It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

 
Go Back [M] > Madshrimps > WebNews
CPU Virtualization Performance Tested CPU Virtualization Performance Tested
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


CPU Virtualization Performance Tested
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21st May 2009, 12:39   #1
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,772
jmke has disabled reputation
Default CPU Virtualization Performance Tested

Server consolidation is superb for the IT professional who is also a hardware enthusiast. Hardware purchases used to be motivated by the fact that the equipment was written off or because the maintenance contract was at the end of its life. Can you even think of a more boring reason to buy new hardware? The time frame between the beginning of the 21st century and the start of commercially viable virtualization solutions was the timeframe where the bean counters ruled the datacenter. Few people were interested in hearing how much faster the newest servers were, as in most cases the extra processing power would go to waste 95% of the time anyway.

Now with virtualization, we hardware nerds are back with a vengeance. Every drop of performance you wring out of your servers translates into potentially higher consolidation ratios (more VMs per physical machine) or better response time per VM. More VMs per machine means immediate short- and long-term cost savings, and better performance per VM means happier users. Yes, performance matters once again and system administrators are seen as key persons, vital to accomplishing the business goals. But how do you know what hardware you should buy for virtualization? There are only two consolidation benchmarks out there: Intel's vConsolidate and VMware's VMmark. Both are cumbersome to set up and both are based on industry benchmarks (SPECJbb2005) that are only somewhat or even hardly representative of real-world applications. The result is that VMmark, despite the fact that it is a valuable benchmark, has turned into yet another OEM benchmark(et)ing tool. The only goal of the OEMs seems to be to produce scores as high as possible; that is understandable from their point of view, but not very useful for the IT professional. Without an analysis of where the extra performance comes from, the scores give a quick first impression but nothing more.

http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3567
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel K series relieve CPU multiplier limitation-Core i7-875K OC performance Review windwithme Hardware Overclocking and Case Modding 5 12th August 2010 20:18
Tuniq Tower 120 Extreme CPU Cooler Tested jmke WebNews 0 1st September 2009 16:14
Windows 7 vs. Vista CPU & Memory Performance Comparison jmke WebNews 0 28th August 2009 10:38
Asus Triton 79 CPU Cooler Tested jmke On the TestBench - Work In Progress 4 3rd May 2009 22:02
ThermoLab BARAM CPU Cooler Tested jmke On the TestBench - Work In Progress 1 3rd May 2009 22:02
OCZ Gladiator MAX CPU Cooler Tested jmke On the TestBench - Work In Progress 1 3rd May 2009 22:01
ATI Radeon HD 4890 Overclocked Performance Tested jmke WebNews 0 29th April 2009 08:31
[M] OCZ Gladiator MAX CPU Cooler Tested jmke WebNews 0 31st March 2009 19:19
Intel Core i7 940@3.2Ghz CPU Performance Tested jmke WebNews 1 18th October 2008 17:29
Half Life 2 CPU Performance Sidney WebNews 0 28th January 2005 16:15

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:41.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO