BC3209 and DV2484

I had on my schedule for today two sessions, BC3209 and DV2484. BC3209 was titled “Creating the Fastest Possible Backups Using VMware Consolidated Backup - A Design Blueprint”; DV2484 was titled “Server and Storage Sizing for VMware View”. You might be wondering why I haven’t published summaries of either of these two sessions.

I skipped out on BC3209 to attend the vCloud event with Paul Maritz, which—unfortunately—turned out to be a complete non-event. So, that’s why you don’t see any coverage of that session.

As for DV2484, I did attend the first 30 minutes of that session, but didn’t find anything particularly useful in the session. At least, nothing that I hadn’t already seen or experienced before. The portion of the session that I attended simply discussed how to gather information about the physical desktop. They did provide some examples of information they’d gathered:

  • Average of 130MHz of CPU utilization
  • Average of 5 IOPS of disk transfers
  • Average of about 75MB of RAM used by a VM with Windows XP/Office installed (after TPS kicked in and reclaimed some RAM)

I found the IOPS figure rather interesting; I’d had some conversations earlier in the week during the PTAB meetings with another participant around VMware’s reference architecture for VMware View. In those reference architectures, VMware had only specified 7 IOPS for each desktop, and that PTAB participant felt that number was far too low and, in fact, had been bitten by trying to use that reference architecture in real-world implementations. This makes me question the 5 IOPS figure that was presented in DV2484. The real question is, if 5 IOPS isn’t realistic, what is realistic? I’d love to hear some feedback from readers on that question.

Tags: , ,

  1. Justin’s avatar

    Scott,
    I felt the same way about DV2484. I stopped taking notes when I realized the numbers they were using were the same ones I saw back in VMworld and HP Tech Forum in 2007.
    Their numbers were junk and the info was dated. Bad session.

  2. DS45’s avatar

    Hi Scott,

    http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/yULdXLCJeUb59p7qqHsaxg?feat=directlink

    As you could see here in the storage, it’s about 10 times more I/Os that the theory. My hosts are 3.5U4 with Dual-XEON, 32 Gb of ram and ISCSI (with 9K jumbo frame) links.
    My users experience slowdown if more than 40 VMs/hosts.
    On eavy load,with 40 users, i didn’t saw more than 25Mo/s per LUN on the storage.

    It’s not a storage limitation because it could give us more than 16 000 I/Os on SATA disks :
    http://ds45.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-bonne-surpise-du-matin.html

    Another information : ISCSI is enough … (i had bench 120 Mo/s max by link)