<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Virtualization Penalty with VMWare in ArcGIS Enterprise Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-enterprise-questions/virtualization-penalty-with-vmware/m-p/221598#M8670</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Yes, for that particular configuration and service the VM's throughput was 11% lower then the physical server.&amp;nbsp; The key item is to test your particular services and configuration before production deployment as the amount of degradation can vary significantly.&amp;nbsp; Additional information may be found in the &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/ESRI-DeploymentGuide-v1.0.pdf"&gt;VMWare/Esri virtualization whitepaper&lt;/A&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;- Michael&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:28:05 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>MichaelYoung</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-10-05T21:28:05Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Virtualization Penalty with VMWare</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-enterprise-questions/virtualization-penalty-with-vmware/m-p/221597#M8669</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;In this Developer Summit article: &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A href="http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/devsummit10/tech/tech_12.html"&gt;http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/devsummit10/tech/tech_12.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Page 50 and 51 speak to performance degradation using various configured VMs compared to a physical 1P_4C_16R server.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Is this suggesting that a 4V_1C_2R, with 4 SOCs, performs ~11% worse than a "single machine (SOC, SOM, WS) ArcGIS Server deployment" on a 1P_4C_16R?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:29:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-enterprise-questions/virtualization-penalty-with-vmware/m-p/221597#M8669</guid>
      <dc:creator>LeoDonahue</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-19T14:29:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Virtualization Penalty with VMWare</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-enterprise-questions/virtualization-penalty-with-vmware/m-p/221598#M8670</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Yes, for that particular configuration and service the VM's throughput was 11% lower then the physical server.&amp;nbsp; The key item is to test your particular services and configuration before production deployment as the amount of degradation can vary significantly.&amp;nbsp; Additional information may be found in the &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/ESRI-DeploymentGuide-v1.0.pdf"&gt;VMWare/Esri virtualization whitepaper&lt;/A&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;- Michael&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:28:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-enterprise-questions/virtualization-penalty-with-vmware/m-p/221598#M8670</guid>
      <dc:creator>MichaelYoung</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-10-05T21:28:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

