• Share
  • ?
  • Profiles ▼
  • Communities ▼
  • Apps ▼

Blogs

  • My Blogs
  • Public Blogs
  • My Updates
  • Administration

This community can have members from outside your organization. WebSphere Peformance - Alexandre Polozoff's Point of View

  • Log in to participate

▼ Tags

▼ Similar Entries

Improving QMF for TS...

Blog: QMF Blog and...
QMFDevelopment 310000NG5J
Updated
0 people like thisLikes 0
No CommentsComments 0

Db2 Analytics Accele...

Blog: IBM DB2 Analy...
Roland_Seiffert 060001HPRK
Updated
0 people like thisLikes 0
No CommentsComments 0

z/VSE Capacity Measu...

Blog: Ingolf's z/VS...
Ingolf24 120000DRN3
Updated
0 people like thisLikes 0
No CommentsComments 0

IBM Sterling B2B Int...

Blog: Malarvizhi K ...
Malarvizhi_Kandasamy 060000VYUA
Updated
0 people like thisLikes 0
No CommentsComments 0

Rejuvenate the manag...

Blog: Storage Manag...
bobby_g 060000DF9B
Updated
0 people like thisLikes 0
No CommentsComments 0

▼ Archive

  • December 2016
  • November 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011

▼ Blog Authors

WebSphere Peformance - Alexandre Polozoff's Point of View

View All Entries
Clicking the button causes a full page refresh. The user could go to the "Entry list" region to view the new content.) Entry list

One huge frame or lots of smaller machines?

polozoff 110000N2A2 | | Tags:  frame failover planning nfr sla small capacity peformance machines large | 9,090 Views

Yesterday at my "Performance Testing and Analysis" talk a question was asked is it better to have one large machine and virtualize the environment or to have lots of small machines?  
 
Both strategies work.  If deciding to go with large capacity frames then you want to have at least 3 frames.  This way if one frame is taken out of service there are at least two other frames running.  Otherwise, if one builds out only 2 large frames and one is taken out of service then the remaining frame becomes a single point of failure.  I don't like SPOFs and so would have at least 3.  This is if one frame can take the entire production load during the outage.   That information has to be culled from the performance testing to see if there is enough capacity in one frame to carry the entire production load.  If not then more likely than not there will need to be additional frames to be able to ensure that even if half the infrastructure is taken out of service the remaining frames can carry the entire production workload. 

Likewise, having lots of smaller machines also works.  Odds are less likely for a massive hardware outage with smaller machines so as one fails it can be safely taken out of service and replaced without impacting the production workload. 
 
Which strategy is better?  In my opinion they are both valid strategies as long as the proper capacity planning is conducted to ensure that when an outage occurs (and think worst case scenario here) that the remaining infrastructure is able to continue processing the production workload without impacting the SLA (Service Level Agreement including the non-functional requirements [i.e. response time, resource utilization, etc]).  You do have a defined SLA, right?  
  • Add a Comment Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry
Notify Other People
notification

Send Email Notification

+

Quarantine this entry

deleteEntry
duplicateEntry

Mark as Duplicate

  • Previous Entry
  • Main
  • Next Entry
Feed for Blog Entries | Feed for Blog Comments | Feed for Comments for this Entry