Cisco Blogs


Cisco Blog > Data Center and Cloud

Introducing TPCx-HS – first Industry Standard for Benchmarking Big Data Systems

Over the past quarter century, industry standard benchmarks have had a significant impact on the computing industry. Vendors use benchmark standards to illustrate performance competitiveness for their existing products, and to improve and monitor the performance of their products under development. Many buyers use the results as points of comparison when purchasing new computing systems.

Continuing on the Transaction Processing Performance Council’s commitment to bring relevant benchmarks to industry, it is my great pleasure to announce TPCx-HS – the first standard that provides verifiable performance, price/performance and energy consumption metrics for big data systems. TPCx-HS can be used to asses a broad range of system topologies and implementation methodologies for Hadoop, in a technically rigorous and directly comparable, vendor-neutral manner. And while modeling is  based on a simple application, the results are highly relevant to Big Data hardware and software systems.

Developing an industry standard benchmark for a new environment like Big Data has taken the dedicated efforts of experts across many companies. I would like to thank the contributions of  Andrew Bond (Red Hat), Andrew Masland (NEC), Avik Dey (Intel), Brian Caufield (IBM), Chaitanya Baru (SDSC), Da Qi Ren (Huawei), Dileep Kumar (Cloudera), Jamie Reding (Microsoft), John Poelman (IBM), Karthik Kulkarni (Cisco), Meikel Poess (Oracle), Mike Brey (Oracle), Mike Crocker (SAP), Paul Cao (HP), Reza Taheri (VMware), Simon Harris (IBM), Tariq Magdon-Ismail (VMware), Wayne Smith (Intel), Yanpei Chen (Cloudera), Michael Majdalany (L&M), Forrest Carman (Owen Media) and Andreas Hotea (Hotea Solutions).

I envision that TPCx-HS will be a useful benchmark standard to buyers, as they evaluate new systems for Hadoop deployments in terms of performance, price/performance and energy efficiency. And for vendors in demonstrating competitiveness of their products.

Sincerely,
Raghunath Nambiar
(Chair TPC Big Data Committee)

Additional information
TPCx-HS Portal
TPC Press Release
TPC takes the measure of big data systems by Joab Jackson

What’s Your Take on Enterprise Class Public Cloud (ECPC)?

There’s no doubt this question yields myriad of responses. Your input, thoughts, and perspectives are much appreciated. And here are few of my own recommended reads regarding the topic:

  • If you have not already read Xander Uyleman’s blog on “Finding the Perfect Cloud Service Provider”, I highly recommend you take a few minutes to read it.
  • Overcoming business risks in the cloud is a major concern for many. Read Robert Dimicco’s blog for steps on how to best approach and defeat these challenges.
  • The latest special edition of Unleashing IT, published in partnership with Intel®, focuses on customers who have put their trust in Cisco Powered partners to deliver an ECPC to support their business—and it seems to be working well for them.

One of the most promising ways to approach IT concerns is to see how others are addressing them. To that end, I hope you’ll take a moment to subscribe to Unleashing IT so you can stay informed of how other companies and organizations much like your own are strategizing to stay ahead of their competition.

I’ve personally had several interesting conversations with customers around data center strategies.

On one occasion, it was very clear that the customer was not interested the business of “babysitting” hardware. I can relate; the laptop I am using to write this blog can be as demanding as a newborn at times—not fun when you are trying to work productively. Bottom line: the customer was looking for a service provider to meet all their demanding IT needs, including security and compliance, so they could focus on aspects other than IT management. I’m convinced their needs have been met—perhaps even exceeded—by a Cisco-certified service provider.

On the flip side, I’ve heard an argument from a start-up company that because they had access to schematic diagrams of the hardware they needed to support their business, they could simply build their own white box using over-the-counter components.

a380

I have access to schematic diagrams (and kits) so I can build my own aircraft. Sounds great—in theory. Realistically, though, it doesn’t mean that I would actually do it. Especially if I have access to a fleet of rentals that I can book and fly anytime, then leave in someone else’s expert care after completing my journey. I think you get my point—and so did they. My unsolicited advice: consider an ECPC.

Lastly, I’ve of course had the “I can’t afford it” conversation. This one took more time, a few lattes, and discussions around the source of the budgets (CapEx versus OpEx). By the end of our conversation, the customer agreed that if an ECPC that met their IT requirements could be funded using OpEx, it might very well be a good fit.

latte

But I digress. To hone in on the actual question at hand, here’s my opinion: Absolutely. ECPCs do exist, and can be beneficial to your business, provided you make informed decisions and ask the right questions of your service provider. If you find the right fit, outsourcing will allow you to effectively move workloads to an ECPC with confidence. And if, after all of that, you are still not sure, consider kicking the tires with a DRaaS solution for some of those workloads and scale that environment once you have gained more confidence in your provider.

flying

When your business is on the line, there’s more to it than just deciding to have a third party manage your IT assets. You need to select a service provider you can rely on and confide in to guarantee your business is in good hands. Cisco Powered™ Cloud and Managed Services brings together everything you may need, and Cisco Powered partners are trusted experts who can help you realize the benefits of an ECPC.

Learn more here.

 

Engineers Unplugged S6|Ep4: onePK

August 13, 2014 at 10:36 pm PST

In this week’s episode of Engineers Unplugged, we welcome for the first time (and not the last) guest host Janel Kratky (follow her @jlkratky)! She’s hosting Jason Pfeifer and Glue Network’s Gregg Wyant as they discuss onePK and how to apply it to the real world. You don’t want to miss this one, it ends with a Glunicorn.

If you would like to become Internet Famous, and strut your unicorn talents, join us for our next filming session at VMworld 2014. Tweet me for details!

This is Engineers Unplugged, where technologists talk to each other the way they know best, with a whiteboard. The rules are simple:

  1. Episodes will publish weekly (or as close to it as we can manage)
  2. Subscribe to the podcast here: engineersunplugged.com
  3. Follow the #engineersunplugged conversation on Twitter
  4. Submit ideas for episodes or volunteer to appear by Tweeting to @CommsNinja
  5. Practice drawing unicorns

Join the behind the scenes by liking Engineers Unplugged on Facebook.

Tags: , , , , ,

Straight Talk About Cloud: 20 Providers and What They Think You Want

There’s a lot of talk about cloud, and for good reason.  According to a new white paper from IDC, 68% of companies with more than 1,000 employees are using some form of cloud or plan to implement cloud within the next 12 months.  In addition, these companies adopting cloud expect to spend 54% of their IT budgets on cloud in two years.

For the white paper, IDC contacted 20 providers from among the more than 200 cloud providers offering Cisco Powered services.  What makes the white paper unique is that these providers were asked to share their perspective on how their customers perceive value.  These are the companies who are investing substantial resources into building out their infrastructure to be able to offer your organization cloud services as you need them.  They make their investments based on what they believe are your primary needs and key concerns.

Specifically, the white paper explores which perceived factors are the most important to cloud providers in reaching you, their customer.  It also reveals how these providers seek to differentiate themselves and where they see the best value in their cloud infrastructure investments.

You can watch the video and read the full IDC white paper for yourself.  The white paper was also reported on by Computerworld.

Tags: , , ,

500-Seat Reference Architecture with Cisco UCS C-Series and Citrix XenApp 7.5

1_TitleWith the World Cup games recently finished, I’m reminded of how rampantly soccer has swept across the U.S. in the last few years. Kids often start quite young — there are leagues for even five and six year olds! One element that helps younger kids enjoy their first soccer experience is that the balls are sized smaller in line with their height, making it easier for them to kick and control the ball. It’s an everyday example of how there can be better results when a tool is well matched with “entry-level” requirements.

Deploying an entry-level desktop virtualization solution follows similar logic. For a deployment to be successful, there must be a balance between the solution, its cost, and its ease of implementation, especially when the number of users is small. For large corporate environments with a few thousand users, it’s much easier to defray CAPEX costs across a large number of users, realize a low cost-per-seat, and rely on IT administrative staff to deploy and manage the solution. For smaller environments like branch offices or SMBs, deploying and managing a comprehensive desktop virtualization solution has generally been too complex and cost-prohibitive — until now.

Cisco and Citrix have collaborated on a new reference architecture that removes the barriers to smaller deployments, making it easy to deliver Microsoft Windows apps and desktops to a variety of client and mobile devices. Based on Cisco and Citrix technologies, the architecture creates a self-contained, easy-to-deploy, and centrally managed solution that supports 500 seats cost-effectively. This is a new Cisco and Citrix solution designed for fault-tolerant deployments of less than 1000 users, opening the door to new desktop virtualization opportunities in branch offices, SMBs, pilot projects, and test and development environments.

Citrix and Cisco test engineers validated the reference architecture and conducted a series of sizing tests using Login VSI. The testing demonstrated how the architecture can support up to 500 Medium/Knowledge Workers or 600 Light/Task Workers while delivering an outstanding end user experience. This blog gives a brief synopsis of the architecture, its benefits, the testing we conducted, and the test results. For more details, you can read the full reference architecture paper and test report here.

Architectural Overview

Figure 1 shows key solution components. Three Cisco UCS C240 M3 Rack Servers combine industry-standard, x86 servers with networking and storage access into a single converged system. The C-Series servers are part of the Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) family of products. They have a compact 2RU form factor and use the same stateless, streamlined provisioning and operations model as Cisco UCS B-Series Blade Servers. Cisco UCS 6248UP 48-Port Fabric Interconnects supply 10-GigabitEthernet, Cisco Data Center Ethernet, Fibre Channel, and FCoE connectivity needed for the solution.

Figure 1. 500-User Architecture for Citrix XenApp 7.5 on Cisco UCS C240 M3 Rack Servers

2_ARCH

The Citrix XenApp 7.5 release delivers a Windows OS and applications to mobile devices (including laptops, tablets, and smartphones) with a native-touch experience and high performance. In this architecture, the XenApp software delivers 500 Hosted Shared Desktop (HSD) sessions using Remote Desktop Services (RDS). Citrix XenServer 6.2 is the hypervisor that supports virtual machines (VMs) running Microsoft Windows 2012 Server for XenApp and infrastructure services.

Using local storage is essential to achieving an entry-level price point. To make that possible with just twelve 10,000RPM SAS drives, each server includes an LSI Nytro MegaRAID card containing two 100GB flash memory cards for caching I/O operations. Using the LSI Nytro flash cache in conjunction with local storage is a key differentiator for this solution, allowing it to deliver responsive performance while conserving cost.

Why the Buzz?

The reference architecture is an exciting breakthrough for these reasons:

  • Self-contained, all-in-one solution. The architecture defines an entirely self-contained “in-a-box” solution with all of the infrastructure elements required for a XenApp 7.5 deployment, including Active Directory, DNS, SQL Server, and more. This takes the complexity out of deploying a desktop virtualization solution especially for small standalone environments.
  • Fault-tolerant architecture. The architecture locates redundant infrastructure virtual machines across two Cisco UCS C-Series servers to optimize availability. The solution also configures N+1 XenApp servers to maintain service levels even if a XenApp server failure occurs. In addition, Microsoft Distributed File System services are used across multiple servers to protect user data on local storage.
  • Easy to build, deploy, grow, and maintain. The compact design of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers keeps the footprint small, making the solution easy to deploy in a small business or branch office setting. Since the C-Series servers are part of the Cisco UCS product family, they can be managed as standalone systems or alongside existing blade and rack servers using Cisco UCS Manager.

By adding Cisco UCS Central Software to the solution, companies can extend Cisco UCS Manager capabilities, allowing administrators to manage multiple Cisco UCS domains (such as domains for satellite offices) in conjunction with centrally defined policies. Both the C-Series Rack Servers and B-Series Blade Servers can be managed using the same set of management tools.

  • Low cost per seat. The architecture avoids expensive flash drives, instead caching IOPs in flash memory on the LSI Nytro cards. The choice of less expensive SAS drives helps to rein in solution costs while providing excellent end user experience.

Test Configuration

Figure 2 shows the virtual machines deployed across the three physical servers in the test configuration. Infrastructure VMs were hosted on two of the Cisco UCS C240 M3 Servers, and each server also hosted eight XenApp 7.5 HSD VMs. The redundancy across physical servers yields a highly available design.

Figure 2. Test Configuration

3_LOGICAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 lists specific components in the test configuration.

Hardware components

Software components

3 x Cisco UCS C240-M3 Rack Servers (dual Intel   Xeon E5-2697v2 Processors @ 2.7 GHz, 256GB of memory, one Cisco VIC1225   network adapter) Cisco   UCS Manager 2.2(1d)
1 x LSI Nytro MegaRAID Controller NMR 8110-4i card   per server Citrix XenApp 7.5
12 x 600-GB 10,000 RPM hot-swappable hard disk   drives XenServer   6.2 Hypervisors and XenCenter 6.2
2 x Cisco 6248UP 48-port Fabric Interconnects Microsoft Windows   Server 2012 R2, 64-bit Remote Desktop Services (5vCPU, 24GB of memory per VM)

 

Local storage was organized into drive groups to create RAID 5 and 10 volumes for the hypervisor, infrastructure services, and XenApp VMs. The XenApp 7.5 VMs were provisioned with Machine Creation Service (MCS) differencing disks. MCS differencing disks are virtual hard disks that store desktop changes during Hosted Shared Desktop sessions and they incur a high number of IOPS. The LSI Nytro cards are specifically configured to accelerate IOPs for the I/O-intensive volumes that contain the MCS differencing disks.

4_LSI

Test Methodology

To generate load, we used the Login VSI 3.7 software to simulate multiple users accessing the XenApp 7.5 environment and executing a typical end user workflow. Login VSI 3.7 tracks user experience statistics, looping through specific operations and measuring response times at regular intervals. Collected response times determine VSImax, the maximum number of users the test environment can support before performance degrades consistently. Because baseline response times can vary depending on the virtualization technology used, using a dynamically calculated threshold provides greater accuracy for cross-vendor comparisons. For this reason, Login VSI also reports VSImax Dynamic.

At the start of the testing, we executed performance monitoring scripts to record resource consumption for the hypervisor, virtual desktop, storage, and load generation software. At the beginning of each test run, we took the desktops out of maintenance mode, started the virtual machines, and waited for them to register. The Login VSI launchers then initiated the desktop sessions and began user logins (the ramp-up phase). Once all users were logged in, the steady state portion of the test began in which Login VSI executed the application workload, running applications like Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer (including a Flash video applet), printing, and Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The testing captured resource metrics during the entire workload lifecycle — XenApp virtual machine boot, user logon and desktop acquisition (ramp-up), user workload execution (steady state), and user logoff. Each test cycle was not considered passing unless all test users completed the ramp-up and steady state phases and all metrics were within permissible thresholds.

Test Results

Two test phases were conducted:

  1. Finding the recommended maximum density for a single physical server. This phase validated single-server scalability under a maximum recommended density with the RDS load. The maximum recommended load for a single server occurs when CPU or memory utilization peaks at 90-95% and the end user response times remain below 4000ms. This phase was used to determine the server N+1 count for the solution.
  2. Validating the solution at full scale. This phase validated multiple server scalability using the full test configuration.

The first phase was executed under the Login VSI Medium workload and then the Light workload to identify VSImax for each workload type. The validation phase was executed using the Medium workload only.

Phase 1: Single Server Recommended Maximum Density

We first tested different combinations of XenApp 7.5 server VMs and virtual CPU (vCPU) combinations, finding that the best performance was achieved when the number of vCPUs assigned to the VMs did not exceed the number of hyper-threaded cores available on the server. (In other words, not overcommitting CPU resources provides the best user experience.) For the Intel E5-2697v2 processors, 24 cores with hyper-threading equates to 48 vCPUs. The highest density was observed at eight XenApp VMs per physical server, with each VM configured with five vCPUs and 24GB RAM.

The first test sequence determined VSImax for each workload on a single server, indicating the density that a single server can support before the end user experience degrades. Based on this value, we added one additional server to the total number of physical servers needed so that the full-scale configuration achieves optimal performance under normal operating conditions and enable N+1 server fault tolerance.

Medium Workload: Single Server Recommended Maximum Density

For the single server Medium Workload, guided by VSImax scores, we determined that 250 user sessions per host gave us optimal end user experience and good resource utilization. Figures 3 and 4 show end user response times and CPU utilization metrics for the Medium workload.

Figure 3. Single Server, Medium Workload, End User Response Times at 250 Sessions

5_VSI

Figure 4. Single Server, Medium Workload, CPU Utilization

6_CPU

 

Light Workload: Single Server Recommended Maximum Density

For the single server Light Workload, we determined that 325 user sessions per host gave us optimal end user experience and good server utilization metrics. Figures 5 and 6 show end user response times and CPU utilization metrics for the Light workload.

Figure 5. Single Server, Light Workload, End User Response Times at 325 Sessions

7_VSI

Figure 6. Single Server, Light Workload, CPU Utilization

8_CPU

Phase 2: Full-Scale Configuration Testing

Using all three Cisco UCS C240 M3 Rack Servers, we performed 500-session Login VSI Medium Workload tests to validate the solution at scale, which provided excellent results. The Login VSI Index Average and Average Response times tracked well below 2 seconds throughout the run (Figure 7), indicating an outstanding end user experience throughout the test.

Figure 7. Full-Scale Configuration, Medium Workload, End User Response Times at 500 Sessions

9_VSI

Figures 8 through 13 show performance data for one of the three Cisco UCS C240 M3 servers in the full configuration test. The graphs are representative of data collected for all servers in the three-server test.

Figure 8. Full-Scale Configuration, Medium Workload, CPU Utilization

10_CPU

Figure 9. Full-Scale Configuration, Medium Workload, IOPS

11_IOPS

Figure 10. Full-Scale Configuration, Medium Workload, IO Throughput (Mbps)

12_Mbps

Figure 11. Full-Scale Configuration, Medium Workload, IO Wait

13_IOWAIT

Figure 12. Full-Scale Configuration, Medium Workload, IO Latency

14_LATENCY

Figure 13. Full-Scale Configuration, Medium Workload, IO Ave. Queue Length

15_AVGQU

What about XenDesktop?

Given the same hardware configuration, are you curious how well XenDesktop with Windows 7 virtual desktops perform? Or, perhaps, a 500-seat deployment is initially too much and you just want to “kick some tires” with a single UCS server. In either case, here’s a 200-seat XenDesktop reference architecture that provides the same server specifications and configuration as the 500-seat XenApp configuration discussed above: Deploy 200 Citrix XenDesktop 7.1 Hosted Virtual Desktops on Cisco UCS C240 M3 Rack Server with LSI Nytro MegaRAID and SAS Drives.

 

Conclusion

Desktop virtualization is an efficient way to deliver the latest Microsoft Windows OS and applications not only to traditional client PCs, but also to the user’s choice of mobile device types. At the same time, desktop virtualization centralizes and protects corporate data and intellectual property, simplifying desktop and OS management. Until now, it’s been difficult for small to medium-sized organizations to realize these advantages because of the complexity and up-front costs associated with building out a pilot or entry-level configuration.

Because this low-cost configuration enables a 100% self-contained solution, it overcomes previous obstacles to deploying desktop virtualization in small business or branch office settings. The architecture provides an extremely easy-to-deploy, fault tolerant, Cisco UCS-managed infrastructure for Citrix XenApp 7.5 hosted shared desktops. For many, the solution greatly simplifies the entry point into desktop virtualization, making it easier to build out and manage a 500-seat standalone deployment.

To read more about the 500-seat XenApp 7.5 reference architecture and the validation testing, see the full white paper: Reference Architecture for 500-Seat Citrix XenApp 7.5 Deployment on Cisco UCS C240-M3 Rack Servers with On-Board SAS Storage and LSI Nytro MegaRAID Controller.

Frank Anderson, Senior Solutions Architect, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Tags: , , , , , , ,