The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 23, 2019, 02:53:05 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Virtualization - worth it?  (Read 3062 times)
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« on: June 19, 2009, 01:44:30 PM »

OK, quick backstory.
I am part owner of a marketing firm that does large scale, multi-partner, integrated Lead Generation campaigns and integrated Appointment Setting campaigns (executive door openers). Our core industry is high technology, and in particular, enterprise level computing and we produce results that are so high, we have to lie and trim the numbers for prospects because they think we are full of shit. As a result of this, we do work for some very big and well know companies. EMC and VMware are the two that got me thinking lately. We are getting ready to begin development of a campaign to promote the new virtualization cloud tech that VMware has created called vSphere. It costs money, lots and lots... BUT, their VMware Server or ESXi system are free, though don't do the same thing. I happen to be learning a lot about all these different technologies because of this.

So the point...
I am always about getting the most out of my stuff.
Is there possibly an advantage to virtualizing my stuff, just in the traditional manner of creating smaller VMs under 1 big box?

I ask because of my database. I am only using about 5% of my CPU, but my processes are huge, and create a bottleneck it seems. My BH app runs slow as dirt when the load gets high, yet there arent more processes, and the CPU is still around 5%. If i look in the database, there are no slow processes either. So i don't get where the problem is coming from.
Currently for example, i have 92 procs, 91 are sleeping, cpu of 3.2% and a load of 2.98
all sites are fast as shit, but the BH mastercontroller is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOW.
if load is under 1, the BH is wicked fast.

My thought is that under VMs, I could run client stuff in its own container, BH in its own, dev in its own, special things each in their own, etc. Then 1 will not bork the others.
AND you can set priorities, so the client VM could take over resources when needed, or release when not.
Basically creating a cloud of VMs, or at least that is my understanding. proof is in the pudding.

Do you guys think that I could gain more throughput, by putting each thing in its own container? like even clustering a database across VMs???

Or, do you have a hint as to where I could look to find out what the hell is causing the bottleneck?
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2009, 07:49:12 PM »

Nuts: I'm going to comment, but it's been a really long day and my eyes are killing me reading your first sentence. I'll check in on it tomorrow.

 Undecided
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2009, 08:37:02 PM »

lol. no worries. its not like Im in a hurry.

I only have 3 boxes sitting idle at the moment because I pooched 1 of them, and am planning a restructure.
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
vsloathe
vim ftw!
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1669



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2009, 10:08:17 AM »

Looking at ESXi and I think I might give it a shot for some applications I have in mind.

Thanks nuts.

Sorry, I don't have any suggestions for your case.
Logged

hai
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2009, 11:03:35 AM »

does it make sense though? my logic at least "seem" correct?
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
vsloathe
vim ftw!
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1669



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2009, 11:44:52 AM »

I'm a big fan of clustering, virtualization, the elastic cloud, etc.

so my answer would be biased.

It's not always the best tool for everything but yeah, it would probably help your hardware to be more fully utilized.
Logged

hai
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2009, 05:35:07 PM »

Just now getting around to this thread...

What kind of profiling can you do on your BH Master Controller? The way you describe things, it sounds like everything is fine but it gets stuck somewhere.

Also - do you have any possibility of race conditions? Is the BH controller touching anything that could potentially be locked by another process? Do you have any locking happening on your database? This could EASILY cause shittiness.

Here's a thought: write a little program that does some math and is intensive. Have nothing running and blast it out. Profile it and get a sense for just how fast it operates when it is the lone gun Add processes till your up to normal, and keep profiling the little burden app. Finally, run your BH controlcenter and see as well. If both BHCC and the burden app are slogging, then you've just somehow burdened up the processor. If your little app still relatively flies, then it's a locking/sempahore/resource or something like that issue.

Personally, I'd not add the complexity of a cloud of VMs like you have, because you're adding a boatload of overhead for some virtual walls. I'd want to know what was buggering me and get that sorted.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2009, 08:33:25 PM »

actually there are other reasons for my interest in VMs. Client related and segregation of bad things.
For example, I don't want my stuff, when it gets pounded by google, to slow a client down. So if I could put them in their own little virtual box, they will never have an issue. And same goes for the clients causing issues, by hitting the traffic jackpot.

I am pretty sure I know what is causing the issues, and its mega-table-locking.
Fulltext queries on 15million UTF8 records is pretty rough...
but when you add in records being added to that table via "INSERT IGNORE" you get some massive load happening.

I would love to go InnoDB, since that would just be row locking, but cannot because of FT.

because of this, I am currently migrating to a roundrobin, master-master database, possibly even master-ring with 3 Boxes.
I am also considering 2 masters and 1 read slave.

to many options... lol
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2009, 08:40:06 PM »

oh and related. whats your normal throughput on your database?

right now I am doing about 180 queries a second.
only from 4 connections

I had a max spike of 2756... LOL

The thing I have no idea how to reduce are Select_scan actions. I am at 1.4 million full table scans, in 18 hours... OUCH.
I have no idea though how to actually figure out which queries are scanning. all my tables are fully indexed, but I think its the damn FT searches and inserts.
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2009, 11:09:03 AM »

Way less at the moment - I'm down between 44-100 QPM depending on the machine/server. My query count has gone way down because I throw all inbound surfer requests in a single stored procedure call, reducing my hit to the database by about 10-15 queries per surferpage. It's REALLY eased the load on my boxes.

I dunno meng, perhaps we should skool you in such magick.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
vsloathe
vim ftw!
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1669



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2009, 11:14:05 AM »

VirtualBox 3.0 just came out today.

Quite tasty. Has full guest SMP so you can load balance amongst up to 32 virtual processors.

Also, and this is freaking HUGE, it has a builtin kernel level option for doing RDP.
Logged

hai
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!