ZijkosoIC RSP Project VRC AV

8/2/2019 ZijkosoIC RSP Project VRC AV

1/73

Project Virtual Reality Check

Ruben Spruijt / Jeroen van de Kamp

@PROJECTVRC

#PROJECTVRC


2/73

Jeroen van de Kamp:[email protected]

@theJeroen

Ruben Spruijt:[email protected]@rspruijt


3/73

Introduction Project VRC

Deep-Dive into

Impact of App Virtualization in VDI

Comparing HyperVisors for VDI

Comparing AV for VDI

Roadmap

Topics of Today .


4/73

Whos administering/building VDI? Whos on Windows XP?

Whos on Windows 7?

Whos doing/considering stateful/persistent VDI? Whos doing/considering stateless/non-persistent VDI?

Who is using AV in VDI statefull?

Who is using AV in VDI stateless? Who does a scheduled/manual scan during production

hours?

A couple of questions .


5/73

?

.


6/73

.


7/73

Performance

Analysis & ReviewVDI + SBC

.


8/73

Independent

& Unbiased

.


9/73

.


10/73

Unbiased and Independent!

.


11/73


12/73

www.VirtualRealityCheck.net

..


13/73

Phase 1 & 2: SBC

Phase 3: Windows XP & Windows 7

Phase 4: Application Virtualization

Phase 5: Anti-Virus > Planned

So far .


14/73

Test platform VRCServer Brand/Model HPDL380G6

CPU 2 x Intel Quad core [email protected] Nehalem (16 logical

cpu!)

Memory 96 GB DDR3

Disk 8 x 146Gb, 820.2Gb, dual port 10.000RPM Serial SCSI

RAID level RAID-5 with online spare

RAID controller HP Smart Array P400i, with 512MB and Battery BackedWrite Cache

NIC NC373i Gigabit Adapters, Broadcom 5708

vSphere 4.1 Update 2 ESXi

.
http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://pcwizkidstechtalk.com/images/stories/pcwizkid/intel_logo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pcwizkidstechtalk.com/index.php/intel-core-2-quad-q8400-cpu-review.html&usg=__C3H8-O47ypMBWvi9l0Gj6Mr-DWI=&h=1816&w=2392&sz=181&hl=nl&start=2&um=1&tbnid=V_fTZCt_MyedyM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=150&prev=/images?q=intel&hl=nl&lr=&sa=N&um=1


15/73


16/73

Turn-Key Benchmark for SBC + VDI (hosted)

Considered Industry Standard (driven by Citrix!)

Protocol independent

Standard workloads: light, medium, high &

multimedia

Data randomization

Used by: Citrix, MS, Dell, HP, Cisco, VCE, EMC, Intel, Quest, Panologic,

Atlantis, Fujitsu, Virsto, Hitachi, Datacore, McAfee, CSC, FusionIO, Unidesk

Login VSI


17/73

Single Server


18/73

Configuration 1


19/73

Start the test


20/73

Saturation


21/73


22/73


23/73


24/73


25/73

VSI User Simulation workload

Office: Outlook,

Word,

PowerPoint

Excel

PDF printer & Adobe PDF

Internet Explorer (multiple sites + Flash Video)

FreeMind (Java)


26/73


27/73


28/73


29/73

VDI

Hypervisor

7 7 7 7

ADFile Share Logging


30/73

Project VRCs goal is to investigate overallperformance impact of AppVirt in VDI.

Project VRC does not recommend virtualizing the

Microsoft Office suite as an overall best practice.

Please Note .


31/73

streamed vs. Local installed %

Bug > Fix!

.


32/73

streamed vs. Local installed % - upd. .


33/73

Office Locally Installed

Outlook

Word

PowerPoint

Streamed Apps

Excel 2007 PDF Reader

Freemind

Typical Streaming Scenario .


34/73

Typical Streaming Scenario (%) .


35/73


36/73

Phase V: ComparingHypervisors

S h M O it Wi 7


37/73

vSphere: Memory Overcommit: Win7120VM Pre-Booted

Wi d 7 D i M (SP1)


38/73

Windows 7 Dynamic Memory (SP1) onHyper-V


39/73


40/73

ASLR


41/73

ASLR:Address Space Layout Randomization


42/73

Hyper-V R2 sp1: ASLR (%)


43/73

XenServer 5.6: ASLR (%)


44/73


45/73

Win 7 on XS vs ESXi vs Hyper-V (%)


46/73

Win 7 on XS vs ESXi vs Hyper-V (%)


47/73


48/73

VDI & AntiVirus .


49/73

VIRUSSCANNER: TOTAL I/Os.


50/73


51/73


52/73

Normal VSI results .


53/73

Default Install ForeFront .. .


54/73

AV directly installed on the VMs FEP, TM OfficeScan

Manager, agents on the VMs

SEP

Manager, Security VM, agents on the VMs

Deep Security

Move

Protect desktop VMs .


55/73


56/73


57/73


58/73

Trend Micro Deep Security

Hypervisor

VM 1 VM x

AV AV

Manager

FilterDriver

Deploymentof the agent

vShield

vShieldAppliance

vShield

SVMLinux


59/73


60/73


61/73


62/73

B li R Ti


63/73

Baseline Response Time


64/73

T t l R d IO


65/73

Total Read IOs

T t l W it IO


66/73

Total Write IOs

T t l W it IO @ 60 i


67/73

Total Write IOs @ 60 sessions

C l i


68/73

Testing AV is complicated

VRC system is balanced: CPU/MEM/DISK IO

AV + Stateless??!!

Image is not fully scanned after resets

AV agents loose registration/connection in central

manager after reboot

Licensing/Certificate issues

CPU impact on boot or Service do not start

Conclusions .

C l i


69/73

Offloading introduces Response time Latency

Offloading architectures are complicated

Do AV vendors fully understand VDI?

(discussion performance versus functionality)

Availability Best Practices

Conclusions .

Cl i th ht AV


70/73

What is the impact AV + AV?

Stateful scenario needs also testing

Scheduled/Manual Scan

Need for RAW IO data

Memory Consumption

Logon Process

CPU

Closing thoughts AV .

Roadmap!?!


71/73

Project VRC 2012 =

Roadmap!?!

More info:


72/73

www.virtualrealitycheck.net

www.twitter.com/ProjectVRC

www.loginconsultants.com (VSI)

www.pqr.nl

Special thanks to: Sven Huisman (PQR, @svenh)

More info:


73/73

j kamp@loginconsultants nl

Documents

ZijkosoIC RSP Project VRC AV