Virtualised NAV 2009 Performance

sundies

We have recently completed an upgrade to our NAV server moving from a 32bit platform to 64bit virtualised with VW Ware. To acheive the 64 bit upgrade we needed to upgrade users to the NAV2009 Classic Client, our DB is SQL using the AP 4.0 SP1 (6.00.29626) build.
Since the upgrade we have noticed a severe degradation in the front end performance of NAV, while the SQL level performance is significantly faster. We are aware virtualisation is not officially supported by MS and the general performance issues suggested. Moving the DB back to a physical server in 64bit is an option but there is a lot of work to be done for something that may have only a minor inprovement.

I was wondering if anyone has gone through the same process and has any ideas on settings which we may need to check to improve the performance levels we are seening at the user level?

Thanks

kine

You need to find the bottleneck - CPU, Memory, Disks, Network, context switching overhead, some deadlocks on CPU level, SQL problems etc.

rhpnt

sundies wrote:

Moving the DB back to a physical server in 64bit is an option but there is a lot of work to be done for something that may have only a minor inprovement.

Very true, but you gain the advantage of official support!

As one once said: I always new which way was the right one but I never took it. Why? Because it was longer and harder...

Shortcuts do not always lead to your imagined destination. Do the right thing!

BR-RH

sundies

Thanks for the advice guys. We are definately trying to determine the bottleneck, seems to be centered around how queries are being handled by the client but we are unnable to prove our theory at this point.
The reasons for not wanting to move back to a physical server is more to do with our fundamental disagreement with the performance loss theory put out by MS, particularily regards VM Ware. Obviously MS are not going to support another providers product when it competes with theirs. Based on the hardware spec we installed we should have achieved at least a 200% increase in system perforamance from the old server config therefore even the 30% loss is still has a significant net gain in performance, not a net loss that we are seeing.

rhpnt

The reasons for not wanting to move back to a physical server is more to do with our fundamental disagreement with the performance loss theory put out by MS, particularily regards VM Ware.

It's not a theory it's a fact. It's logically impossible to gain performance by virtualization. Drop your "fundamental" disagreement and do as MS suggests, after all, you are using their product.

sundies

Thanks rhpnt

I am speaking with our NAV partner and the option to return to a physical host is still on the table. We have had some possible options presented by VM Ware as well which we are now looking at regards the disc config.

SLF25

As one once said: I always new which way was the right one but I never took it. Why? Because it was longer and harder...

Great movie

rhpnt

SLF25 wrote:

As one once said: I always new which way was the right one but I never took it. Why? Because it was longer and harder...

Great movie

Never saw it in full - but the ending is great. Greetings to my homecountry!