situations (but not much).

This is also what I found here: http://vmfaq.com/entry/33/

..and also what Ron Oglesby found in his testing here: http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/gabeknuth/archive/2008/04/03/xen-vs-esx-head-to-head-video.aspx

Lars

]]> By: Duncan http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-605 Duncan Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:16:20 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-605 I really don't know what to think of the outcome. I really don’t know what to think of the outcome.

]]> By: jason http://www.boche.net/blog/index.php/2009/03/07/say-it-isnt-so-hyper-v-and-xenserver-outperform-esx/comment-page-1/#comment-604 jason Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:30:07 +0000 http://www.boche.net/blog/?p=1133#comment-604 Thank you for the comment Shawn. While I could agree that the setup didn't accurately reflect a true enterprise environment, the fact remains that it was a level playing field and ESX did not deliver the performance that Hyper-V and XenServer did using the same configuration. Small businesses won't have enterprise level infrastructure but they may still have enterprise level applications and/or heavy workloads. With this information, it sounds like the choice for SMBs is clear: Microsoft or Citrix. You have no idea how painful it is for me to say that. Thank you for the comment Shawn. While I could agree that the setup didn’t accurately reflect a true enterprise environment, the fact remains that it was a level playing field and ESX did not deliver the performance that Hyper-V and XenServer did using the same configuration.

Small businesses won’t have enterprise level infrastructure but they may still have enterprise level applications and/or heavy workloads. With this information, it sounds like the choice for SMBs is clear: Microsoft or Citrix. You have no idea how painful it is for me to say that.

]]>