IBM informix: compared performance efficiency between physical server and Virtualized serverr

VM technology Vs Physical
Servers: legends and facts
Eric Vercelletto
eric.vercelletto@begooden-it.com
1

“Me” in a nutshell
– Started my first Informix project in 1986, been an employee of Informix
Software in France and Portugal for 11 years, as tech support, trainer and
Premium Accounts technical consultant
– I run Begooden IT Consulting , an IBM ISV company, exclusively focused on
Informix technology services.
– I do what an Informix customer would expect from an Informix expert, but I do
it with fun and passion. As of now in Europe and Northern Africa.
– I can also contribute to defend Informix positions in your company
– Actions include the revival of the BeNeLux Informix User Group
(www.informix-clubhouse.org) , and technical leadership for the Informix
division in the Infocura Group (Belgium)
– I run several blogs and websites:
http://www.vercelletto.com
http://levillageinformix.blogspot.com (in french)
– http://www.informix-swat.com : a community site (almost non-profit) where
you can upload your resume for free if you are looking for an Informix job,
assignments or technical missions, and search for a technician if you are an
Informix end user company, IBM BP or HR
– I collaborate with Querix Ltd to evangelize and distribute those beautiful
application tools in France and French speaking countries
2

Agenda
 What is virtualization
 Who are the actors on the marketplace
 Advantages of virtualization
 Types of virtualization
 Important questions to consider before boarding
 Comparative benchmarks on x86 linux and
PowerLinux
3

Virtualization for beginners
• Virtualization is software or firmware
• virtualization is the process of simulating virtual
instances of hardware resource within a physical server,
into multiple watertight compartments
– CPUs/cores,
– Memory,
– network components,
– operating systems,
– storage
• It is opposed to creating one physical instance of those
resources in a physical server, which we have been
calling “a server” for a number of years
4

History of virtualization in 2 mn
• 1967: IBM Cambridge Scientific Center lab created the first
hypervisor named CP-40. It runs on a modified S/360-40
mainframe computer, running CP/CMS Operating System.
• The key new feature is the support of dynamic address
translation which finally allows multiple operation systems to
run simultaneously in separate contexts named virtual machines.
• 1967-1972: extension of this concept so that all the kernel tasks
can be virtualized, including interruptions and I/O
• This system is distributed to customers as a source code to be
compiled, with no technical support….
• 1972: IBM launches VM/370 ported on System/370, with
technical support 
• 1985: IBM launches the PR/SM hypervisor for Logical
Partitions(LPAR)
• 1999: Vmware launches Vmware workstation 1.0 on x86
• 2001: Vmware launches ESX Server 1.0
• 2005: Microsoft launches Virtual Server 2005
• 2008: Red Hat acquires Qumranet, including KVM in the package
5

Who owns the marketplace ?
Some names are on top:
– Vmware ESX on x86 hosts,
hosting Windows and Linux
– MS Hyper-V on x86 hosts,
hosting Windows only
– IBM PowerVM on PowerXXX,
hosting Linux, AIX, i5 OS
7
– Oracle VMServer on x86, hosting Windows, Linux, Solaris
– Kvm on x86, PowerPC and PowerLinux hosting Linux
– Xen on x86, ARM, hosting Linux, Solaris, MiniOS

Why should I virtualize my systems?
(says the VM vendor)
– Many surveys show that physical servers use only
10 to 20% of the their system resources.
8
77% waste
56% waste
85% waste
78% waste
54% waste
90% waste

(says the VM vendor)
– Many surveys show that physical servers use only
10 to 20% of the their system resources.
– Except for servers hosting “some” Red RDBMS 
9
No waste 

• Consolidation of each system resource into
one global resource pool (hypervisor)
=> optimized resource usage
• no rack opening , just configure resource
=> faster, more versatile configuration and
reaction capacity
• Native cloning functionality
=> simpler and faster deployment
• Good at High Availability
=> better service level to users community
• Many independent servers in one box
=> centralized, simplified administration
• More control on hardware expenses
=> Consequent IT budget savings
10

VM types: type 1,native or bare-metal
 the physical server runs
under a special software
layer called a hypervisor (Not
a standard OS)
 The hypervisor directly
addresses and manages the
hardware ressource in an
highly optimized way
 On top of this OS runs one or
several Virtual Machines
 Typical implementation of
bare-metal VMs are IBM
LPARs, Vmware ESXi, Oracle
VM Server, IBM PowerVM …
11

VM types : type 2 or hosted
 the physical server runs under a
« standard » OS like AIX, linux, Solaris,
Windows
 The hypervisor is one of the regular
processes running in that OS
 The hypervisor can run one or several
Virtual Machines
 Each Virtual Machine runs its own OS.
 OS’s can be different (Win,Linux …)
 Hosted OS must be hardware compatible
with host hardware (No AIX VM on a x86
box)
 Typical implementation of hosted VM are
VmWare Workstation, VmWare Player,
VirtualBox, Citrix/Xen, MS Hyper-V
12

13
Not type1 nor 2: IBM PowerVM

Before selecting a VM product:
the right questions to ask
– I have this or that hardware: which VM
product can run on this hardware ?
• Although many available hardware platforms can
run a hypervisor, I must identify which ones can
run on my hardware
• Some hardware platforms (x86 for instance), offer
more hypervisors brands choice than others
• Some hardware platforms are very specific: IBM
Power, Sun Sparc, etc.. And cannot run any
hypervisor brand.
14

– I want to run this or that OS, which hypervisor
can host that OS?
• Many hypervisors brands can host Linux
• Fewer hypervisors brands can host Windows
• Few hypervisors brands can host specific platforms
like IBM Power or Sun Sparc
• Very few hypervisors brands can host different OS
flavors
15

– Not all VM types are efficient to any application
• Bare metal VMs are more adapted to intensive
production applications because they work very close to
the hardware level, but they require a fully dedicated
hardware.
• Hosted VMs offer more flexibility than bare metal in the
sense that they do not need a dedicated hardware, but
they are also less powerful
– Do I need flexibility, do I need performance or both
?
– Must I/Should I/Can I virtualize application servers ?
– Must I/Should I/Can I virtualize database servers ?
16

Virtualization and Application Servers
17
• In most cases, application servers do not have
specific requirements in terms of hardware or
OS configuration
• In most cases, they are not very sensitive nor
demanding in terms of performance
• In most cases, the applications do not provide
any system to ensure high-availability
• => In most cases, application servers are good
candidates for virtualization for the above
listed reasons

Virtualization and Database Servers
• In most cases, database servers have specific
requirements in terms of hardware and OS
configuration
18
• In most cases, they are very sensitive
and demanding in terms of
performance

configuration
19
• In most cases, they are very
sensitive and demanding in
terms of performance
• In all cases, we love and cherish
our database servers because
we are responsible for them

configuration
20
• In most cases, they are very
sensitive and demanding in
terms of performance
• In all cases, we love and cherish
our database servers because
we are responsible for them
• Because of these reasons, we are somewhat
reluctant to believe in the VM software sales
person speech

Virtualization and DB Servers
What cannot we forget about?
• Database servers generally do no like running on poor IO sub-
systems
• Database servers generally do not like sharing CPU power with
other unpredictable applications
• Database servers work most of the time in SHMEM, the memory
subsystem cannot suffer from consolidation side effects
• Database servers are generally greedy in terms of Network
performance
• These points are critical factors to consider before choosing a VM
technology and configuring it.
• Hypervisor configuration and administration can get more complex
than the vendor said
• The sold configuration may be undersized and performance issues
sub-estimated, even if virtualization is sold as a versatile miracle.
• Those basic requirements must NOT be sacrified on the altar of
the Virtualization
21

What is the IBM Informix Hypervisor Edition ?
22
 Hypervisor Edition is packaged to be installed on private
cloud appliance
 It has the full set of Ultimate or Enterprise editions
functionality, with no limitations
 No limitation on scalability
 No limitation on MACH11 nodes
 It runs on IBM PureSystems
 Flavors are AIX and RedHat Linux
 Licensing works on a PVU metrics model

How does Informix failover ?
23
 Informix HDR replication mainly consists in replaying the logical logs on the other
side
 HDR logs buffer contents is transported to the replicate on a private tcpip
connection
 HDR knows about SQL transaction state
 HDR can be integrated in a MACH11 cluster

How do VM’s failover ?
24
 At failure time, a clone image of the Primary server is started on the other server
 This feature works quite well
 Storage has to be constantly and thouroughly replicated, unless you want unique
storage
 Storage replication is generally an expense technology
 Storage replication is a high bandwidth consumer
 Storage replication is blind about sql transactions

VM failover Vs Informix failover ?
25
 VM complete failover requires costly storage replication
 VM Failover is totally blind about db activity
 If you use VM failover, you won’t probably use MAC11 cluster
 Informix replication replication is much more flexible in the sense that
replication levels can be mixed:
 HDR,
 ER
 RSS
 SDS

Define the benchmark
27
 Objective: obtain elements and figures that can help me to make a ponderate and
accurate decision about the choice of a Virtual technology
 Evaluate VMWare vmplayer on a cheap linux X86_64
 No Vmware ESX available on time for evaluation 
 Evaluate IBM PowerVM on P750 PowerLinux
(thanks to IBM Montpellier Client Center Benchmark Team)
 Methodology: compare the efficiency of a physical (or nearly physical) server with the
same box used as a Virtual Machine
 Compare raw hardware performance (CPU power, Storage, Memory…) between
physical and VM.
 We will use the unixbench opensource benchmark for this
 Fire a series of TPCC Benchmark runs to obtain the best possible tpmC and define
the inflexion point for physical and VM.
 We will use our tpc-c for Informix benchmark for this., local esql/c
application talking on ipcshm

unixbench on x86Linux CentOS 6.5
Physical Server
29
Test result
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 15 643 048
Double-Precision Whetstone 16 642
Execl Throughput 28 556
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 1 335 430
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 344 462
Pipe Throughput 8 582 254
Pipe-based Context Switching 1 815 010
Process Creation 77 203
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 30 950
System Call Overhead 9 506 088
Overall unixbench 41 789 106

Unixbench on x86Linux CentOS 6.5
VMWare Server
30
Test result
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 15 345 585
Double-Precision Whetstone 16 309
Execl Throughput 18 905
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 294 858
Pipe Throughput 7 564 153
Pipe-based Context Switching 1 679 017
Process Creation 52 233
System Call Overhead 9 148 986
Overall unixbench 38 125 613

Unixbench on Intel Linux CentOS 6.5
comparison
31
1
10
100
1 000
10 000
100 000
1 000 000
10 000 000
VM05
SUPERGIGA

Deeper insight on IO comparison
32
0
500 000
1 000 000
1 500 000
2 000 000
2 500 000
3 000 000
3 500 000
4 000 000
4 500 000
5 000 000
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000
maxblocks
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000
maxblocks
VM05
SUPERGIGA

Unixbench on x86Linux CentOS x86
comparison
33
0
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
20 000 000
25 000 000
30 000 000
35 000 000
40 000 000
45 000 000
VM05 SUPERGIGA
Overall unixbench comparison
VM05
SUPERGIGA

TPC-C on the CentOS x86 physical server
34
2014-04-23_122345_010w_10t 35463,656tpmC
Transaction Count MinRT AvgRT MaxRT 90%90thAvg <2s <5s <10s <20s <40s <80s <150s >150s
Delivery 2021 0,012 0,357 3,082 100 0,357 2012 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 37104 0 0,05 1,411 100 0,05 37104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 35388 0,001 0,059 1,139 100 0,059 35388 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 3811 0,001 0,013 0,511 100 0,013 3811 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order
Status 3823 0 0,033 1,122 100 0,033 3823 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-04-23_144824_020w_10t 41703,255 tpmC
Delivery 3766 0,007 0,248 3,844 100 0,248 3716 50 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 43759 0 0,088 1,889 100 0,088 43759 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 41444 0,001 0,11 1,8 100 0,11 41444 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 4673 0,001 0,021 0,914 100 0,021 4673 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order
Status 4727 0 0,047 1,635 100 0,047 4727 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-04-23_162246_030w_10t 33846,437tpmC
Delivery 2071 0,009 0,744 5,899 99,95 0,741 1924 146 1 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 35188 0 0,136 3,152 100 0,136 35174 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 33671 0,001 0,213 2,011 100 0,213 33670 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 3864 0,001 0,057 0,932 100 0,057 3864 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order
Status 3973 0 0,036 1,791 100 0,036 3973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/2014-04-23_162518_040w_10t 26069,394tpmC
Delivery 1447 0,009 1,028 18,528 94,54 0,649 1191 177 68 11 0 0 0 0
Payment 26859 0 0,18 6,367 99,97 0,179 26636 216 7 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 26009 0,001 0,172 9,255 99,93 0,168 25861 131 17 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 3283 0,001 0,753 52,971 98,2 0,057 3219 0 0 5 34 25 0 0
Order
Status 3370 0 0,041 5,729 99,97 0,039 3357 12 1 0 0 0 0 0

TPC-C on a hosted Linux x_86Vmware
35
2014-04-24_064122_010w_10t 26689,595tpmC
Transaction Count MinRT AvgRT MaxRT 90% 90thAvg <2s <5s <10s <20s <40s <80s <150s >150s
Delivery 2438 0,013 0,231 1,175 100 0,231 2438 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 26908 0 0,067 0,899 100 0,067 26908 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 26677 0,003 0,113 1,359 100 0,113 26677 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 2737 0,001 0,046 0,548 100 0,046 2737 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 2791 0 0,025 0,759 100 0,025 2791 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-04-24_070332_020w_10t 26270,711tpmC
Delivery 2578 0,011 0,151 2,45 100 0,151 2577 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 23417 0,001 0,191 2,312 100 0,191 23416 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 24711 0,005 0,198 2,879 100 0,198 24688 23 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 2660 0,001 0,035 0,952 100 0,035 2660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 2717 0 0,025 1,713 100 0,025 2717 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-04-22_124448_040w_10t 17288,719tpmC
Delivery 1933 0,011 0,578 4,178 100 0,578 1835 98 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 14515 0,001 0,429 2,741 100 0,429 14475 40 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 16678 0,003 0,543 3,834 100 0,543 16326 352 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 2045 0,001 0,093 1,058 100 0,093 2045 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 2178 0 0,004 0,224 100 0,004 2178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TPC-C on the Linux x86 physical server
tpcc for 100 users vmstat-wise
36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
us
sy
id
wa
tpmC/1000

TPC-C on the CentOS x86 VM
37
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
us
sy
id
wa
tpmC/1000

TPC-C on the Linux x86
comparison in tpmC
38
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
35 000
40 000
45 000
1 user TPC/M 100 user TPC/M 200 user TPC/M 300 user TPC/M 400 user TPC/M
supergiga
vm05

Linux x86 Vmware ESX
reported missing
• We were supposed to have a Wmware ESX Server
• We did not have this server on time
• We are somewhat frustrated, but we’ll definately
run this benchmark on VMWare ESX
• Since Vmware ESX is bare-metal, we want to
believe that results will be much better than
vmplayer
39

Net External
Client
HMC
10.3.70.100
Admin Network 10.7.22/24
VIOS2
1 CPU Dedicated
4 GB of memory
VIOS1
1 CPU Dedicated
4 GB of memory
Zone 1 Zone 2
Port1
FC adpt
Port2
Port1
FC adpt
Port2
Disks multipath
Node 3
SVC
IOgroup 0
SVC
IOgroup 1
D-BGOOD-IFX
16 CPU Dedicated -- 128 GB of memory
Node 4
Node 2
Node 1
Virtual
Eth
10.7.22.10
Mutualized
8 ranks of
8 disks 10krpm
Disks
Zone
Power 750 8408-E8D
YOb02R
32 P7+, 1 TB RAM
IBM
DS8000
Virtual
FC (npiv)
Virtual
FC (npiv)
Mutualized
SATA disks
(OpenVPN)
The IBM PowerLinux partition
Kindly provided by IBM Montpellier Client Center

Unixbench on IBM PowerLinux
dedicated CPU+dedicated Vs Virt CPU+Virt IO
41
1
10
100
1 000
10 000
100 000
1 000 000
10 000 000
100 000 000
D-BGOOD PHYS
D-BGOOD-VIRT

Deeper insight on IO comparison
42
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
rnd RW Mb/s rnd RW Req/s seq Wr seq RW Req/s
D-BGOOD Virt
D-BGOOD Phys

Unixbench on IBM Power RedHat 6.5
comparison
43
1
10
100
1 000
10 000
100 000
1 000 000
D-BGOOD-VIRT D-BGOOD PHYS D-BGOOD-D+V
OverallUnixbench
OverallUnixbench

TPC-C on IBM PowerLinux
Dedicated CPU + Dedicated IO
44
050w_10t 96503 tmpC
Delivery 10744 0,023 0,126 1,14 100 0,126 10744 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 103685 0,001 0,094 0,994 100 0,094 103685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 96503 0,006 0,147 1,314 100 0,147 96503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 10914 0,003 0,044 0,854 100 0,044 10914 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 11299 0 0,011 0,314 100 0,011 11299 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
060w_10t 92922 tpmC
Delivery 9821 0,026 0,122 1,147 100 0,122 9821 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 87285 0 0,166 1,292 100 0,166 87285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 92922 0,003 0,148 1,436 100 0,148 92922 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 10072 0,002 0,015 0,315 100 0,015 10072 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 10171 0 0,002 0,095 100 0,002 10171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
080w_10t 90331 tmpC
Delivery 10155 0,054 0,301 1,259 100 0,301 10155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 96109 0,002 0,158 0,907 100 0,158 96109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 90331 0,014 0,257 0,969 100 0,257 90331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 10588 0,004 0,06 0,567 100 0,06 10588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 10982 0,001 0,027 0,291 100 0,027 10982 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PowerVM
Dedicated CPU + Virtual IO
45
050w_10t 101 952 tpmC
Delivery 110090.013 0.052 0.606 100.00 0.052 11009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 1002930.000 0.131 0.895 100.00 0.131 100293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 1019520.003 0.132 0.931 100.00 0.132 101952 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 109380.003 0.025 0.549 100.00 0.025 10938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 111360.000 0.004 0.196 100.00 0.004 11136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
080w_10t 94 436 tpmC
Delivery 112530.016 0.047 0.532 100.00 0.047 11253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 976760.000 0.130 1.314 100.00 0.130 97676 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 944360.003 0.281 4.618 100.00 0.281 94376 60 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 104070.003 0.098 0.946 100.00 0.098 10407 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 112720.000 0.004 0.158 100.00 0.004 11272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TPC-C on IBM PowerLinux
VIRT CPU + VIRT IO
46
050w_10t 90808 tpmC
Delivery 10063 0,017 0,044 0,29 100 0,044 10063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 90507 0 0,139 0,836 100 0,139 90507 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 90808 0,004 0,151 1,001 100 0,151 90808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 9907 0,002 0,031 0,561 100 0,031 9907 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 10134 0 0,003 0,233 100 0,003 10134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
060w_10t 87195 tpmC
Delivery 10063 0,018 0,044 0,288 100 0,044 10063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 89467 0 0,126 1,115 100 0,126 89467 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 87195 0,004 0,218 1,529 100 0,218 87195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 9611 0,003 0,067 0,828 100 0,067 9611 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 10105 0 0,002 0,244 100 0,002 10105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
080w_10t 83148 tpmC
Delivery 100030.013 0.050 0.313 100.00 0.050 10003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 848860.000 0.155 1.136 100.00 0.155 84886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Order 831480.004 0.310 2.106 100.00 0.310 83147 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stock Level 93330.003 0.098 0.990 100.00 0.098 9333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Order Status 100470.000 0.003 0.155 100.00 0.003 10047 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TPC-C on the TPC-C on IBM PowerLinux
dedCPU+dedIO
47
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
us
sy
idle
wa
tpcM/1000

Virt CPU +Virt/IO
48
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
us
sy
id
wa
tpmC/1000

Ded/CPU +Virt/IO
49
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
us
sy
idle
wa
tpmC/1000

TPC-C on IBM PowerLinux comparison
50
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
1 user TPC/M 300 user TPC/M 400 user TPC/M 500 user TPC/M 600 user TPC/M 800 user TPC/M
D-BGOOD-DCPU,DIO
D-BGOOD-VCPU,VIO
D-BEGOOD-DCPU,VIO

Conclusions
• Vmplayer
– It is simple to use and very handy to quickly build
environments with few ressources
– Not tailored for performance
– Use for dev or unit or integrartion test environments
• powerVM
– Very close to the hardware level
– Very good performance
– A real solution for production environments
51

Special thanks
• Art Kagel (@himself)
• Vladimir Kholobrodov (IBM,Kansas City)
• Fabrice Moyen & Sébastien Chabrolles(IBM, Montpellier)
• Laurent Revel (IBM, Montpellier)
• Gonçalo Ruivo (www.sumatra-surftrip.pt)
52

VM technology Vs Physical Servers:
legends and facts
Questions?
Eric Vercelletto
eric.vercelletto@begooden-it.com
53

IBM informix: compared performance efficiency between physical server and Virtualized serverr

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to IBM informix: compared performance efficiency between physical server and Virtualized serverr

Similar to IBM informix: compared performance efficiency between physical server and Virtualized serverr (20)

More from BeGooden-IT Consulting

More from BeGooden-IT Consulting (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IBM informix: compared performance efficiency between physical server and Virtualized serverr