Comparing TADDM performance on different platforms

Introduction

This document compares the running time of running discovery in TADDM 7.1.2 on a virtual environment (VMware ESX) and a non-virtual environment. This is not an comprehensive test, and should not take as TADDM performance result, but just as a comparison study of the TADDM Server in different platforms.

Platforms

Virtual environment

Linux RedHat Enterprise Server Release 5
2 vCPU
3600 MB
VMware ESX, with just 1 VM running

Non-virtual Windows environment

Windows 2003 SP2
2 CPUs
3200 MB
TADDM 7.1.2 and DB2 collocated in one server

Non-virtual Linux environment

Linux RedHat Enterprise Server Release 5
2 CPUs
3200 MB
TADDM 7.1.2 and DB2 collocated in one server

Two server, non-virtual environment

TADDM Server in the Windows environment above
DB2 Server in a separate machine, same specification as the server above

Target environment

37 Computer Systems, consisting of Windows, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris and Linux machines.
Number of components found: 315 (3 Server Equivalents)

Running time

Running time	Virtual environment	Windows environment	Linux environment	Two-server environment
Level 3 Discovery	30 min 47 sec	8 min 49 sec	28 min 37 sec	6 min 4 sec
Level 3 Discovery without WebSphereCellSensor	10 min 36 sec	7 min 43 sec	6 min 16 sec	5 min 8 sec
Level 2 Discovery	10 min 15 sec	5 min 6 sec	7 min 34 sec	4 min 4 sec
100 MB IDML bulk load (250,000 CIs)	13 hours 9 min	5 hours 52 min	13 hours 55 min	22 hours 19 min
Level 3 Rediscovery after bulk load	30 min 4 sec	6 min 47 sec	16 min 25 sec	6 min 24 sec

Conclusions

• Even in a small scale, the discovery process in a Virtual environment is almost 4 times slower than in a non-virtual environment
• Although the run time for other activities don't show significant difference, the discovery process in a Virtual environment is just prohibitive.
• Except for bulk loading, a two-server environment had the best performance in all tests.