undersized and oversized vm reports

Management reporting and documentation

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby samh22a » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:23 am

undersized - oversized VM
Zombie VM
powered off vm
unused template
etc

I would expect to not only list the VM but to actually give me a recommendation on what the proper sizing should be. Ex: Add 2 CPU, remove 6 gigs of ram..etc

I haven't seem the version for ESX as we are only using hyper-V.
samh22a
Service Provider
 
Posts: 35
Liked: 2 times
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:03 pm

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby Shestakov » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:22 am

Hi Sam,
Thank you for the feedback! We will work on it in upcoming versions.
Nikita
Shestakov
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 4861
Liked: 395 times
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 11:03 am
Location: Saint Petersburg
Full Name: Nikita Shestakov

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby keithkleiman » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:55 pm

For the memory usage analysis dashboards, wouldn't it be better to use MemoryActivePct as opposed to using memoryConsumedMB? My reason is best explained in a scenario we just had. We had a host that generated an alert for high memory usage. I right clicked in the host and opened the Memory usage anlaysis dashboard in hopes of seeing what vm might have influenced this. Displayed was the list of vms with the top memoryConsumedMB. This is just the vm that is configured to use this amount of memory, but not actively using it if I am correct. Based on my understanding it seems like MemoryActivePct would be better used in this dashboard.
keithkleiman
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 42
Liked: never
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:38 pm
Full Name: Keith Kleiman

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby Shestakov » Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:28 am

Hello Keith,
What you are talking about makes sense. However, it`s probably better to have an option which counter to choose for the report.
I`ll forward your reference to the development team.
Thank you for the participation.
Shestakov
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 4861
Liked: 395 times
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 11:03 am
Location: Saint Petersburg
Full Name: Nikita Shestakov

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby Morgenstern72 » Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:31 am

I was directed from your support to this forum:
"We do receive complaints about this report. It would be best for you to directly discuss this issue with our product management on Veeam Forums. As a support person I am not eligible to argue on the logic of the report. I'd recommend contacting our PM that would surely make better progress. Apologies for any inconvenience.
Please let me know if you have any questions."


Problem/Bug
I did my first "Oversized VMs" report, configured for the last two months. It did tell me that I can hugely resize machines. The problem is, when you do the report again after one week it tells me to reduce already reduced machines based on the old values!

Example
Server, 12 CPUs -> peak usage 60% -> configure with 8 CPUs -> done
Report one week later shows Server, 8 CPUs -> peak usage 60% -> configure with 5 CPUs!

It looks like the report does not modify the peak usage regarding to already changed CPUs and still takes the value of 12 CPUs instead of now 8 CPUs. This leads to a recommendation that seems to be quite wrong. When I go on like this I would end with 2 CPUs!
It's quite bad because good recommendations (of so far unchanged VMs) are mixed now with these ones and without a printout of an old report I am not able to see which VMs I can really resize.

This seems to be clearly a bug but support means it is not a bug but "Please bear in mind that Oversized\Undersized Vms reports are more of informative nature and do not oblige you to follow the recommendations". Well, that's rendering the reports useless....
Morgenstern72
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 64
Liked: 5 times
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:37 pm
Full Name: Joachim

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby Vitaliy S. » Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:29 pm

Joachim,

Thanks for the detailed feedback.
Morgenstern72 wrote:It looks like the report does not modify the peak usage regarding to already changed CPUs and still takes the value of 12 CPUs instead of now 8 CPUs.

You're correct, that reports looks at the historical data and I'm not sure how it should modify performance usage for the new configuration. You cannot map historical performance to new configuration.

Morgenstern72 wrote:This leads to a recommendation that seems to be quite wrong. When I go on like this I would end with 2 CPUs

These recommendations are not wrong, they are based on the existing performance data. I would recommend running this report once a month, in order to have enough data to anaylize the trend and make recommendation.

Morgenstern72 wrote:It's quite bad because good recommendations (of so far unchanged VMs) are mixed now with these ones and without a printout of an old report I am not able to see which VMs I can really resize.

You're correct here, that currently it is not possible to differentiate VMs that have been modified from the VMs that are still over-provisioned. The same question was raised by our QC team in one of the internal report discussions.

What if we create another table in this report which will list all VMs that have been recently modified? In this case you will be able to filter VMs that have been changed and collect more performance data for them in order to re-evaluate their new configuration later.

Thank you!
Vitaliy S.
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 19558
Liked: 1102 times
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby Morgenstern72 » Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:58 pm

Hi Vitaly

thx for the fast response :)

Is there no way to store your own data and so be able to recognize changed VMs (only CPU and RAM) in the reports? Or is there maybe a way to get VMWare to tell your app if a VM has changed RAM/CPUs in the same time that you choose the report to query and highlight/exclude changed machines?
At last there should be a warning that changes are not reflected in historical data.

A second report would be a nice workaround, especially if you could combine/chain it to the Oversize/Undersize Report.
Morgenstern72
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 64
Liked: 5 times
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:37 pm
Full Name: Joachim

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby Vitaliy S. » Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:08 pm

Joachim,

Veeam ONE does store VM configuration in its database and we are able to track VM configuration, so additional query to VMware might slow down report generation.
Morgenstern72 wrote:At last there should be a warning that changes are not reflected in historical data.

Good idea, thanks!
Morgenstern72 wrote:A second report would be a nice workaround, especially if you could combine/chain it to the Oversize/Undersize Report

Yes, I was thinking about having this table in the same report.

BTW, I have just thought about this situation once again, and according to my math, this "issue" should not be present in VM memory recommendations engine. When doing VM memory analysis, we know what absolute configured values are, also we know what is the current value of memory usage in absolute values, so it does not actually matter when you have changed VM configuration. Both values can be matched and correlated at any time, so recommendations of reducing memory will not show up in the report.

The situation is a bit different with CPU, since usually max configured value in absolute values is the physical CPU limit of the host (unless you're using reservations/limits in advanced VM configuration). Given all this, in order to detect VMs over/under provisioned status I believe CPU usage in "%" is used (will double-check that), and that is why VMs may show up multiple times in the report. Let me run a couple of test in our own lab to confirm that.

Thanks!
Vitaliy S.
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 19558
Liked: 1102 times
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby keithkleiman » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:39 pm

Vitaly,

Late getting back, however the problem seems to be that the oversized report is still using memory consumed and not active which really eliminates the validity of determining if more memory should be allocated to a virtual machine. For example I have a simple server (not sql or anything like it) with 16 gb of memory allocated to it. When the undersized report is run it shows 16 gb memory consumed and recommends adding 4 gb to up it to 20 gb. However when you look at the actual amount of memory used it is like 17%. Perhaps the issue is my understanding of memory consumed vs active and how this report should be used.

Keith
keithkleiman
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 42
Liked: never
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:38 pm
Full Name: Keith Kleiman

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby keithkleiman » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:43 pm

Perhaps the oversized report may be useful for charge back purposes, but not actually determining if more memory is needed to service the application on the vm. Continuing my previous example, if I have a vm with 16 GB allocated and showing 17% actively used and it recommends allocating 4 gb more. Would you say this is a useful recommendation and if so can someone explain how this would be useful? I have an application owner who saw this report and is confused if more memory is needed, but the VMWare admins are looking at this report and don't believe it is a valid recommendation.
keithkleiman
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 42
Liked: never
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:38 pm
Full Name: Keith Kleiman

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby Vitaliy S. » Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:37 pm

Hi Keith,

keithkleiman wrote:Late getting back, however the problem seems to be that the oversized report is still using memory consumed and not active which really eliminates the validity of determining if more memory should be allocated to a virtual machine.

Over-sized VMs report has an option which metric to use, you need to select that in the report parameters > http://helpcenter.veeam.com/one/70/repo ... hines.html

Can you please tell me what values does it show for you VM (trying both options)?

Thanks!
Vitaliy S.
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 19558
Liked: 1102 times
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby keithkleiman » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:48 pm

I just realized this thread is on the Veeam One page and the doc you referred me to was for VeeamOne. I actually have the Veeam 7 mp implemented in my SCOM 2012 environment. I do not see this parameter available. I assume this is not yet available, but please confirm.
keithkleiman
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 42
Liked: never
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:38 pm
Full Name: Keith Kleiman

Re: undersized and oversized vm reports

Veeam Logoby Vitaliy S. » Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:42 am

Ah... now I understand where the confusion comes from. Yes, you're correct, currently only memory consumed is used in this report, which might not be 100% applicable for VMs like Exchange and SQL Server as these VMs will always consume all allocated memory. I have checked with the R&D team regarding making changes to this report, so in the next update there will be a separate report using in-guest memory usage for making recommendations.
Vitaliy S.
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 19558
Liked: 1102 times
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov

Previous

Return to Reporting



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests