Vn212 rad rtb2_power_vm

Materials may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the prior written permission of IBM. 5.3
© Copyright IBM Corporation 2012
2011
IBM Power Systems Technical University
October 10-14 | Fontainebleau Miami Beach | Miami, FL
Return to Basics II :
Understanding POWER7
Capacity Entitlement and Virtual Processors
VN212
Rosa Davidson
Advanced Technical Skills - Security and Performance - IBM

2© Copyright IBM Corporation 2012
Session Evaluations
• ibmtechu.com/vp
Prizes will be
drawn from
Evals

© 2011 IBM Corporation3
IBM Power Systems
Power is performance redefined
Bibliography - References
Beyond this presentation, read the White Paper from Mala Anand :
“POWER7 Virtualization - Best Practice Guide”
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/display/WikiPtype/Performance+Monitoring+Documentation
Server virtualization with IBM PowerVM
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/virtualization/resources.html
IBM Systems Workload Estimator or http://www-912.ibm.com/estimator
IBM System p Advanced POWER Virtualization Best Practices Redbook:
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp4194.pdf
Virtualization Best Practice:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/display/virtualization/Virtualization+Best+Practice
Configuring Processor Resources for System p5 Shared-Processor Pool Micro-Partitions:
http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/aix/administrator/systemsmanagement/Configuring-Processor-Resources-for-System-p5-Shar/
An LPAR Review:
http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/aix/administrator/lpar/An-LPAR-Review/
Virtualization Tricks:
http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/aix/trends/whatsnew/Virtualization-Tricks/
A Comparison of PowerVM and x86-Based Virtualization Performance:
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/virtualization/whitepapers/powervm_x86.html
IBM Integrated Virtualization Manager:
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/whitepapers/ivm.html
Achieving Technical and Business Benefits through Processor Virtualization:
http://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/fcgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=SA&subtype=WH&appname=STGE_PO_PO_USEN&htmlfid=POL03027USEN&attachment=POL03027USEN.PDF
Java Performance Advisor is available
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/display/WikiPtype/Java+Performance+Advisor
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/aix/tools/perftools/JPA/AIX61/
VIOS Performance Advisor is available
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/display/WikiPtype/VIOS+Advisor
Virtualization Performance Advisor is in develeopment (expected Q1/2012)
http://aixptools.austin.ibm.com/virt/virt_advisor/

IBM Power Systems
Summary of Return to Basics - Part I : Numbers of VPs
For each shared LPAR :
– The number of VPs
MUST BE LESS THAN
– The number of CORES
of the SHARED POOL.
There is a ratio between VPs/Cores :
– Higher the ratio,
Less Uncapped capacity is available.
– While migrating to POWER7 servers,
• Cores have been reduced.
• VPs have been maintained.
• Thus, ratio values increase.
• Thus, Uncapped capacity is reduced.
Shared LPAR – 20 Virtual Processors
Shared Pool – 10 Cores
Shared Pool – 10 Cores
LPAR – 10 VPs LPAR – 10 VPs
LPAR – 10 VPs LPAR – 10 VPs
Frame in Shared LPARs – 40 VPs

IBM Power Systems
Summary of Return to Basics - Part I : Capacity Entitlement
Capacity Entitlement means :
– 1st , Entitlement
– Entitlement of time access to the core
– Running on Uncapped
is
Running on your ratio VPs/Cores.
This ratio evolves :
– …With frame configuration changes.
Thus :
– Performance on Uncapped
is
Performance less predictable.
– % Uncapped capacity
must remain reasonable
to limit this “bad” perf. dependency
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
vp10
vp11
vp12
vp20 vp20 vp20
vp11 vp11
vp10vp10
vp12 vp12
You plan to be dispatched on entitled capacity or on uncapped ?
vp20 vp20 vp20 vp20 vp20
vp11
vp10
vp12
vp11
vp10
vp12
vp11
vp10
vp12
vp11
vp10
vp12
vp11
vp10
vp12
CE/VP RATIO – Uncapped dependency
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A
0.95
B
0.38
VP
C
O
R
E
CE =

IBM Power Systems
Outline – Part 2
Summary of Part 1
PowerVM: The Right Choice for the LPAR Type (20 slides)
– Dedicated : “to be or not to be”, Considerations
– Dedicated Donating: Considerations
– Shared LPAR: Uncapped Considerations
– VIO Server: Considerations
– Shared LPAR: LPAR (CE, VP) - the Choices
• Shared LPAR not covering Production Need.
• Shared LPAR for current Production Need.
• Shared LPAR : Wrong Idea #1 / Shared LPAR : Good Idea #1
• Shared LPAR : Wrong Idea #2 / Shared LPAR : Good Idea #2
– Performance and Advisors
Summary of our recommendations – Conclusions
FAQs

IBM Power Systems
LPAR 1 – 2 VP Dedicated
VP 30 VP 31
VP 40 VP 41
used
idle
1.5
0.5
used
idle
0.7
1.3
Should IDLE be hunted ?
LPAR 1 : NO - 75-25 % ratio (2 cores)
– You keep 33% (25/75) as margin
– 33% is « your good » idle margin:
• Unplanned Peak Activity.
• Short Term Activity Growth Margin.
LPAR 2 : YES - 35/63% ratio (2 cores)
– Let’s keep a margin: 0.7+0.7*33% = 0.931 core
• Either reduce VP if possible (parallelism need).
• Either change LPAR Type: release the idle.
* Known as nearly a copyright of William Shakespeare
Making the right choice for the LPAR Type
“To be or not to be”* Dedicated
POWERVM Hypervisor Dispatch Wheel = 10 ms
Shared
Pool
Core 0 Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4 Core 5 Core 6 Core 7
vp11 vp120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
vp10 vp20 vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
Dedicated
Cores
Core 8
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
Core 9
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
Core A
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
Core B
vp53
vp53
vp53
vp53
vp53
vp53
vp53
vp53
Dedicated Donating
Cores
vp20
vp20

IBM Power Systems
POWER Hypervisor Dispatch Wheel = 10 ms
Shared
Pool
vp11 vp120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
vp10 vp20 vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
Dedicated
Cores
Core 8
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
Core 9
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
Core A
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
vp52
Core B
vp53
vp53
vp53
vp53
vp53
vp53
vp53
vp53
Dedicated Donating
Cores
(+) PROCESSOR AFFINITY
– CPU, CACHE,… : ALL is YOURS !
• Each VP knows its core number (1:1).
• No Core Reload between dispatches.
(+) LOW HYPERVISOR ACTIVITY
– THE LOWEST RATE !
• No brain to pick a core to dispatch a VP.
• No Core Reload to do.
(-) BUT IDLE CYCLE WASTED: so be AWARE
– CHOOSE THE RIGHT ONES (like LPAR1).
• consistent and constant Usage LPARs are good candidates.
VP 30 VP 31
VP 40 VP 41
used
idle
1.5
0.5
used
idle
0.7
1.3
Dedicated – Considerations
vp20
vp20

IBM Power Systems
POWER Hypervisor Dispatch Wheel = 10 ms
Shared
Pool
vp11 vp120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
vp10 vp20 vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp60
vp60
vp60
vp60
vp60
vp60
vp60
vp60
vp60
vp60
vp61
vp61
vp61
vp61
vp61
vp61
vp61
vp61
vp61
vp61
Dedicated
Cores
Core 8
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
Core 9
vp41
vp41
vp41
Core A
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
Core B
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
Dedicated Donating
Cores
VP 30 VP 31
LPAR 2 – 2 VP Dedicated Donating
VP 40 VP 41
used
idle
1.5
0.5
used0.7
(+ / -) PROCESSOR AFFINITY
– CPU, CACHE,… : NOT ALWAYS YOURS !
• Each VP knows its core number (1:1).
• Processor Reload between LPAR dispatches.
(+ / -) HYPERVISOR ACTIVITY
– A LOW RATE…only for SMALL DONORS !
• No brain to pick a core to dispatch a VP.
• pHyp reloads Processor content between LPARs.
(+) LPAR has the Idle Entitlement w/o Consumption
– Lengthy loaded/Lengthy Idle LPARs are good candidates.
– Avoid “Bipolar” LPARs, i.e, rapidly changing profile LPARs.
• Put them in dedicated or shared but at “Capped on Peak”.
Dedicated Donating – Considerations
vp20
vp20

IBM Power Systems
planned - CE
extra - >CE
Share Pool
Shared Pool
Core 0 Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4 Core 5
vp11 vp120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
vp10 vp20 vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp40
vp20
vp20
vp30
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
COSHAR = 6
APP min= 0
vp20 vp10
vp12vp11vp40 vp41 vp31
vp10 vp11 vp50 vp51 vp12 vp20
UNCAPPED CAPACITY
DOES ADD
(-) HYPERVISOR ACTIVITY
which core is free at demand time?
MAY LOSE
(-) PROCESSOR AFFINITY
If you want the same core, you’d plan for it !
….. what we call CE
LPAR 1 – 3 VP Shared – CE 0.3
VP 10 VP 11
VP 12
VP 20
VP 30 VP 31
LPAR 3 – 2 VP Shared – CE 1
LPAR 4 – 2 VP Shared – CE 1 LPAR 5 – 2 VP Shared – CE 1
VP 40 VP 41 VP 50 VP 51
VPSHAR = 10
CESHAR = 3.6
physc=1.2
physc= 0.6
physc=1.3
physc=1.2 physc=1.2
MOST AFFECTED LPARS:
the ones with a CE/VP at 0.1
if they rely on uncapped
to GROW BIG
Shared LPAR – Uncapped Considerations

IBM Power Systems
Share Pool
Shared Pool
Core 0 Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 Core 4 Core 5
vp11 vp120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
vp10 vp20 vp30
vp30
vp30
vp30
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp31
vp40
vp20
vp20
vp30
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp40
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp41
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp50
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
vp51
COSHAR = 6
APP min= 0
vp20 vp10
vp12vp11vp40 vp41 vp31
VIO Server – Considerations
SELL/BUY THE CORES
FOR THE VIOSERVERS
1) SHARED WITH CE/VP >0.6-0.8
2) DED. DONATING/DEDICATED ++
VIO SERVER – 3 VP – CE0.3
VP 10 VP 11
VP 12
VP 20
VP 30 VP 31
LPAR 3 – 2 VP Shared – CE 1
LPAR 4 – 2 VP Shared – CE 1 LPAR 5 – 2 VP Shared – CE 1
VP 40 VP 41 VP 50 VP 51
VPSHAR = 10
CESHAR = 3.6
physc=1.2
physc= 0.6
physc=1.3
physc=1.2 physc=1.2
Data Bridges
VIO SERVERS are Data BRIDGES for the FRAME.
– HIGHLY AFFECTED BY DISPATCH DELAYS.
IF SHARED POOL is stressed,
– VIOS to Dedicated Donating.
– VIOS to Dedicated.
PLAN THE VIOS CORES IN THE SALES
– ALL PERF. FRAME CAN BE IMPACTED
– P7 PERF: SPEED TO CRUNCH DATA
• No Data … No Speed !!
No I/Os,
No network
during 4 ms !!
BAD
FOR PERF
Hi ! VIO Server
I’m back ! VIO Server

IBM Power Systems
* Peak here is the required Production SLA = Production Need
How many cores
are you going to borrow
in the Shared Pool ?
2 ways to answer
CE:4.5 peak + margin
CE:0.6 minimum
1
2
3
4
CE:3.8 at peak*
CE:2.8 under peak
1
2
3
4
physc
(Physical Consumed in core unit)
Time
(day, week, month)
Activity Profile of a LPAR
This LPAR must become shared
ENTITLEMENT
NOT COVERING
CURRENT
PRODUCTION NEED
Number of Virtual Processors
physc
PowerVM : Shared LPAR (CE , VP) – The Choices
ENTITLEMENT
COVERING
CURRENT
PRODUCTION NEED

IBM Power Systems
Shared LPAR not covering Production Need
Shared Capped LPAR with a too low CE
Do not cover production need.
Flat top on curve or (MAX physc = CE)
=> Prod. is limited
1
2
3
4
Prod.
NeedVP 3
1
2
3
4
Prod. Need
physc
# VP
CAP ON CE
CE: 1.5
CAP ON VP
CE: 2.5
Shared Uncapped LPAR with too low VPs
Do not cover production need.
Flat top on curve or (MAX physc = VPs)
=> Prod. is limited
physc
We have free cores in the Share Pool
(we’re running on uncapped capacity)
Shared Capped LPAR
Shared Uncapped LPAR

IBM Power Systems
Shared LPAR for Current Production Need
Shared Capped LPAR with a CE at peak
Cover Production Need.
MAX (physc) = CE => Prod. Need is covered
Does NOT Cover Production Need by itself !
REQUIRES
ENTITLEMENT DEFINED AT PEAK
Little Margin
Because this configuration offers a little margin,
It is the “most configured” LPAR Type:
Shared Uncapped.
1
2
3
4
Prod. Need
physc
# VP
CAP ON CE CE: 3.8
MAX(physc)
Shared Capped LPAR
1
2
3
4
Prod.
Need
# VP CAP ON VP
physc
CE: 3.8
You RESERVED
the seats in the
SHARE POOL
your
PRODUCTION
NEEDS

IBM Power Systems
Shared LPAR: Wrong Idea #1…
1
2
3
4
Prod.
Need
# VP 10
CAP
physc
CE: 3.8
You reserved
3.8 seats
It’s what you NEED
Big Margin
Wrong Idea #1
If Little Margin is good, BIG MARGIN is BETTER!
Wrong Idea. Thus, Bad Action:
VPs are increased to the Long Term Sizing
1
2
3
4
Prod.
Need
#VP 4
CAP
physc
CE: 3.8
You RESERVED
the seats in the
SHARE POOL
your
PRODUCTION
NEEDS
Little Margin*
VP: 4
CONFIGURATION A
CONFIGURATION B
IMPACT ON CE/VP RATIO
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A
0.95
B
0.38
Data
Demand
Data
Arrived !
BAD
FOR PERF
B depends on Share Pool Capacity.
B has now the dispatch delay
B has lost its processor affinity
B is using now more overhead.
THIS SAME CURVE CONSUMES
MORE OVERHEAD

IBM Power Systems
Shared LPAR: Good Idea #1…
Here it could have been:
– With 4VP – CE/VP:0.98;
– Above 6VP, Remember
“Use the cores you bought !”
My 2-years planned growth: “I need 10 VPs”.
– DLPAR Add/Remove VP: 3.2s /2.4s vs a 2-years PERF impact.
– Plan your growth with Maximum VP value.
1
2
3
4
Prod.
Need
#VP 4
CAP
physc
CE: 3.8
You RESERVED
the seats in the
SHARE POOL
your
PRODUCTION
NEEDS
Little Margin*
VP: 4
Good Idea #1
Define your number of VPs for your Shared LPAR
“near” the peak.
PowerVM Hypervisor Dispatch Wheel = 10 ms
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
vp10
vp11
vp12
vp11 vp11
vp10vp10
vp12 vp12
vp10
vp11
vp12
vp10
vp11
vp12
vp10
vp11
vp12
- Try to use the cores you bought !
- Not to spend your time in dispatch wait.
Dispatch interval
Potential uncapped
CONFIGURE WHAT YOUR
PRODUCTION NEEDS NOW
AS DESIRED VP
DLPAR WILL TAKE CARE OF
FUTURE GROWTH
WITH MAXIMUM VP

IBM Power Systems
DLPAR: Planned future growth with maximum VP
Used by DLPAR to check maximum allowed
Used at Activation to figure entitled capacity

IBM Power Systems
Shared LPAR: Wrong Idea #2…
1
2
3
4
Prod.
Need
VP 4 CAP
physc
CE: 2.5
You reserved
only 2.5 seats
The unused of
the Share Pool *
We are using the Unused at the optimum
1
2
3
4
Prod.
Need
# VP 4
CAP
physc
CE: 1.0
You reserved
only 1 seat
The unused of
the Share Pool *
Wrong Idea #2
With less reserved CE,
my shared pool has more Uncapped Capacity
between LPARs
CE are decreased to have
a LARGER SHARED POOL CAPACITY
to …configure more LPARs/VPs
IMPACT ON CE/VP RATIO
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
C
0.62
D
0.25
CONFIGURATION C - ACCEPTABLE
CONFIGURATION D
THIS SAME CURVE CONSUMES
MUCH MORE OVERHEAD
Production depends on Shared Pool : With Conf. C, for 37% - With Conf.D for 74.5%
74.5% of Prod using now more overhead: sizing/capacity planning now differ
74.5% of Prod depend on Others LPARs: Prod is less predictable
63% entitled to
my needs
25.5% entitled to
my needs

IBM Power Systems
Shared LPAR: Good Idea #2…
1
2
3
4
Prod.
Need
# VP
CAP
physc
CE: 2.5
You reserved
only 2.5 seats
The unused of
the Share Pool *
POTENTIAL PB FOR FULL CAPACITY !
BUT YOUR CE ENFORCES YOUR PRODUCTION SLA
3.8 at peak
Here as your CE is now CE 2.5:
– With 4VP - Your CE/VP: 0.62
-> CE at 2.5 is acceptable with 4VPs
Applying Rule, here:
– CE 3.8 (Peak Prod) -> VP=4 - CE/VP:0.98
– CE 2.5 (SLA Prod) -> VP=3 - SLA CE/VP:0.83
Good Idea #2
Define your CE at “Your peak”.
“Your Peak” is your SLA,
“Your Peak” can be below the curve peak.
It is recommended to have
VP = ROUNDUP(CE)
to the next whole
or integer number
Use WLE to size your CE

IBM Power Systems
Easy to Manage :
– Are large share pools (with many LPARs) worth the work ?
Critical LPARs:
– Do they need to be at the “mercy of others” in the Shared Pool?
• The “others” could be a less controlled environment.
– Are they eligible to “Dedicated Donating” ?
• Is their profile steady ones ?
– Aren’t they worth Dedicated ?
• A pure controlled environment.
Critical Appliances: VIO Servers
– Shared if really you want and their workload is acceptable.
– Be prepared to switch them to Dedicated Donating or Dedicated :
size their cores as full dedicated.
There is not a unique success receipt for Shared Pool.
– It’s a multi-dimension configuration.
– Now, you’ve some insights to configure quiet and balanced Shared Pools.

IBM Power Systems
Real-Life Example
This frame is an IDEAS Sizing result : Production 1.
• We need still to configure Production 1’ + Disaster Recovery Prod 2
• VIOs are corporate sized – “forgotten” – “One Number Sizing” effect.
What’s our problems ?
6.4
32
cores
25.6
cores

IBM Power Systems
Real-Life Example … Some sizing problems
6.4
unplanned
32
cores
25.6
cores
Production 1
Planned Result direct from “One Number” sizing
(Production 1 + Production 1’ + Disaster Recovery)

IBM Power Systems
Real-Life Example …Solution CE/VP = 0.1 (illusion)
6.4
unplanned
32
cores
25.6
cores
Planned Result direct from “One Number” sizing
(Production 1 + Production 1’ + Disaster Recovery)
Production 1 and Production 1’ are “Rotating” Production :
- At one instant, we will have only 90 VPs and only 9 CE.
- 90 VPs and nearly 9 CEs are going to be ceded…
With Disaster activation, we will have 180 VPs and 18 CEs for 32 cores.
– On Paper /sizing spreadsheet, it works !!....
BUT Ratio VP/Cores =196/32 = 6.125..Who’s eating the cake tonight? LPAR05
Prod 1: 9 – LPAR05(2) = 7 + Dis. (9)=16 cores from 25.6
-> LPAR05 max VPs = 9.6 vs 20 VPs actives.

IBM Power Systems
Real-Life Example… trying to fix Sizing/Configuration
Reduce VPs
Increase automatically
CE/VP
It improves the
ratio cores/VP
Experience
Ratio cores/VP > 4
You’re surely in trouble
Ratio cores/VP < 4
You can be still in trouble
Ratio cores/VP [2- 2.5]
You’re surely good.
High VP LPARs are sensitive.
But did we fix
Performance ?

IBM Power Systems
Same Real-Life Example…Fix Performance
Testing their Web Application Server on Development/Integration Frame :
– Configured Web. AS LPAR : 20 VPs – 3 CEs / Sizing: 2.4 cores
• Sizing does not give VPs and CE : that’s the beginning of troubles… Which Ratio CE/VP ?
• Size a Box and you do not know the shoe size.
– Result : 1.1 core/JVM + 8 JVMs/LPAR -> Need : 8.8 cores
– Java Recommendations and Tuning : 0.7 core/JVM (Gain 37%).
• CE : 3 – Need : 5.6 – consuming nearly 200% their entitlement.
• Tested ratio CE/VP is : 0.15 (=3/20) for a need of CE/VP 0.28 (5.6/20).

IBM Power Systems
Same Real-Life Example…Fix Performance
I turned the same test in dedicated with 6 VPs (due to physc 5.6):
what am I looking for ?
– I’m measuring “Adventures in Uncapped Land” for two Lands :
• Integration Frame Share Pool NOT EQUAL Production Frame Share Pool.
– My physc consumed is 0.4 core/JVM (3.2 core/LPAR)
• Sizing with Updated Java stack – Testing with obsolete Java 1.5 32-bit.
• Sizing is 0.3/JVM – I have 0.4/JVM – Difference is 25% - Acceptable rnargin for obsolescence.
• Box Sizing : 2.4 cores – Measure 8 JVMs : 3.2 cores
That’s why IBM can only publish Dedicated Performance Metrics.
– Dedicated CE/VP=1 / Configured CE/VP=0.1 : Larger difference with our Metrics.
– Entitlement: 100% / Entitlement: 10% : 90% difference on Entitlement.

IBM Power Systems
Real-Life Example…End Of Story
We defined a CE/VP profile per type of LPAR.
Looking a frame, the CE/VP gives you the application it is behind.
NEARLY FULL CAPACITY
HALF CAPACITY – PERFORMS

IBM Power Systems
Production – Non-Production Profiles
Non_prod = Prod
• Size it if you configure it
Non_prod = Half-Prod
• Size it if you configure it
Non_prod = Min CE Prod
• Min CE 0.1/VP (1H2012)
• Min CE 0.05/VP (2H2012)
• Remain in Sizing’ Hands
But “Remain” is no Sizing
In all cases, the share pool is in contention : 54 VP |32cores| 54VP
Addressing Thru only CE Approach
a Sizing problem

IBM Power Systems
FAQ 1
Do I manage with LPAR WEIGHT which LPAR receive UNCAPPED capacity ?
– NO : PowerVM has NO MECHANISM to DISTRIBUTE uncapped capacity.
– YES : It’s A WEIGHT MECHANISM to ARBITRATE SHARE POOL CONTENTION.
– http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/powersys/v3r1m5/index.jsp?topic=/iphat/iphatsha
redproc.htm
Documentation says:
“Uncapped weight is only used where there are more virtual processors ready to
consume unused resources than there are physical processors in the shared processor
pool. If no contention exists for processor resources, the virtual processors are
immediately distributed across the logical partitions independent of their uncapped
weights. This can result in situations where the uncapped weights of the logical partitions
do not exactly reflect the amount of unused capacity. “
The weight only comes into play when the hypervisor has more
uncapped lpars ready to run virtual processors
that their are idle processors in the system.
When the share pool is in contention,When the share pool is in contention,
LPAR Performance is already decreased.LPAR Performance is already decreased..
Your Attempt#1 to rescue the situation : 54 VP Priority |32cores| 54 VP Non Priority
In all cases, the share pool is in contention : 54 VP Priority |32cores| 54VP Non Priority

IBM Power Systems
FAQ 2
LPAR A Weight is 5 – LPAR B Weight is 10 : B consumes CPU 2x than A ?
– NO :
• The probability that PartitionA gets the uncapped time is 5/(5+10) : 33 %
• The probability that PartitionB gets the uncapped time is 10/(5+10) : 66 %
– http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/powersys/v3r1m5/index.jsp?topic=/iphat/iphatsha
redproc.htm
Documentation says:
“logical partition 3 receives two additional processing units for every additional processing
unit that logical partition 2 receives.
– If logical partitions 2 and 3 both require additional processing capacity, and there is
enough physical processor capacity to run both logical partitions, logical partition 2 and 3
receive an equal amount of unused capacity.
In this situation, their uncapped weights are ignored. “
The weight only comes into play where the hypervisor has more
uncapped ready to run virtual processors
that their are idle processors in the system.
In all cases, the share pool is in contention : 54 VP Priority |32cores| 54VP Non Priority

IBM Power Systems
FAQ 3
Multiple shared pools vs One helps the balancing of the uncapped capacity.
– Multiple shared pools : The other shared processor pools on these models can be configured
with a maximum processing unit value and a reserved processing unit value.
• The maximum processing unit value limits the total number of processing unit that can be
used by the logical partitions in the shared processor pool.
• The reserved processing unit value is the number of processing units that are reserved for
the use of uncapped logical partitions within the shared processor pool.
– NO : Documentation says:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/powersys/v3r1m5/index.jsp?topic=/iphat/iphatsharedproc.htm
“All three logical partitions compete for the same unused physical processor capacity in the
server, even though they belong to different shared processor pools.“
The uncapped capacity is coming from the whole frame,
independently of the multiple share pools.
Your Attempt#2 to rescue the situation : 2 shared pools
54 VP |25 cores| and 54 VP | 7 Cores
54 VP|7 Cores can go after the idle capacity of 54 VP|25cores
• Thus, Maximum Processing Unit Value : 7 cores
54 VP | 25 cores can go after the ilde capacity of 54VP|7 cores
•Thus, Maximum Processing Unit Value : 32 cores

IBM Power Systems
FAQ 4
Why doesn’t VP Folding take care of the issue of the CE/VP ratio being too low (i.e., <
0.6) ?
– A very good question.
• As VP Folding is folding Virtual Processors, we could expect that
unnecessary Virtual Processors will be folded. Thus, increasing the implicit CE/VP ratio.
• But, this means that we are first saturating a core on its 4 threads with the workload : the VP is used
at 100% of its capacity before we unfold a new VP. This is not the case at 1H2012.
– As explained in a previous slide, the default AIX SMT Approach is to unfold all Virtual
Processors to ensure the workload will be spread across all the VPs on the primary thread of each
core.
• If you oversize your number of VPs and your workload is fluctuating, you will
generate a constant unfolding/folding movement.
• Everyone should be aware that to spread the workload on each core first gives single threaded
performance, faster response time, and total LPAR level throughput.
Core 3Core 2 Core 1Core 1 Core 2 Core 1 Core N
Default AIX Folding / SMT Approach
It is important not to oversize the number of VPs.
Use DLPAR operations to increase their number

IBM Power Systems
* Still, William Shakespeare
SUMMARY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
NO BOX SIZING : VIO ? Which VIO ?
Define your number of VPs for your Shared LPAR “near” your peak. Your Peak can be your SLA
Configure what your PRODUCTION NEEDS NOW as DESIRED VP
DLPAR will take care of Future Growth with MAXIMUM VP
It is recommended to have VP = ROUNDUP(CE) to the next whole or integer number
Make the Right Choice for your LPAR Type.
The UNCAPPED Exposures are Processor Affinity Loss and Dispatch Delays. They appear in over-committed Shared Pool.
Large UNCAPPED CAPACITIES make the Shared Pool LESS PREDICTABLE.
The Maximum CE of an uncapped LPAR is defined by the Shared Pool Configuration, not its number of VPs (ratio cores/VP)
The Number of VP of each LPAR must be less or equal than the number of cores of the Shared Pool.
SELL THE CORES for the VIO SERVERS: First) Shared with a ratio CE/VP >0.6 (min.) Then) Ded. Donating/Dedicated++
“Number ONE !” Effect - NO SIZING on a UNIQUE NUMBER (rPerf and CPW) -
UPGRADE the OS Levels and The Software (new compilers)
Do NOT Undersize Memory - THINK “LONG TERM” NOW – Ensure all processors are fully populated with Local Memory.

IBM Power Systems
Performance tuning in a modern environment.
While the data is excellent it can be complexWhile the data is excellent it can be complex
to determine whether the system is tuned forto determine whether the system is tuned for
optimal performance or what can be done tooptimal performance or what can be done to
improveimprove
Modern computing
environments are complex
with many different
commands and interfaces
to review performance:
- IT Performance expertise does rely on Plumber-minded skills and …
- …. the plumbing can be badly complex.

IBM Power Systems
OPTIMAL Current condition likely to
deliver best performance
Introducing: Power Systems Performance Advisors
WARNING: Current condition
deviates from best practices.
Opportunity likely exists for better
performance.
CRITICAL: Current condition likely
causing negative performance
impacts.
INFORMATIVE: Context relevant
data helpful in making adjustments
Performance interpretation combined with effective visual cues to
alert clients about the state of the system and opportunities to optimize

IBM Power Systems
Partition
Advisor
Download Advisor Run ExecutableSTEP 2)
Partition
View XML FileSTEP 3)
The VIOS Advisor, and Virtualization
Advisor can be set to monitor for a
period of time.
The AIX Java Advisor results are
available immediately.Only a single executable is
required to run to gather the data
Easy to Use
Power Systems Performance Advisors are low overhead stand alone applications that collect
performance metrics, before analyzing the results to produce a report that summarizes the
health of the environment and proposes potential actions that can be taken to address
performance inhibitors.
How does it work?
STEP 1)
Open up .xml file using your favorite web-browser
to get an easy to interpret report summarizing your system status.
Where to download
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/display/WikiPtype/VIOS+Advisor
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/display/WikiPtype/Java+Performance+Advisor
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/display/WikiPtype/PowerVM+Virtualization+performance+lpar+advisor
Suggestion / Comments ? padvisor@us.ibm.com

IBM Power Systems
VIOS Performance Advisor
monitors virtual storage throughput
and performance, as well as
advising on CPU capacity and
memory use for the VIOS partition
Virtualization Advisor
monitors shared processor
usage, processor folding
and memory virtualization
AIX Java Performance
Advisor checks Java and
WebSphere settings,
including Heap Size and
Garbage Collection settings

IBM Power Systems
Conclusions
We have reviewed :
– Basic Concepts of PowerVM.
– Technical Insights on the balance on CE / VP for shared LPARs.
We hope this will help you to size, configure and implement Power7 Servers.
– Don’t size shoe boxes ; Size your NEEDS
– Performance is about PRODUCTION… PRODUCTION NEEDS

IBM Power Systems
This document was developed for IBM offerings in the United States as of the date of publication. IBM may not make these offerings available in
other countries, and the information is subject to change without notice. Consult your local IBM business contact for information on the IBM
offerings available in your area.
Information in this document concerning non-IBM products was obtained from the suppliers of these products or other public sources. Questions
on the capabilities of non-IBM products should be addressed to the suppliers of those products.
IBM may have patents or pending patent applications covering subject matter in this document. The furnishing of this document does not give
you any license to these patents. Send license inquires, in writing, to IBM Director of Licensing, IBM Corporation, New Castle Drive, Armonk, NY
10504-1785 USA.
All statements regarding IBM future direction and intent are subject to change or withdrawal without notice, and represent goals and objectives
only.
The information contained in this document has not been submitted to any formal IBM test and is provided "AS IS" with no warranties or
guarantees either expressed or implied.
All examples cited or described in this document are presented as illustrations of the manner in which some IBM products can be used and the
results that may be achieved. Actual environmental costs and performance characteristics will vary depending on individual client configurations
and conditions.
IBM Global Financing offerings are provided through IBM Credit Corporation in the United States and other IBM subsidiaries and divisions
worldwide to qualified commercial and government clients. Rates are based on a client's credit rating, financing terms, offering type, equipment
type and options, and may vary by country. Other restrictions may apply. Rates and offerings are subject to change, extension or withdrawal
without notice.
IBM is not responsible for printing errors in this document that result in pricing or information inaccuracies.
All prices shown are IBM's United States suggested list prices and are subject to change without notice; reseller prices may vary.
IBM hardware products are manufactured from new parts, or new and serviceable used parts. Regardless, our warranty terms apply.
Any performance data contained in this document was determined in a controlled environment. Actual results may vary significantly and are
dependent on many factors including system hardware configuration and software design and configuration. Some measurements quoted in this
document may have been made on development-level systems. There is no guarantee these measurements will be the same on generally-
available systems. Some measurements quoted in this document may have been estimated through extrapolation. Users of this document
should verify the applicable data for their specific environment.
Revised September 26, 2006
Special notices

IBM Power Systems
IBM, the IBM logo, ibm.com AIX, AIX (logo), AIX 6 (logo), AS/400, Active Memory, BladeCenter, Blue Gene, CacheFlow, ClusterProven, DB2, ESCON, i5/OS, i5/OS
(logo), IBM Business Partner (logo), IntelliStation, LoadLeveler, Lotus, Lotus Notes, Notes, Operating System/400, OS/400, PartnerLink, PartnerWorld, PowerPC, pSeries,
Rational, RISC System/6000, RS/6000, THINK, Tivoli, Tivoli (logo), Tivoli Management Environment, WebSphere, xSeries, z/OS, zSeries, AIX 5L, Chiphopper, Chipkill,
Cloudscape, DB2 Universal Database, DS4000, DS6000, DS8000, EnergyScale, Enterprise Workload Manager, General Purpose File System, , GPFS, HACMP,
HACMP/6000, HASM, IBM Systems Director Active Energy Manager, iSeries, Micro-Partitioning, POWER, PowerExecutive, PowerVM, PowerVM (logo), PowerHA, Power
Architecture, Power Everywhere, Power Family, POWER Hypervisor, Power Systems, Power Systems (logo), Power Systems Software, Power Systems Software (logo),
POWER2, POWER3, POWER4, POWER4+, POWER5, POWER5+, POWER6, POWER7, pureScale, System i, System p, System p5, System Storage, System z, Tivoli
Enterprise, TME 10, TurboCore, Workload Partitions Manager and X-Architecture are trademarks or registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation
in the United States, other countries, or both. If these and other IBM trademarked terms are marked on their first occurrence in this information with a trademark symbol (®
or ™), these symbols indicate U.S. registered or common law trademarks owned by IBM at the time this information was published. Such trademarks may also be
registered or common law trademarks in other countries. A current list of IBM trademarks is available on the Web at "Copyright and trademark information" at
www.ibm.com/legal/copytrade.shtml
The Power Architecture and Power.org wordmarks and the Power and Power.org logos and related marks are trademarks and service marks licensed by Power.org.
UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States, other countries or both.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the United States, other countries or both.
Microsoft, Windows and the Windows logo are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States, other countries or both.
Intel, Itanium, Pentium are registered trademarks and Xeon is a trademark of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States, other countries or both.
AMD Opteron is a trademark of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Java and all Java-based trademarks and logos are trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States, other countries or both.
TPC-C and TPC-H are trademarks of the Transaction Performance Processing Council (TPPC).
SPECint, SPECfp, SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECjAppServer, SPEC OMP, SPECviewperf, SPECapc, SPEChpc, SPECjvm, SPECmail, SPECimap and SPECsfs are
trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corp (SPEC).
NetBench is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis Media in the United States, other countries or both.
AltiVec is a trademark of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
Cell Broadband Engine is a trademark of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
InfiniBand, InfiniBand Trade Association and the InfiniBand design marks are trademarks and/or service marks of the InfiniBand Trade Association.
Other company, product and service names may be trademarks or service marks of others.
Revised February 9, 2010
Special notices (cont.)

IBM Power Systems
The IBM benchmarks results shown herein were derived using particular, well configured, development-level and generally-available computer systems. Buyers should
consult other sources of information to evaluate the performance of systems they are considering buying and should consider conducting application oriented testing. For
additional information about the benchmarks, values and systems tested, contact your local IBM office or IBM authorized reseller or access the Web site of the benchmark
consortium or benchmark vendor.
IBM benchmark results can be found in the IBM Power Systems Performance Report at http://www.ibm.com/systems/p/hardware/system_perf.html .
All performance measurements were made with AIX or AIX 5L operating systems unless otherwise indicated to have used Linux. For new and upgraded systems, AIX
Version 4.3, AIX 5L or AIX 6 were used. All other systems used previous versions of AIX. The SPEC CPU2006, SPEC2000, LINPACK, and Technical Computing
benchmarks were compiled using IBM's high performance C, C++, and FORTRAN compilers for AIX 5L and Linux. For new and upgraded systems, the latest versions of
these compilers were used: XL C Enterprise Edition V7.0 for AIX, XL C/C++ Enterprise Edition V7.0 for AIX, XL FORTRAN Enterprise Edition V9.1 for AIX, XL C/C++
Advanced Edition V7.0 for Linux, and XL FORTRAN Advanced Edition V9.1 for Linux. The SPEC CPU95 (retired in 2000) tests used preprocessors, KAP 3.2 for FORTRAN
and KAP/C 1.4.2 from Kuck & Associates and VAST-2 v4.01X8 from Pacific-Sierra Research. The preprocessors were purchased separately from these vendors. Other
software packages like IBM ESSL for AIX, MASS for AIX and Kazushige Goto’s BLAS Library for Linux were also used in some benchmarks.
For a definition/explanation of each benchmark and the full list of detailed results, visit the Web site of the benchmark consortium or benchmark vendor.
TPC http://www.tpc.org
SPEC http://www.spec.org
LINPACK http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/performance.pdf
Pro/E http://www.proe.com
GPC http://www.spec.org/gpc
VolanoMark http://www.volano.com
STREAM http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/
SAP http://www.sap.com/benchmark/
Oracle Applications http://www.oracle.com/apps_benchmark/
PeopleSoft - To get information on PeopleSoft benchmarks, contact PeopleSoft directly
Siebel http://www.siebel.com/crm/performance_benchmark/index.shtm
Baan http://www.ssaglobal.com
Fluent http://www.fluent.com/software/fluent/index.htm
TOP500 Supercomputers http://www.top500.org/
Ideas International http://www.ideasinternational.com/benchmark/bench.html
Storage Performance Council http://www.storageperformance.org/results
Revised March 12, 2009
Notes on benchmarks and values

IBM Power Systems
Revised March 12, 2009
Notes on HPC benchmarks and values
The IBM benchmarks results shown herein were derived using particular, well configured, development-level and generally-available computer systems. Buyers should
consult other sources of information to evaluate the performance of systems they are considering buying and should consider conducting application oriented testing. For
additional information about the benchmarks, values and systems tested, contact your local IBM office or IBM authorized reseller or access the Web site of the benchmark
consortium or benchmark vendor.
IBM benchmark results can be found in the IBM Power Systems Performance Report at http://www.ibm.com/systems/p/hardware/system_perf.html .
All performance measurements were made with AIX or AIX 5L operating systems unless otherwise indicated to have used Linux. For new and upgraded systems, AIX
Version 4.3 or AIX 5L were used. All other systems used previous versions of AIX. The SPEC CPU2000, LINPACK, and Technical Computing benchmarks were compiled
using IBM's high performance C, C++, and FORTRAN compilers for AIX 5L and Linux. For new and upgraded systems, the latest versions of these compilers were used: XL
C Enterprise Edition V7.0 for AIX, XL C/C++ Enterprise Edition V7.0 for AIX, XL FORTRAN Enterprise Edition V9.1 for AIX, XL C/C++ Advanced Edition V7.0 for Linux, and
XL FORTRAN Advanced Edition V9.1 for Linux. The SPEC CPU95 (retired in 2000) tests used preprocessors, KAP 3.2 for FORTRAN and KAP/C 1.4.2 from Kuck &
Associates and VAST-2 v4.01X8 from Pacific-Sierra Research. The preprocessors were purchased separately from these vendors. Other software packages like IBM ESSL
for AIX, MASS for AIX and Kazushige Goto’s BLAS Library for Linux were also used in some benchmarks.
For a definition/explanation of each benchmark and the full list of detailed results, visit the Web site of the benchmark consortium or benchmark vendor.
SPEC http://www.spec.org
LINPACK http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/performance.pdf
Pro/E http://www.proe.com
GPC http://www.spec.org/gpc
STREAM http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/
Fluent http://www.fluent.com/software/fluent/index.htm
TOP500 Supercomputers http://www.top500.org/
AMBER http://amber.scripps.edu/
FLUENT http://www.fluent.com/software/fluent/fl5bench/index.htm
GAMESS http://www.msg.chem.iastate.edu/gamess
GAUSSIAN http://www.gaussian.com
ANSYS http://www.ansys.com/services/hardware-support-db.htm
Click on the "Benchmarks" icon on the left hand side frame to expand. Click on "Benchmark Results in a Table" icon for benchmark results.
ABAQUS http://www.simulia.com/support/v68/v68_performance.php
ECLIPSE http://www.sis.slb.com/content/software/simulation/index.asp?seg=geoquest&
MM5 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/
MSC.NASTRAN http://www.mscsoftware.com/support/prod%5Fsupport/nastran/performance/v04_sngl.cfm
STAR-CD www.cd-adapco.com/products/STAR-CD/performance/320/index/html
NAMD http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/namd
HMMER http://hmmer.janelia.org/
http://powerdev.osuosl.org/project/hmmerAltivecGen2mod

IBM Power Systems
Revised April 2, 2007
Notes on performance estimates
rPerf for AIX
rPerf (Relative Performance) is an estimate of commercial processing performance relative to other IBM UNIX
systems. It is derived from an IBM analytical model which uses characteristics from IBM internal workloads, TPC
and SPEC benchmarks. The rPerf model is not intended to represent any specific public benchmark results and
should not be reasonably used in that way. The model simulates some of the system operations such as CPU,
cache and memory. However, the model does not simulate disk or network I/O operations.
rPerf estimates are calculated based on systems with the latest levels of AIX and other pertinent software at the
time of system announcement. Actual performance will vary based on application and configuration specifics. The
IBM eServer pSeries 640 is the baseline reference system and has a value of 1.0. Although rPerf may be used to
approximate relative IBM UNIX commercial processing performance, actual system performance may vary and is
dependent upon many factors including system hardware configuration and software design and configuration.
Note that the rPerf methodology used for the POWER6 systems is identical to that used for the POWER5 systems.
Variations in incremental system performance may be observed in commercial workloads due to changes in the
underlying system architecture.
All performance estimates are provided "AS IS" and no warranties or guarantees are expressed or implied by IBM.
Buyers should consult other sources of information, including system benchmarks, and application sizing guides to
evaluate the performance of a system they are considering buying. For additional information about rPerf, contact
your local IBM office or IBM authorized reseller.
========================================================================
CPW for IBM i
Commercial Processing Workload (CPW) is a relative measure of performance of processors running the IBM i
operating system. Performance in customer environments may vary. The value is based on maximum
configurations. More performance information is available in the Performance Capabilities Reference at:
www.ibm.com/systems/i/solutions/perfmgmt/resource.html

Vn212 rad rtb2_power_vm

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Vn212 rad rtb2_power_vm

Similar to Vn212 rad rtb2_power_vm (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Vn212 rad rtb2_power_vm