Virtualization Performance on the IBM PureFlex System

89 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10003
www.TheEdison.com
212.367.7400

White Paper

Virtualization Performance on the IBM
PureFlex System

Printed in the United States of America
Copyright  2012 Edison Group, Inc. New York. Edison Group offers no warranty either
expressed or implied on the information contained herein and shall be held harmless for errors
resulting from its use.

All products are trademarks of their respective owners.
First Publication: April 2012
Produced by: Craig Norris, Sr Analyst; Barry Cohen, Editor-in-Chief; Manny Frishberg, Editor

This document was developed with IBM funding. Although the document may utilize publicly
available material from various vendors, including IBM, it does not necessarily reflect the
positions of such vendors on the issues addressed in this document.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Objective .................................................................................................................................. 3
Audience .................................................................................................................................. 3
Contents of this Report .......................................................................................................... 3
The Business Value of Virtualization ...................................................................................... 4
IBM's Unified Virtualization Infrastructure: PureFlex ........................................................ 5
TPoX: Benchmark Workload for Modern Virtualized DBMS-Based Environments...... 7
Benchmark Comparison Study and Results ........................................................................... 8
Test System .............................................................................................................................. 8
Test #1: Virtualization Tests and Results............................................................................. 9
 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 9
 Results.............................................................................................................................. 11
Test #2: Storage ..................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 15

Executive Summary

Using virtualization to consolidate data center servers has become an integral
component of the way successful companies design their IT infrastructures. Most,
however, use consolidation ratios of only around six virtual machines (VMs) per
physical server. Even world-class organizations typically are only consolidating at a
ratio of about 18 to 1 at best.1 Yet many commonly published virtualization benchmarks
test with hundreds of VMs per physical server, which the average data center
administrator has difficulty relating to their actual environment. This white paper is
meant to appeal to anyone seeking benchmark evaluations of consolidation solutions
that look more like what they themselves are doing or considering for their
organizations.

The tests described in this paper applied Transaction Processing over XML (TPoX)
benchmark workloads to the IBM PureFlex system: a synergistic solution capable of
simultaneously running and managing the best of heterogeneous IT environments —
Linux, AIX, Windows, and IBM i operating systems, POWER7- and x86-based integrated
technology elements (ITEs), PowerVM and VMware vSphere virtualization, HDD and
SSD storage — all in a general-purpose system having all the simplicity of an appliance.

TPoX is a much more suitable benchmark for assessing transaction processing
throughput for today’s complex, virtualized IT environments than traditional industry
standard benchmarks. In this paper, benchmarks are used to examine the throughput
performance for various system configurations the PureFlex system can accommodate,
as well as the ability of the solution to scale without degrading that performance. All
tests were performed on the same self-contained PureFlex system unit.

Key findings include the following:
 IBM PowerVM on the IBM POWER7 ITE can deliver over 78 percent more
throughput at 80 virtual machines (VMs) than vSphere 5 on an Intel Xeon E5-2690
(Sandy Bridge2)-based ITE.
 AIX and Linux deliver near equivalent performance in leveraging this PowerVM
capacity.

1Aberdeen Group report, Best-in-Class Practices for Virtualizing Microsoft Applications, August 2010
2Sandy Bridge is the codename for both the Intel microarchitecture innovation following Nehalem, and
generally for the associated family of 32nm processors based upon that microarchitecture.

Edison: IBM – TPoX Benchmark Results on IBM PureFlex System White Paper Page 1

 On either Intel-based or POWER7-based platforms, the PureFlex system exploits
IBM Storwize V7000 to deliver up to 10 times the number of VMS per SSD than is
possible using HDDs.

This paper makes clear that the IBM PureFlex system is a superior solution for running
and managing mixed IT environments in a unified solution. It also show that, for those
interested in getting serious about virtualized consolidation, PowerVM virtualization
technology on POWER7 processor-based platforms offers greater performance than that
offered by VMware vSphere 5 on Intel x86 platforms. It enables high consolidation ratios
and increased flexibility for a far superior virtualization solution.


Introduction

Objective

The objective of this white paper is to demonstrate the performance and capabilities of
IBM’s PureFlex system, presenting results that showcase throughput and virtualization
capacity for each of the multiple operating systems and ITEs comprised by this
advanced modular server system, as well as its storage subsystem and its next-
generation networking system. It describes tests using the industry-standard TPoX
benchmark to compare virtualization technologies. The results were reviewed, analyzed,
and presented by Edison Group.

Audience

This paper is intended for anyone interested in the advantages of server consolidation
through virtualization. The testing described herein employed a means of assessing
virtualization efficiency at a 5 VM-per-core ratio, which more closely reflects typical data
center environments than the hundreds of VMs per server tested in other commonly
published virtualization benchmarks.

CTOs, CEOs, IT managers, and others will find valuable information here that could
help them further enhance and/or adopt virtualization technology within their IT
environments.

Contents of this Report

This white paper contains the following major sections:
 The Business Value of Virtualization — This section discusses the business value
propositions underlying the benchmark evaluations presented in this paper.
 IBM’s Unified Virtualization Infrastructure: PureFlex — This section describes
IBM’s PureFlex system offering on which the benchmarks were conducted.
 TPoX — This section describes the TPoX benchmark and the reason for using it to
evaluate transaction throughput in modern virtualized environments.
 Benchmark Comparison Study & Results — This section presents the comparative
testing, describing the test equipment setup, the benchmarks, the actual tests, and
the results of the tests.


The Business Value of Virtualization

As the foundation platform for today’s data center, server virtualization is quickly
reaching maturity. Virtual machines now host more than half of business server
workloads.3 Virtualization has become the default build for new server installations,
reducing costs and establishing the foundation for more efficient and flexible
configurations and technology platforms. 4 The performance of virtualization is critical
to realizing success of server pools and cloud computing (and is also a key component in
IBM’s roadmap in its Smarter Computing initiative).

Well-implemented virtualization solutions may be employed to:
 Reduce hardware expenditures by consolidating multiple environments, including
underutilized servers, and systems with varied and dynamic resource requirements.
 Reduce costs for power and cooling, floor space, hardware maintenance, and
software licensing.
 Grow and shrink resources dynamically according to business needs.
 Deploy new workloads through provisioning VMs on new systems rapidly to meet
changing business demands.
 Develop and test applications in secure, independent domains while allocating
production to its own domain on the same system.
 Transfer live workloads to support server migrations, balance system load, or avoid
planned downtime that can otherwise adversely impact productivity.
 Control server sprawl, reducing system management costs.

Despite these benefits, the majority of businesses fall far short of seizing upon the full
potential of server consolidation. Their average consolidation ratios hover around six
VMs per server,5 yet economic advantages from data center consolidation increase
significantly at much higher VM densities. By increasing the consolidation ratio per
system, businesses can reduce capital expenditures and operational costs by reducing
the number of systems in their data center or IT organization.
IBM’s Smarter Computing systems, which allow for greater VM density without
degrading system performance, can deliver considerable economic advantages to
organizations using them. This study examines the performance and scaling aspects of
the IBM PureFlex system across the commonly employed industry benchmark TPoX.

3 The Value of Memory-Dense Servers: IBM’s System x MAX5 for its eX5 Server Family, March 2010, IDC
4 Ibid.
5 According to an Aberdeen Group report, Best-in-Class Practices for Virtualizing Microsoft Applications,

August 2010, even the best-in-class organizations in the study consolidate at only an 18:1 ratio.


IBM’S Unified Virtualization Infrastructure:
PureFlex

With the PureFlex system, IBM
brings together advanced
modular server and storage
technology in a virtualization
infrastructure that leverages
superior unified management
and integrated Ethernet and
fibre channel networking
technology.

The PureFlex system brings
IBM’s leadership in computing
systems and extensive expertise
in systems integration to a
synergistic solution capable of
simultaneously running and managing the best of heterogeneous IT environments —
Linux, AIX, Windows, and IBM i operating systems, Power Systems and x86-based ITEs,
PowerVM and various x86 virtualization platforms, HDD and SSD storage — in a
general-purpose system having all the simplicity of an appliance.

Based on solidly established patterns of expertise, the PureFlex system is designed to get
data center operations up and running in as little as four hours, cutting months off the
deployment time for new application projects. The major subsystems integrated into the
PureFlex system are:

 POWER7 Processor-Based Power Systems ITEs — Automatically optimizing
performance and capacity at either a system or VM level, these ITEs benefit from the
POWER7 processor, which contains innovative technologies that help maximize
performance and optimize energy efficiency. They represent the most flexible and
cost-efficient solutions for UNIX, IBM i, and Linux deployments available in the
market.
 IBM x86-Based ITEs — These ITEs support a wide selection of processor
technologies and operating systems. They are designed to reduce complexity,
improve systems management, and increase energy efficiency while driving down
total cost of ownership.


 IBM Storwize V7000 — This is a virtualized storage controller designed to
consolidate block and file workloads into a single storage system for simplicity of
management, reduced cost, highly scalable capacity, performance, and high
availability. It offers improved efficiency and flexibility through built-in solid state
drive (SSD) optimization, thin provisioning, and non-disruptive migration of data
from existing storage.
 Next-Generation Networking — The PureFlex system incorporates a platform
networking and storage fabric technology, utilizing integrated 16 Gb fibre channel
switches and 10 Gb Ethernet switches to enable heterogeneous ITEs to run
concurrently with little or no impact on each other, tying together these various
subsystems with Ethernet and/or FC into a single manageable system.


TPoX: A Benchmark Workload for Modern
Virtualized DBMS-Based Environments

One of the goals of this study was to more closely approximate typical virtualized data
center usage by organizations. This includes the type of application workloads to be
used in the testing. Cloud computing, database-as-a-service, and virtualization are
changing the way customers deploy databases, and a benchmark workload used to test
the transaction processing performance of DBMS-based applications should be able to
address these architectures, and illustrate to data center operators what they can expect
as they increasingly leverage virtualization.

TPoX (Transaction Processing over XML) is an application-level “XML database”
benchmark. It is an XML OLTP benchmark using data-oriented XML structures, very
large numbers of relatively small XML documents (1 kb to 20 kb), short read/write
transactions, and a high degree of concurrency. It essentially models a security-trading
scenario that uses a real-world XML Schema (FIXML).

TPoX can be used to evaluate any database that offers XML support. The TPoX
workload driver is architected such that only a thin layer (a single Java class) deals with
the specific interaction to the database system under test. The combination of these XML
and Java components makes the workload relevant for a wide range of web and
collaboration applications.

Applications in the real world typically have many concurrent users, a mix of read and
write operations, and millions or even billions of XML documents. This is exactly what
the TPoX benchmark is designed to capture. It simulates an actual application that
performs queries, inserts, updates, and deletes in a concurrent multi-user workload
using a real-world database. In the study to follow, the enterprise-class DB2 database
was used on all three platforms tested.

As a database-centric application, TPoX stresses CPU, memory, and storage I/O. It is
capable of driving high CPU utilization to study true technology capability. In addition,
in a multi-VM environment such as that tested for this study, it stresses the
virtualization infrastructure supporting these resources on the tested platforms.

TPoX is an open-source benchmark jointly developed by IBM, Intel, and others. The
benchmark, along with documentation and published results, is publicly available at:
http://tpox.sourceforge.net 6

6 Reference: http://nativexmldatabase.com/2011/03/04/new-tpox-benchmark-results-available/


Benchmark Comparison Study and Results

This section of the paper describes the system configuration used in the tests,
methodology employed, and results for each.

Test System

The test system consists of a single PureFlex system provisioned with the following
major subsystems:
 One IBM Power p260 node with two 3.56 GHz Power 7 processors
 One 2-socket ITE with 2.9 GHz Intel Xeon E5-2690 (Sandy Bridge) processors
 Two Storwize V7000 storage controllers, each provisioned with 24 300 GB SSDs
 Networking fabric comprising two 16 Gb fiber channel switches integrated into the
PureFlex chassis

Figure 1 (below) shows the positioning of the subsystems within the overall PureFlex
system unit.

Figure 1. Diagram of Test System


Table 1 (below) presents how the PureFlex system was configured for the TPoX
performance benchmarks.

NOTE: Not every component was necessarily utilized for every test.

IBM Flex System P260 Sandy Bridge 2-Socket
Compute Node Compute Node
Processors 2 x IBM POWER7 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2690
Guest Operating AIX 7.1
System(s) SUSE Linux Enterprise
SUSE Linux Enterprise
Server 11 SP2
Server 11 SP2
Virtualization IBM Power VM Enterprise VMware vSphere 5
Edition v2.2
Database Backend IBM DB2 v9.7
Workload TPoX v2.1
Storage IBM Storwize V7000 / SSD

Table 1: Configuration of the PureFlex System for TPoX Benchmarks

Test # 1: Virtualization Tests and Results

The goal of these tests was to determine aggregate transaction throughput performance
and VM scalability.

Methodology
These tests employed a VM-to-core ratio of 5:1. The system was scaled up from a single
core to two full sockets. In this way, tests were run on sets of 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 VMs,
each running TPoX, as shown in Figure 2, below.


TPoX Virtualization Tests
2 socket ITE

1 socket

1 core

5 VMs 10 VMs 20 VMs 40 VMs 80 VMs

Figure 2: TPoX Virtualization Tests Methodology

The TPoX benchmark is I/O-intensive and its performance is partially dependent on
storage performance. Both ITE platforms used the same PureFlex system storage
subsystem although each used a different Storwize V7000 Controller to store its data and
logs.

Each VM had its own XML database servicing clients; a 1 GB database was used in order
to match up with each VM’s CPU (0.2 core) and memory capacity (3 GB). A single-tier
TPoX configuration was chosen for each VM where the client and the database reside in
the same VM. The goal was to run enough clients to ensure that each VM reached high
utilization. The database for each VM on each of the platforms was populated with the
same configuration set. The transaction rate for populating the database is shown in
Table 2.

Flex System Sandy Bridge / VMware
p260/PowerVM/AIX vSphere 5
Order (inserts per second) 1915 1028
Custacc (inserts per second) 769 400
Table 2. TPoX Database Populated Rate for First Configuration Set


The VM configuration has multiple options on both PowerVM and VMware vSphere 5
technologies . These tests strove to utilize the full capacity of each core deployed. In the
case of PowerVM, five virtual CPUs (vCPUs) per core were sufficient to accomplish this.
In the case of vSphere 5, it was established in an earlier study 7 that two vCPUs per VM
was more efficient than one vCPU per VM. Thus, each core was configured with 10
vCPUs for the vSphere 5 subsystem.

For each test, the per VM transaction rate was measured, and the aggregate transaction
rate at the system level was reported.

Results
The results presented in Figure 3, below, indicate that the throughput performance rate
for populating the database are impressive for the Intel Xeon E5-2690 Sandy Bridge
compute node on the IBM PureFlex system. However, as may be expected, throughput
performance for Linux on POWER7/PowerVM technology averaged over 54 percent
better. A slightly greater advantage proved to be the case when the workload was run
on the AIX operating system. The POWER7/PowerVM advantage over Sandy
Bridge/VMware also tended to grow with the number of VMs, with POWER7/AIX
showing a nearly 76 percent advantage at 80 VMs, and POWER7/Linux showing a
similar advantage at 72 percent.

PowerVM / Flex p260 vs. vSphere / Sandy Bridge

10000
9000
8000
Transactions per Second

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
5VMs 10VMs 20VMs 40VMs 80VMs
Figure 3: TPoX Benchmark Results for Throughput Performance

7IBM PowerVM Virtualization Technology on IBM POWER7 Systems - A Comparison of PowerVM and VMware
Virtualization Performance, Edison Group, Inc., 2012.


Table 3, below, presents detailed information on the total number of TPoX users used in
each test, throughput, and VM configuration for each tests.

Total
System Configuration for TPoX Benchmark Virtual Total # of Transactions
(1 to 80 VM Scaling) # of VMs CPUs TPoX Users per second
IBM Flex p260 3.56 GHz DPSM mode, 2
socket, 256 GB RAM, SMT4 enabled,
PowerVM, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11
SP2 is the host OS for each VM. Each LPAR is 5 5 50 600
configured with 1 vCPU/ uncapped/3 GB
RAM 4 LPARs have 0.2 cores and 1 LPAR
have 0.1 core. Shared pool has one core
9 LPARs are configured each with 0.2/1 vCPU/
uncapped/ 3 GB memory, 1 LPAR is
10 10 100 1112
configured with 0.1/1 vCPU/uncapped/3 GB
memory. Shared pool has two cores
18 LPARs are configured each with 0.2/1
vCPU/ uncapped/ 3 GB memory, 2 LPARs are
20 20 200 2316
memory. Shared pool has four cores
37 LPARs configured with 0.2core/
1vCPU/uncapped and 3 LPARs configured
40 40 400 4710
with 0.3 cores/1vCPU/ uncapped. Shared pool
has eight cores
80 80 800 9499
configured with 0.1/1 vCPU/uncapped/ 3 GB
memory. Shared pool has 16 cores
2 socket 2.9 GHz, Intel Xeon E5-2690 compute
node with 256 GB system RAM (HT and
Turbo enabled in BIOS Intel VTx with EPT
HW virtualization assist) VMware vSphere 5.
Each VM has guest OS SUSE Linux Enterprise 5 10 50 428
Server 11 SP2. Each VM is given 0.2 of a core/1
2 vCPUs/3 GB memory. DB2 buffer pool for
data is configured in each VM. Schedule
affinity is set to cpu0 and cpu1.
Schedule affinity is set to cpu0 to cpu3 10 20 100 785


Total
System Configuration for TPoX Benchmark Virtual Total # of Transactions
(1 to 80 VM Scaling) # of VMs CPUs TPoX Users per second
IBM Flex p260 3.56 GHz DPSM mode, 2
socket, 256 GB RAM, SMT4 enabled,
PowerVM, IBM AIX .1 is the host OS for each
VM. VIOS is configured with 0.1 core/1 vCPU/
5 5 50 629
uncapped mode/ 4 GB RAM. Each LPAR is
configured with 1 vCPU/ uncapped/3 GB
RAM 4 LPARs have 0.2 cores and 1 LPARs
have 0.1 core Shared pool has one core
9 LPARs are configured each with 0.2/1 vCPU/
uncapped/ 3 GB memory, 1 LPAR is
10 10 100 1307
memory. Shared pool has two cores
20 20 200 2642
memory. Shared pool has four cores
37LPARs configured with 0.2core/
1vCPU/uncapped and 3 LPARs configured
40 40 400 5063
with 0.3core/1vCPU/ uncapped. Shared pool
has eight cores
LPARs are configured each with 0.2/1 vCPU/
uncapped/ 3 GB memory, 4 LPARs are
80 80 800 9703
configured with 0.1/1 vCPU/uncapped/ 3 GB
memory. Shared pool has 16 cores

Table 3. TPoX Benchmark Detailed Test Information

Test # 2: Storage

The Storwize V7000 storage controller in the PureFlex system provides the flexibility to
deploy any mix of both hard drive disks (HDDs) and Solid State Drives (SSDs). Since
OLTP applications (such as TPoX) particularly benefit from high-throughput storage,
the goal of this setup was to determine the effect that provisioning the Storwize V7000
controller with SSDs would have on the VM density capability of the PureFlex system.

Figure 4, below, presents a visual representation comparing maximum virtualization
possible using the TPoX benchmarks for the Storwize V7000 Controller provisioned with


a full 24 HDDs (for an earlier study 8), and the same controller provisioned with 24 SSDs
for the present study. As the figure indicates, a tenfold increase in the possible number
of VMs per core results in provisioning SSDs rather than HDDs.

HDD SSD
Storwize V7000 Controller with 24 HDDs Storwize V7000 Controller with 24 SSDs

Figure 4: VM Density Comparison between HDDs & SSDs

When the Storwize V7000 was provisioned with 24 HDDs, 12 HD spindles were
required for every four VMs in order to achieve sufficient parallelization to overcome
the latency (seek time) associated with HDDs. Unlike the mechanical HDDs, which are
limited by factors such as spindle speeds and actuator movement, SSDs involve no
moving parts. They consume a fraction of the power required to operate and to cool
HDDs, while taking up a fraction of the space.

SSDs can also yield I/O response times up to 100 times greater than HDDs, making them
particularly good choices for transaction-intensive workloads typical in database
applications. While once too costly for all but the highest-end performance-intensive
uses, SSDs have dropped in price considerably which — along with their savings in
space, power, and maintenance (due to much fewer devices needed and their non-
mechanical nature) — they can in certain scenarios actually be the more cost-effective
choice over HDDS.

8IBM PowerVM Virtualization Technology on IBM POWER7 Systems - A Comparison of PowerVM and VMware
Virtualization Performance, Edison Group, Inc., 2012.


Conclusions

This paper shows that the IBM PureFlex system can deliver VM consolidation in a
heterogeneous, self-contained environment capable of impressive levels of throughput
performance. It can dramatically reduce time to production for virtualized data center
application operations, providing multiple compute and operating system platforms,
advanced storage, and integrated networking in a single manageable system.

The benchmark results presented in this paper show that the IBM POWER7 processor-
based ITE platform using PowerVM virtualization, in particular, demonstrated
significantly superior throughput performance at all levels of VM population over the
x86 Sandy Bridge ITE platform using vSphere 5. IBM PowerVM technology — the
virtualization software built into the POWER7 processor-based systems — offers an
unprecedented level of platform support, scalability, efficient resource utilization,
flexibility, and heterogeneous server management. IBM PowerVM virtualization offers
autonomic resource affinity, resulting in higher workload performance in a virtualized
environment.

The IBM PureFlex system delivers efficient virtualization of IBM POWER7 Systems and
PowerVM technology, along with integrated IBM Storwize V7000 controllers that can
accommodate SSDs for maximum per-core VM density, making the IBM PureFlex
system an excellent foundation for cloud computing environments.

POL03114-USEN-01

Appendix A

This appendix describes the test methodology used to compare PowerVM to VMware
application benchmark performance across three (pLinux, AIX and xLinux) operating
systems on the IBM Unified Virtualization Infrastructure.

This performance evaluation characterizes hypervisor efficiency in scaling virtual
machines on POWER7- and x86-based integrated technology elements (ITEs ). The
experiments conducted assess the effect of adding VMs incrementally as well as
incrementally increasing system resource consumption. Throughput performance was
measured as the number of VMs was scaled from 5 to 80.

To ensure fair comparison across platforms and to remove variability across each set of
tests, the following actions were taken:
1. Deployment of optimized VM configurations in terms of virtual processors on each
platform and similar memory allocated per VM.
a. a. On PowerVM, resources can be allocated to an I/O hosting partition, therefore
resource allocation to I/O hosting partition is optimized for each set of tests on
Power systems. This is not applicable to VMware.
2. The same set of “benchmark parameters” were used across platforms.
3. Except for the virtualized workloads under investigation, a common software stack
was maintained across the three operating systems (DB server).
4. Tuning was performed based on best practices for respective platforms.
5. VMware vSphere 5.0, SuSE 11 SP2 (xLinux and pLinux), AIX 7.1, DB2 tuning.

System Tuning

X86 (Sandy Bridge) Integrated Technology Element
 System (uEFI/BIOS) default settings were used (HT enabled, Turbo mode enabled,
Operating Mode set to MAX performance).

IBM POWER7 Integrated Technology Element
 Dynamic Power Management / Favor Performance was enabled.

POL03114-USEN-01

Virtualization Tuning

VMware Virtual Machine Configuration Details
 VMware VMs were created using Virtual Machine version 8.
 Virtual Disk LSI Logic Parallel was used. It was noted that the LSI Logic Parallel
adapter and the LSI Logic SAS adapter offer equivalent performance. 9
 Updates were made to the latest VMware tools.
 esxtop –ab and vmstat were collected from the VM.

AIX and pLinux (PowerVM Guest OS) and xLinux (VMware Guest OS)
Tunings

AIX Tunings
*raso -r -o mtrc_enabled=0 (disables lightweight memory trace)
*ctctrl -P memtraceoff (disables component trace)
*errctrl -P errcheckoff (disables run-time error checking)
*skeyctl -k off (disables storage keys)
dscrctl -n -s 1 (disable prefetch)

 Remove the Java 5 version from AIX 7.1 install (the benchmark used Java 6).
 Disk queue depth increased to 20 on the VM (default 3 is low for this I/O-intensive
workload).

Disclaimer: These AIX tunings were done for benchmarking reasons; customers do not change
any of these tunables in a production environment unless they are asked to by the AIX support
team in the process of resolving an issue.

pLinux Tunings
 ppc64_cpu –dscrctl=1 (disable prefetch)

DB2 Tuning on all three operating systems (xLinux, pLinux, AIX 7.1)
 Database buffer pool (0.2 GB) is allocated for table space on each VM.

9 vSphere Help
POL03114-USEN-01

Virtualization Performance on the IBM PureFlex System

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Virtualization Performance on the IBM PureFlex System (20)

More from IBM India Smarter Computing (20)

Virtualization Performance on the IBM PureFlex System