Squeezing Top Performance from your Virtualized SQL Server. David Klee, Group Principal and Practice Lead. Lincoln SQL Server User Group,

Transcription

1 queezing op Performance from your Virtualized QL erver David lee, Group Principal and Practice Lead Lincoln QL erver User Group, David lee Group Principal and Practice davidklee.net gplus.to/kleegeek linked.com/a/davidaklee pecialties / Focus reas / Passions: Performance uning & roubleshooting Virtualization Cloud Enablement Infrastructure rchitecture High vailability Disaster Recovery Health Monitoring Capacity Management virtualization.sqlpass.org 2 1

2 genda What does Virtualization Mean for DBs? Environmental Design & Performance Impact QL erver Virtual Machine Construction uned versus Non-uned Performance 3 Virtualization What Is It? Why hould DBs Care? 4 2

3 What is Virtualization? dded layer between hardware and operating system Hardware treated as physical resource queues Extension of the hardware, so is treated as part of the platform Not just P2Ving a single server Most DB s virtualization experience Virtualization layer is transparent to performance Expect at least equivalent raw performance (when done right) 5 Hypervisor Options (Q1 2014) ware vphere 5.5 Microsoft Hyper-V 2012 R2 6 3

4 Environment Underneath Your Data 7 Physical Environment Model Local Disks (O, Instance Home) QL erver QL erver B QL erver C 8 4

5 Virtualization (Private Cloud) Model VIRULIZION 9 Logical Environment Model 16 vcpu 128 GB vrm 8 vcpu 64 GB vrm vrm vrm vrm vrm vrm vrm V I R U L I Z I O N 150 GHz CPU 4 B Memory 4x10GbE Network 20 B ier 1 torage 40 B ier 2 torage 10 5

6 Configuration op to Bottom Performance 11 Host - Physical erver Fastest CPU cores vs. core count Maximize host memory capacity But ensure maximum memory performance (i.e. Configuration tips: et O-controlled CPU power management Enable CPU virtualization extensions Plan for no memory overcommitment Plan for no more than 80% resource consumption 12 6

7 (hared) torage Configuration ypes of storage Local torage (not recommended) Fibre Channel IP-Based (MB, ici, NF) ingle points of failure Multipath all paths RID ypes / Controller cache ware: PVCI Performance Benchmark all your storage Microsoft QLIO ( IOMeter( CrystalDiskMark ( Metrics to collect: hroughput (MB/s) I/OsPer econd (IOps) Latency (ms) 13 One Lane Highways vs. Interstate torage performance bottleneck potential Get fastest possible! Get most possible! Multi-pathing configuration & software Vendor-recommended HB queue depth settings Verify and test end-to-end performance 14 7

8 Network Performance est Verify network end-to-end performance Use iperf to test network throughput bit.ly/1edcybi How-o Guide: 15 Networking Performance ip Colocatetwo s on the same host to increase virtual network performance 16 8

9 Construction Performance-Oriented From Day One 17 Virtual Machine Configuration elect correct operating system Correct vcpu vnum configuration ppropriate vrm allocation Full memory reservation (Dynamic Memory?) CPU & RM O-level hot-add -> No vnum Use virtual disks whenever possible Right-ized virtual machine resources 18 9

10 Right-izing the Virtual Machine Right amount of vcpu and vrm resources Physical world = ize for requirements at end of life Virtual world = ize for your requirements right now ll resources must be scheduled by the hypervisor s resource queues Idle vcpus can actually slowapplication performance of all s on the host nalyze performance baselines and determine what you need Repeat right-sizing analysis quarterly More depth: How to right-size? Understand CPU scheduling. 19 CPU cheduling 16 vcpu 128 GB vrm 8 vcpu 64 GB vrm vrm vrm vrm vrm vrm vrm V I R U L I Z I O N (wo sockets, eight cores, no H) 20 CPU Ready to Run cheduling Queue 10

11 ware vcpu Ready ime vcpu Ready ime = Delay between vcpu task queue entry and execution of the task on a pcpu Performance impact of high vcpu Ready ime at kleecpuovercommit 21 Hyper-V CPU Wait ime Equivalent to ware vcpu Ready ime Hyper-V 2012 and above Perfmon counter: Hyper-V Hypervisor\Virtual Processor\CPU Wait ime Per Dispatch Jonathan ehayias writeup:

12 Virtual Machine Configuration - Disks Disk Layout C:-Operating ystem D:-QL erver Instance Home E:-ystem Databases (master, model, msdb) * F:-User Database Data (1 of X) G:-User Database Log (1 of Y) H:-empDB Y: -Windows Page file ** Z:-Backups 23 Windows erver O et power settings to High Performance (CPU-Z) 64B NF allocation unit size et antivirus exclusions for QL erver ( Background applications & processes Ongoing O-level performance metric collection No greater than five minute interval 24 x 7, not just as-needed Windows Perfmon, Microsoft COM, or any other thirdparty utility 24 12

13 Instance-Level Configuration et Max and Min erver Memory Leave enough headroom for O & background processes Enable Lock Pages in Memory Enable Instant File Initialization et MaxDOP = vnum node core count Cost threshold for parallelism = Not default Large Pages (understand pros and cons) empdb data file count Optimize for d-hoc Workloads 25 Benchmarks Demonstrate Raw Performance 26 13

14 Performance Benchmarks and Baselines he demonstration of performance is largely subjective Until you make it objective through benchmark metrics Must benchmark (and then create baseline): Each component of infrastructure underneath O QL erver Instance itself Long running tasks / jobs / queries nything else you can measure that matters to your users ools for benchmark statistics collection Perfmon / COM / ware vcenter QL erver DMOs LOD of third-party tools Monitoring and alerting 27 Instance Benchmark Utility - DVDtore Open source database server benchmarking tool ingle number output for relative instance-level performance comparisons Orders placed per test vailable from How-to at

15 Performance Example: uned vs. Non-uned s 29 DVDtore Performance Comparisons 2 vocketx 3 vcpu Core (+ vnum) 32GB vrm uned Multiple virtual disks with PVCI 50GB DVDtore database ll best practices applied 128 worker threads (2 tests x 64 t) pproximately 52% CPU utilized 774,925 combined orders placed in 60 min Not uned 6 vocketx 1 vcore(default) 32 GB vrm One large virtual disk Click-through QL erver install Had to reduce to 64 worker threads (connection timeout failures) pproximately 41% CPU utilized 538,164 combined orders placed in 60 minutes 31% slower than tuned 30 15

16 Conclusions Pick the hypervisor that best suits your environment Break down the silos around the infrastructure and application teams and work with them Understand your QL erver workloads Individual ggregate Validate target virtualization environment performance Virtualize everything Make sure you have your benchmarks to demonstrate equivalent performance Routinely check ongoing performance 31 davidklee.net gplus.to/kleegeek linked.com/a/davidaklee 32 16

17 hank You! 33 17