WINDOWS 10 OPTIMIZATION TEST RESULTS - VMware

TECHNICAL WHITE PAPER – SEPTEMBER 2016

WINDOWS 10 OPTIMIZATION TEST RESULTS View in VMware Horizon 7

WINDOWS 10 OPTIMIZATION TEST RESULTS

Table of Contents Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Audience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Horizon 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Testing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 VMware OSOT Fling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Login VSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Main Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Additional Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Benchmark Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Optimization Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 vCenter Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

T E C H N I C A L W H I T E PA P E R | 2


Introduction This paper presents crucial test results that demonstrate the benefits of the VMware Operating System Optimization Tool (OSOT) Fling for View desktops in VMware Horizon® 7. It compares optimized and non-optimized versions of Windows 10 and optimized Windows 7, highlighting the resources needed to upgrade to Windows 10 from Windows 7 in a virtualized environment. Additional optimizations not handled by the Optimization Fling or described in the VMware Windows Operating System Optimization Tool Guide are also included.

Audience This paper was written specifically for data center administrators and IT personnel who want to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 or to optimize Windows 10 operating systems for View virtual desktops in Horizon 7. Architects and others interested in Horizon 7 or in improving the performance of Windows desktops may also find it useful.

Horizon 7 Horizon 7 provides centralized image management for virtualized or hosted desktops and applications, which can be delivered to end users through a single platform. Desktop and application services— including RDS-hosted apps, packaged apps with VMware ThinApp®, SaaS apps, and even virtualized apps from Citrix—can all be accessed from a single, unified workspace. Horizon 7 supports both Windows and Linux-based desktops, including RHEL, Ubuntu, CentOS, and NeoKylin. This paper, however, focuses on Windows 7 and Windows 10, especially the performance differences between optimized and non-optimized versions.

Testing Details The following sections discuss the testing performed, including the VMware OSOT Fling, additional optimizations, testing methods, hardware, and results.

VMware OSOT Fling The free OSOT Fling makes it easy to apply configuration settings to desktops and servers. It includes settings to optimize the following Windows operating systems for both desktops and servers that reside in the data center and in the cloud: • Windows 7 • Windows 8 • Windows 8.1 • Windows 10 • Windows Server 2008 (including R2) • Windows Server 2012 (including R2) The OSOT Fling optimizes RDSH servers for VMware Horizon 6, Horizon 7, and VMware Horizon Air™.



Login VSI All performance testing documented in this paper used the Login VSI benchmarking tool, the industrystandard load-testing solution for centralized virtualized desktop environments. Login VSI measures the total response time of several specific user operations performed within a desktop workload in a scripted loop. The baseline measures the response time, in milliseconds (ms), of specific operations performed in the desktop workload. The Login VSI test suite defines several types of workloads to simulate various types of users, as shown in Table 1. WO RK LOAD

P R OFILE WEIGHT

v CPU

APPS

V IDEO

Task Worker

Light

1

2–3

No

Office Worker

Medium

1

4–6

240p

Knowledge Worker

Medium

2

4–7

360p

Power User

Heavy

2–4

5–9

720p

Table 1: Login VSI Workloads

For the tests reported in this paper, we used the Knowledge Worker workload, which simulates how resources are used in VDI environments that use two virtual CPUs in their virtual machines. The Knowledge Worker workload includes the following applications: • Microsoft Outlook • Microsoft Internet Explorer • Microsoft Word • Adobe Acrobat Reader • Microsoft PowerPoint • Microsoft Excel • Adobe Flash Player • Java 7 • FreeMind • Login VSI photo viewer • Doro PDF Writer The Login VSI Benchmark mode predefines and constrains the launch window to 2880 seconds (48 minutes). This gives a normalized baseline to compare all tests and allows for the workload to complete a full 48-minute cycle. There is only one phase to this profile. A user starts a remote desktop session on a VM and begins the workload. At the end of the workload cycle, a benchmark, or baseline, score is calculated. The lower the score, the better the result or performance.



M E AS URE M ENT I D

M EAS UR EMEN T AC TI O N

MEASU R EMEN T ACTION DETAILED

MEASU R ES- REL AT ED R ESOU R C E

WSLD

Start Microsoft Word and load a random document.

Start and load a local random document file from the content pool.

CPU, RAM, and I/O

NSLD

Start VSI Notepad and load a random document.

Start and load a local random text file from the content pool.

CPU and I/O

WFO

Open a file in VSI Notepad.

Ctrl+O

CPU, RAM, and I/O

NFP

Open Print in VSI Notepad.

Ctrl+P

CPU

ZHC

Compress files with high compression.

Compress a local random PST file from the content pool (5 MB).

CPU

ZNC

Compress files with no compression.

Compress a local random PST file from the content pool (5 MB).

I/O

Table 2: Actions Taken During a Knowledge Worker Test Session

We took a methodical approach to all test operations. Tests were performed in an environment where the only services and servers used were those needed by Login VSI. No core infrastructure servers, such as Active Directory and SQL servers, were in use by any other applications. After deploying all components and applications required for the Login VSI workload on each desktop, we conducted functional validation, using a very simple test methodology.

Methodology To begin, we ran a baseline Login VSI Knowledge Worker benchmark test, with the required applications, to provide a simple baseline showing performance and scale information for a traditional, non-optimized Windows 7 desktop. Next, we ran the same test on an optimized Windows 7 desktop to see the difference in baseline performance. We then ran the Login VSI Knowledge Worker test on a Windows 7 optimized desktop, Windows 10 non-optimized desktop, and Windows 10 optimized desktop. The measured operations in these benchmarks touch different subsystems, such as CPU (user and kernel), memory, disk, the OS, the application, and print. The operations typically execute quickly. When these operations consistently take a long time to execute, the system becomes saturated because of excessive queuing, and the average response times escalate. This effect is reflected in the baseline score and is also visible to end users. For each desktop, we ran the test three times to ensure consistency.



Hardware Each host used for testing was a Dell PowerEdge R730 with 28 cores at 2.29 GHz with 262 GB of memory, and an EMC XtremIO all-flash array for storage.

Table 3: Host Specifications

The XtremIO storage array is an all-flash system, based on a scale-out architecture that uses building blocks called X-Bricks, which can be clustered to increase performance and capacity as required. It is controlled by a standalone, dedicated Linux-based server, called the XtremIO Management Server (XMS). An XMS host, which can be either a physical or a virtual server, can manage multiple XtremIO clusters. An array continues operating if it is disconnected from the XMS, but cannot be configured or monitored.

Optimizations We used all the available optimizations in the VMware OSOT Fling. You can choose not to apply all optimizations, but your results may vary. If you do not apply all of the optimizations recommended, at least apply the main optimizations. Main Optimizations

These are some of the basic optimizations that were applied: • Adjust Windows for best performance. • Turn off all unneeded visual effects. • Set unused services to either Manual or Disabled. • Disable programs at startup. • Use High Performance Power plan. • Speed up the menu show time.



As shown in Figure 1, however, far more optimizations are applied by the VMware OSOT Fling.

Figure 1: Some Optimizations Applied by OSOT Fling

Additional Optimizations

Whether you choose to use the OSOT Fling or not, the following optional optimizations are strongly suggested: • Install the latest Windows updates. • Enable write caching for storage devices. • Move the page file to separate disk. • Uninstall any unneeded or unused programs. • Disable or uninstall all Internet Explorer add-ons and toolbars. • Keep the index enabled and updated (or disable the index). • Change how long notifications stay open. • Adjust privacy settings to not share. • Speed up Windows shutdown time.



You can set and adjust the following values for how long Windows waits for hung programs and other programs to save data and close before shutting down: ––AutoEndTasks ––HungAppTimeout ––WaitToKillAppTimeout ––WaitToKillServiceTimeout For each host, make sure the BIOS Power Management Policy settings are set for High performance.

Figure 2: BIOS Power Management Settings

Benchmark Test Results We used the Login VSI 4.0 tool to run a representative workload on virtual desktops running each of the operating system versions to get a benchmark or baseline score. VSIbase is a baseline score that reflects the response time of specific operations performed in the desktop workload when there is little or no stress on the system. A low baseline indicates a better user experience, resulting from applications responding faster in the environment. VS I BAS E S CO RE ( I N M I CROS ECON DS)

PER FOR MAN CE

0–99 ms

Excellent

800–1399 ms

Very Good

1400–1999 ms

Good

1999–9999 ms

Reasonable/Poor

Table 4: VSIbase Scoring for This Test Environment



For this environment, a score of 1627 was considered a good score. A score less than 1399 is a very good score compared to our baseline and shows better performance.

Optimization Results With our testing we saw an 18–25 percent increase in performance with Windows 10 optimized as compared to Windows 10 non-optimized and Windows 7 optimized, indicating better performance and a better overall user experience.

Figure 3: Graph of LSI Benchmark Scores

WI ND OWS 7 O P TI M I Z E D

W IN DOWS 10 N ON -OPTIMIZED

W IN DOWS 10 OPTIMIZED

Test run 1: 1610 ms

Test run 1: 1685 ms

Test run 1: 1311 ms

Test run 2: 1605 ms

Test run 2: 1609 ms

Test run 2: 1310 ms

Test run 3: 1624 ms

Test run 3: 1633 ms

Test run 3: 1231 ms

Table 5: Optimization Test Results



vCenter Data The vCenter data below also confirms that Windows 10 optimized had considerably less CPU usage, memory usage, and disk latency than Windows 10 non-optimized. CPU average usage was approximately 30 percent lower, and disk latency was lower by a little more than 50 percent. Although Windows 10 optimized and Windows 7 optimized showed similar results, the overall CPU, memory, and disk latency were lower on the Windows 10 optimized virtual machine. The Windows 7 optimized VM also had a considerably longer login time, which contributed to its higher (that is, worse) benchmark scores. The vCenter data scores are shown in the following graphs: 100

1500

75

1000

50

500

25

0 10:00 PM 10:05 PM 10:10 PM 10:15 PM 10:20 PM 10:25 PM 10:30 PM 10:35 PM 10:40 PM 10:45 PM 10:50 PM 10:55 PM Time

0

Percent

MHz

2000

Performance Chart Legend Key

Object Win7-VSI-Opt

Measurement Usage in MHz

Rollup Average

Units MHz

0

Usage in MHz

Average

MHz

Win7-VSI-Opt

Usage

Average

Percent

1

Usage in MHz

Average

MHz

Latest 24

Maximum 1764

Minimum 24

Average 478.961 239.478

9

897

9

0.4

28.83

0.4

7.832

9

792

9

190.239

Figure 4: Windows 7 Optimized CPU Utilization

T E C H N I C A L W H I T E PA P E R | 1 0


5000000

3750000 Kilobytes

2500000

1250000

0

10:05 PM 10:10 PM 10:15 PM 10:20 PM 10:25 PM 10:30 PM 10:35 PM 10:40 PM 10:45 PM 10:50 PM 10:55 PM 11:00 PM Time


Object Win7-VSI-Opt

Measurement Granted

Rollup Average

Units Kilobytes

Latest 4130816

Maximum 4130816

Minimum 3960896

Average 4090785.0

Win7-VSI-Opt

Active

Average

Kilobytes

1468004

4110416

754972

1411381.2

Win7-VSI-Opt

Balloon

Average

Kilobytes

0

0

0

0

Win7-VSI-Opt

Consumed

Average

Kilobytes

4130816

4130816

3960892

4090784.5

Figure 5: Windows 7 Optimized Memory Utilization

10

7.5 Millisecond

5

2.5

0

10:05 PM 10:10 PM 10:15 PM 10:20 PM 10:25 PM 10:30 PM 10:35 PM 10:40 PM 10:45 PM 10:50 PM 10:55 PM 11:00 PM Time


Object Win7-VSI-Opt

Measurement Highest latency

Rollup Latest

Units Millisecond

Latest 0

Maximum 8

Minimum 0

Average 0.467

Figure 6: Windows 7 Optimized Disk Latency



100

4500

75

3000

50

1500

25

0 4:15 PM

4:20 PM

4:25 PM

4:30 PM

4:35 PM

4:40 PM

4:45 PM Time

4:50 PM

4:55 PM

5:00 PM

5:05 PM

5:10 PM

Percent

MHz

6000

0


Object Win10-VSI

Measurement Usage in MHz

Rollup Average

Units MHz

Latest 546

Maximum 5631

1

Usage in MHz

Average

0

Usage in MHz

Average

Win10-VSI

Usage

Average

Minimum Average 96 1026.589

MHz

267

2813

33

484.161

MHz

268

2719

55

490.117

Percent

8.93

92.05

1.57

16.784

Figure 7: Windows 10 Non-Optimized CPU Utilization

4000000

3000000 Kilobytes

2000000

1000000

0

4:20 PM

4:25 PM

4:30 PM

4:35 PM

4:40 PM

4:45 PM 4:50 PM Time

4:55 PM

5:00 PM

5:05 PM

5:10 PM

5:15 PM


Object Win10-VSI

Measurement Granted

Rollup Average

Units Kilobytes

Latest 3987440

Maximum 3987440

Minimum 1834980

Average 3419297.8

Win10-VSI

Active

Average

Kilobytes

1216348

Win10-VSI

Consumed

Average

Kilobytes

3987436

3900700

880800

1439343.4

3987436

1834980

Win10-VSI

Balloon

Average

Kilobytes

0

3419274.6

0

0

0

Figure 8: Windows 10 Non-Optimized Memory Utilization



6

4.5 Millisecond

3

1.5

0

4:20 PM

4:25 PM

4:30 PM

4:35 PM

4:40 PM

4:45 PM Time

4:50 PM

4:55 PM

5:00 PM

5:05 PM

5:10 PM

5:15 PM


Object Win10-VSI

Measurement Highest latency

Rollup Latest

Units Millisecond

Latest 0

Maximum 5

Minimum 0

Average 0.739

Figure 9: Windows 10 Non-Optimized Disk Latency

100

3000

75

2000

50

1000

25

0

5:20 PM

5:25 PM

5:30 PM

5:35 PM

5:40 PM

5:45 PM

5:50 PM Time

5:55 PM

6:00 PM

6:05 PM

6:10 PM

6:15 PM

Percent

MHz

4000

0


Object Measurement Win10-VSI-Opt Usage in MHz

Rollup Average

Units MHz

0

Usage in MHz

Average

1

Usage in MHz

Average Average

Win10-VSI-Opt Usage

Latest 593

Maximum 3598

Minimum 61

Average 677.439

MHz

299

1716

0

328.402

MHz

276

1761

0

317.575

Percent

9.7

58.82

1.01

11.076

Figure 10: Windows 10 Optimized CPU Utilization



4000000

3000000 Kilobytes

2000000

1000000

0 5:20 PM

5:25 PM

5:30 PM

5:35 PM

5:40 PM

5:45 PM

5:50 PM Time

5:55 PM

6:00 PM

6:05 PM

6:10 PM

6:15 PM


Object Measurement Win10-VSI-Opt Granted

Rollup Average

Units Kilobytes

Latest 3067904

Maximum 3489792

Minimum 1200044

Average 2745141.7

Win10-VSI-Opt Active

Average

Kilobytes

1048576

Win10-VSI-Opt Consumed

Average

Kilobytes

3067804

3900700

335544

1346369.7

3489792

1200044

Win10-VSI-Opt Balloon

Average

Kilobytes

0

2745068.8

0

0

0

Figure 11: Windows 10 Optimized Memory Utilization

6

4.5 Millisecond

3

1.5

0 5:20 PM

5:25 PM

5:30 PM

5:35 PM

5:40 PM

5:45 PM

5:50 PM Time

Units Millisecond

Latest 2

5:55 PM

6:00 PM

6:05 PM

6:10 PM

6:15 PM


Object Measurement Win10-VSI-Opt Highest latency

Rollup Latest

Maximum 4

Minimum 0

Average 0.339

Figure 12: Windows 10 Optimized Disk Latency



Conclusion Windows 10 virtual desktops showed a considerable improvement in performance—around 30 percent—when optimized with the OSOT Fling. Non-optimized Windows 10 desktops showed a similar performance improvement compared to optimized Window 7 desktops, so the contrast between Windows 7, whether optimized or not, and Windows 10 optimized with OSOT is truly dramatic. The OSOT Fling also reduced the amount of memory and storage I/O used by each desktop. A reduction of this magnitude can improve resource utilization—or resource recovery—by enabling each host to support a larger number of virtual desktops. We did not calculate or predict the cost or resource savings because these must vary for each implementation, but a performance improvement in the reported range should be reason enough to use the OSOT Fling.



About the Author Chris White is an Architect on the VMware End-User-Computing Technical-Marketing Center of Excellence team. He wishes to thank Gary Sloane, VMware Consulting Editor, for many suggestions and contributions to this paper.


VMware, Inc. 3401 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto CA 94304 USA Tel 877-486-9273 Fax 650-427-5001 www.vmware.com

Copyright © 2016 VMware, Inc. All rights reserved. This product is protected by U.S. and international copyright and intellectual property laws. VMware products are covered by one or more patents listed at http://www.vmware.com/go/patents. VMware is a registered trademark or trademark of VMware, Inc. in the United States and/or other jurisdictions. All other marks and names mentioned herein may be trademarks of their respective companies. Item No: 4687-WP-APPVOLUMESREVIEWERSGUIDE-USLET-20160915-WEB 9/16

WINDOWS 10 OPTIMIZATION TEST RESULTS - VMware

Recommend Documents