Virtualizing Cuts Web App Performance 43% 223
czei writes "This just-released research report, Load Testing a Virtual Web Application, looks at the effects of virtualization on a typical ASP Web application, using VMWare on Linux to host a Windows OS and IIS web server. While virtualizing the server made it easier to manage, the number of users the virtualized Web app could handle dropped by 43%. The article also shows interesting graphs of how hyper-threading affected the performance of IIS." The report urges readers to take this research as a data point. No optimization was done on host or guest OS parameters.
Re:Virtualize this (Score:5, Interesting)
You still take performance hits, but if you can scale your system by just adding cheap commodity systems, that works. Plug it in, boot it off a CD, and let the Cluster take control.
This has been my experience too (Score:4, Interesting)
That said,
I use a windows vmware session under linux for those times I have no choice, and it works just fine network-wise as a workstation.
Re:Well, (Score:3, Interesting)
But really. If you've got the money for the extra hardware to maintain performance, I say go for the virtualization, if only to make yout IT guys' lives easier (happy IT is useful IT).
Re:Well, (Score:3, Interesting)
In fairness, a 43% performance hit is a bit more than "a bit". It's cutting performance nearly in half.
I agree with your overall sentiment (a virtualized system is going to be slower than the same system running on real metal, by definition) but 43% is certainly a higher figure than I would have expected.
Re:Bogus Test (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, the COST of binary translation is never very high. A good BT engine gets essentially native performance (1% overhead is quite obtainable), and is limited only by the size of the translation cache.
But the conclusions don't match the research (Score:3, Interesting)
> These results indicate that a virtualized server running a typical web application may experience
> a 43% loss of total capacity when compared to a native server running on equivalent hardware.
This may lead to people believing that virtualiz]ation just isn't worth the advantages. The key problem is that there are several virtualization schemes. Off the top of my head, I can list:
* Xen
* KVM
* Linux-VServer
* OpenVZ
* User Mode Linux
* lguest
Each has it's pros and cons in terms of overhead, maintenance, and performance. Generalizing based on one VMWare configuration, is just plain foolish.
Let's not forget the old chroot approach that gives you 90% of the advantages of virtualizing web servers with few of the disadvantages.
The key thing to do is to pick the right technique for the right task.