Maybe someone can help me.
We have our progress application running on a windows 2003 fysical machine (5 year old). Now we migrated it from scratch to a win208 R2 virtual machine under Citrix xenserver 5.6.
When we do performance tests, by reading x-number of records out of the database, we experience slower performance on the new VM then on the old physical machine.
For example: reading 150000 records on the physical machine takes 3-4 seconds, on the VM the same test takes 9-10 seconds. Anyone experienced this also?
ICT System Engineer.
Well, there is a bunch of information missing here. What is your version of Progress, for starters since a fairly likely cause with any older version of Workgroup is that you have moved from a single CPU machine to a multi-CPU machine.
You should also tell us something about the configuration, particularly the disks. Any RAID involved?
Note that, all else being equal, I would expect running under a VM to be, at best, close to not running under a VM. I presume the reason you are surprised is because the VM is running on some hot new box and the physical machine is an old one.
Here some extra info o n our configuration:
*We are running Progress 10.1C with SP4.
*Regarding RAID config, we are using a virtual disk on a HP SAN P2000 in RAID1.
*Server has 4 virtual CPU's .
*We are running Progress 10.1C with SP4.*Server has 4 virtual CPU's .
For the progress version - is that the Workgroup or enterprise version?
Could you clarify what you mean by "virtual CPU"?
The server has several physical processors with hyperthreading activated. So in a virtual environment you have more virtual processors available.
The server that runs our database has 4 (virtual) CPU's.
For the version, it is Enterprise edition.
I fear you have to go to some benchmarking and inquisition rounds with your VM gurus
So far, we know that you changed to a virtual machine environment and are using a different operating system and you see that database read performance is slower. Without more information it will be difficult to guess the cause. One of many hardware or configuration differences could be responsible. There are many things that could be wrong. Are you using the same computer now or a different one? If different, how are they different? Same database? Same storage? Same network? Same network cards?
John Harlow of Bravepoint did a session on virtualization at one of the conferences. You may find that helpful. You can find his slides here: http://communities.progress.com/pcom/docs/DOC-15823 .
Look for the one called OPS-4 Fun with Virtualization.
How many VMs are running on the machine when you did your testing? Did you do your testing when you only have the VM that has the database?