Advertisement

Implementing Virtual Machine: A Performance Evaluation

  • Hazalila KamaludinEmail author
  • Muhamad Yusmaleef Jamal
  • Nurul Hidayah Ab Rahman
  • Noor Zuraidin Mohd Safar
  • Suhaimi Abd Ishak
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 978)

Abstract

A hypervisor is a hardware virtualization technique that allows multiple guest operating systems to run on a single host machine at the same time. Each Virtual Machine (VM) or known as guest operating system emulates all interfaces and resources of a real computer system. Virtualization is beneficial as one of the educational tools to facilitate students’ hands-on experiences and research activities. However, the performance of VM needs to be taken into consideration. We investigate the performance of a set of VMs using Oracle VirtualBox on several host machines, each of which has its own system specifications. We observe the resource utilization of each host machine in terms of its CPU utilization, CPU speed as well as memory usage. Experimental results show that the CPU utilization averages are 51.78%, 60.7% and 62.57% for cases before memory allocation, 1/2 of memory capacity and 2/3 of memory capacity, respectively. It is indicate that the utilization of a host processor is directly proportional to the memory capacity assigned for a virtual machine.

Keywords

Virtual machine Guest operating system Virtualization Performance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors express appreciation to the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) and Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM). This research is supported by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) grant (Vot 1640)

References

  1. 1.
    Smith JE, Nair R (2007) Introduction to virtual machines. Virtual Machines. Elsevier, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nabhen R, Maziero C (2006) Some experiences in using virtual machines for teaching computer networks. In: Education for the 21st century—impact of ICT and digital resources, pp 93–104Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mateljan V, Juricic V, Moguljak M (2014) Virtual machines in education. In: 37th International convention on information and communication technology, electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO), pp 603–607Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nieh J, Vaill C (2005) Experiences teaching operating systems using virtual platforms and linux. ACM SIGCSE Bull 37(1):520–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gulati A, Holler A, Ji M, Shanmuganathan G, Waldspurger C, Zhu X (2012) Vmware distributed resource management: Design, implementation, and lessons learned. VMware Tech J 1(1):45–64Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tao J, Furlinger K, Wang L, Marten H (2012) A performance study of virtual machines on multicore architectures. In: 2012 20th Euromicro international conference on parallel, distributed and network-based processing, pp 89–96Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen PM, Noble BD (2001) When virtual is better than real [operating system relocation to virtual machines]. In: Proceedings eighth workshop on hot topics in operating systems, pp 133–138Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilbert L et al (2005) Performance implications of virtualization and hyper-threading on high energy physics applications in a grid environment. In: 19th IEEE international parallel and distributed processing symposium, p 10Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hahm O, Baccelli E, Petersen H, Tsiftes N (2015) Operating systems for low-end devices in the internet of things: a survey. IEEE Internet Things J 3(5):720–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Masdari M, Nabavi SS, Ahmadi V (2016) An overview of virtual machine placement schemes in cloud computing. J Netw Comput Appl 66:106–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Joy AM (2015) Performance comparison between linux containers and virtual machines. In: 2015 International conference on advances in computer engineering and applications. IEEE, pp 342–346Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharma P, Chaufournier L, Shenoy P, Tay YC (2016) Containers and virtual machines at scale: a comparative study. In: Proceedings of the 17th international middleware conference. ACM, p 1Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahmad RW, Gani A, Hamid SHA, Shiraz M, Yousafzai A, Xia F (2015) A survey on virtual machine migration and server consolidation frameworks for cloud data centers. J Netw Comput Appl 52:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arianyan E, Taheri H, Sharifian S (2015) Novel energy and SLA efficient resource management heuristics for consolidation of virtual machines in cloud data centers. Comput Electric Eng 47:222–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Piraghaj SF, Calheiros RN, Chan J, Dastjerdi AV, Buyya R (2015) Virtual machine customization and task mapping architecture for efficient allocation of cloud data center resources. Comput J 59(2):208–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khan MA, Paplinski A, Khan AM, Murshed M, Buyya R (2018) Dynamic virtual machine consolidation algorithms for energy-efficient cloud resource management: a review. In: Sustainable cloud and energy services. Springer, Cham, pp 135–165Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gupta MK, Amgoth T (2018) Resource-aware virtual machine placement algorithm for IaaS cloud. J Supercomput 74(1):122–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toosi AN, Sinnott RO, Buyya R (2018) Resource provisioning for data-intensive applications with deadline constraints on hybrid clouds using Aneka. Futur Gener Comput Syst 79:765–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hazalila Kamaludin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Muhamad Yusmaleef Jamal
    • 1
  • Nurul Hidayah Ab Rahman
    • 1
  • Noor Zuraidin Mohd Safar
    • 1
  • Suhaimi Abd Ishak
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and Information TechnologyUniversiti Tun Hussein Onn MalaysiaJohorMalaysia

Personalised recommendations