1. BizTalk 2009: Performance Characteristics on Hyper-V and Physical Platforms Ewan Fairweather & Paolo Salvatori Customer Advisory Team Microsoft

2. Session Objectives Quantify BizTalk Server 2009 performance vs. BizTalk Server 2006 R2 Quantify performance of BizTalk Server 2009 on “Hyper-V” Provide guidance on how to effectively performance test BizTalk 2009

3. Session Agenda Background Goals Use cases −R2 vs. 2009 Performance Comparison −Optimizing platform −Optimizing application design −Hyper-V Performance −Conclusion

4. CSD CX Field Engagement Teams 4  Reactive services  Proactive Services  Architecture Design Review  Operational Readiness Review  Performance and Stability Review  Field Services Enablement  Key Learnings Field PM Customer Advisory Team Customer Response Engineering CX Field Engagement Teams Field and Partner Resources CSS, Premier Field Engineering, Partners CSS, Premier Field Engineering, Partners MCS, PFE, Partners, Virtual TS MCS, PFE, Partners, Virtual TS TS & SSP Partners, Virtual TS TS & SSP Partners, Virtual TS  Opportunity development  Sales Assistance  Readiness and Training  POC, Pilot  Virtual TS team  ADS  District Planning  Product Escalations  QFE & DCR  Service Packs  Beta Support  Serviceability Institutionalized services delivered by specialized product team to support field and partner resources in the sale, delivery and on-going support of BizTalk projects

5. Field Services Enablement All Guides are published to: −MSDN, Download Center End to end samples: −Sample application −BizUnit scriptsBizUnit −LogParser scripts −Visual Studio Load Tests RTM + 90 RTM Beta Product Release Cycle CAT & UE Deliver ADR to TAP Customers Deliver MSDN Hyper-V Guidance Performance and Hyper-V Boot Camp Enterprise Customer Engagements Deliver MSDN Performance Guidance Deliver MSDN Operational Guidance Denotes investment Denotes delivery

6. Assessing Application Performance The usual story −We all know testing is important for every solution −Testing is neglected This is a problem −Solutions using BizTalk tend to be business critical and tolerate little downtime −Poor testing increases the risk profile of your project −This runs the risk of huge technical and political problems −Our labs have shown you can double performance if you are careful

7. Session Agenda Background Goals Use cases −R2 vs. 2009 Performance Comparison −Optimizing infrastructure −Optimizing application design −Hyper-V Performance −Conclusion

8. BizTalk 2009 Performance Lab Goals Technical Goals: Quantify BizTalk Server 2009 (2009) vs. BizTalk Server 2006 R2 (R2) Quantify performance of BizTalk Server 2009 on “Hyper-V” Use Case 1: Logical Ports WCF Orchestration scenario Use Case 2: Inline Sends Orchestration Scenario Conditions: Perform optimizations on 2009, R2, Hyper-V Determine delta of: Throughput # of calls within 8 hours Latency Identical infrastructure for all platforms Apply infrastructure optimizations first, then application optimizations

9. Session Agenda Background Goals Use cases −R2 vs. 2009 Performance Comparison −Optimizing infrastructure −Optimizing application design −Hyper-V Performance −Conclusion

10. Inline Sends and Logical Ports Vs. Logical Port Orchestration Inline Sends Orchestration

11. Code Walk-Through Inline Sends and Logical Ports examples

12. Session Agenda Background Goals Use cases −R2 vs. 2009 Performance Comparison −Optimizing platform −Optimizing application design −Hyper-V Performance −Conclusion

13. Lab Hardware Kit - Overview

14. Detailed SAN Configuration

15. R2 vs. 2009 Performance Comparison NameModelCPU Type # of CPUs# of Cores/CPUArchitectureRAMMin Local DisksOSSoftware TAP2X-L04DL380 G5Intel Xeon2 x 2.33 Ghz4x648 GB3 x 72gb 10k SASWin2k8 EE 64bitBizTalk 2009 TAP2X-L03DL380 G5Intel Xeon2 x 2.33 Ghz4x648 GB3 x 72gb 10k SASWin2k8 EE 64bitBizTalk 2009 TAP2X-L02DL380 G5Intel Xeon2 x 2.33 Ghz4x648 GB3 x 72gb 10k SAS Win2k3 R2 SP2 EE 64bit BizTalk 2006 R2 TAP2X-L01DL380 G5Intel Xeon2 x 2.33 Ghz4x648 GB3 x 72gb 10k SAS Win2k3 R2 SP2 EE 64bit BizTalk 2006 R2 TAP4x-M01BL680Intel Xeon4 Proc (Ghz TBC)4x6432GB3 x 72gb 10k SAS Win2k3 R2 SP2 EE 64bit SQL Server 2005 TAP4x-O01BL680Intel Xeon4 Proc (Ghz TBC)4x6432GB3 x 72gb 10k SASWin2k8 EE 64bitSQL Server 2008 Vs.

16. Platform Optimizations They are grouped into the following categories: −Platform Optimizations −SQL Server Optimizations: General (all SQL Servers) −SQL Server Optimizations: BizTalk Databases −BizTalk Optimizations If appropriate: −SQL Server Optimizations: Custom Databases

17. Optimizing Platform Results Summary ~27% throughput improvement R2 ~77% throughput improvement 2009 −*Excessive dehydration was occurring, dehydration settings were non-optimal for 64 bit host ~25% latency improvement R2 ~45% latency improvement 2009 Test Concurrent Test Client Users Messages Per Second Avg Response (s) % < 3 seconds Messages Per Day Test Length Test Case 1 Baseline R2 – 32 Bit Orch 10045.42.2494.36 ~1,309,000 10 minutes 2009 - 64 bit Orch 10034.32.8975.45 ~987,000 10 minutes Test Case 1 Optimized R2 64 bit Orch 10058.061.6997.5 ~1,672,000 10 minutes 2009* 64 Bit Orch 10060.641.6197.97 ~1,746,000 10 minutes

18. Troubleshooting Dehydration Counters to use: −Process\Virtual Bytes VirtualMemoryThrottlingCriteria −Process\Private Bytes PrivateMemoryThrottlingCriteria SettingOriginal (MB)Optimization Applied (MB) Virtual Memory9006000 Private Memory50700

19. Perfmon: Virtual & Private Bytes

20. Optimizing Dehydration Default Optimized SettingCounter To Use VirtualMemoryThrottlingCriteria Process\Virtual Bytes PrivateMemoryThrottlingCriteria Process\Private Bytes

21. Dehydration Optimization Summary Test Concurrent Test Client Users Messages Per Second Avg Response (seconds) % < 3 seconds Messages Per Day Test Length 32 Bit Orchestration Host Default Config File R2100 55.821.7595.57 ~1,607,000 10 minutes 2009100 56.251.7495.31 ~1,620,000 10 minutes 64 Bit Orchestration Host Default Config File R2100 45.632.1595.85 ~1,314,000 10 minutes 2009100 45.492.1688.95 ~1,310,000 10 minutes 64 Bit Orchestration Host –Optimized Config File R2100 58.061.6997.5 ~1,672,000 10 minutes 2009100 60.641.6197.97 ~1,746,000 10 minutes Tuning dehydration settings on 64 bit host: Tuning dehydration settings on 64 bit host: Improved throughput by 27% (R2) Improved throughput by 27% (R2) Improved throughput by 33% (2009) Improved throughput by 33% (2009)

22. Session Agenda Background Goals Use cases −R2 vs. 2009 Performance Comparison −Optimizing platform −Optimizing application design −Hyper-V Performance −Conclusion

23. Test Concurrent Test Client Users Messages Per Second Avg Response (sec) % < 3 seconds Messages Per Day Test Length Logical Ports 2009 100 initial increasing by 100 every 4 minutes 64.96.5118.43 ~1,869,000 30 minutes Inline Sends 2009 100 initial increasing by 100 every 4 minutes 148.15 0.2399.98 ~4,262,000 30 minutes Optimizing Application Results Summary Test Concurrent Test Client Users Messages Per Second Avg Response (sec) % < 3 seconds Messages Per Day Test Length Logical Ports 200910060.641.6197.97 ~1,746,000 10 minutes Inline Sends 2009100 236.96 0.2499.98 ~6,824,000 10 minutes

24. Session Agenda Background Goals Use cases R2 vs. 2009 performance comparison −Optimizing platform −Optimizing application design Hyper-V Performance Conclusion

25. Hyper-V Architecture VHD - single file sits on root NTFS volume −Fixed, Dynamic, Differencing Pass-through – exclusive disk access to guest Root Partition I/O Stack Drivers Child Partition I/O Stack VSCs Server Child Partition I/O Stack VSCs Server Hypervisor DevicesProcessorsMemory VMBus Shared Memory VSPs OS Kernel Enlightenments (WS08+) 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5

26. BizTalk Virtualization Licensing License required for each physical processor License for each virtual processor in each virtual operating system Exception: BizTalk Enterprise Edition −License for the number of physical processors in the server −Enables unlimited Virtual Processors http://www.microsoft.com/biztalk/en/us/prici ng-licensing-faq.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/biztalk/en/us/prici ng-licensing-faq.aspx

27. Physical BizTalk 2009 vs. Hyper-V BizTalk 2009 Vs. Physical and Hyper-V BizTalk Servers part of the same Group NameModelCPU Type # of CPUs# of Cores/CPUArchitectureRAMMin Local DisksOSSoftware TAP2X- L06 DL380 G5Intel Xeon2 x 2.33 Ghz4x648 GB 3 x 72gb 10k SAS Win2k8 EE 64bit BizTalk 2009 Hyper-V Images TAP2X- L05 DL380 G5Intel Xeon2 x 2.33 Ghz4x648 GB 3 x 72gb 10k SAS Win2k8 EE 64bit BizTalk 2009 Hyper-V Images TAP2X- L04 DL380 G5Intel Xeon2 x 2.33 Ghz4x648 GB 3 x 72gb 10k SAS Win2k8 EE 64bitBizTalk 2009 TAP2X- L03 DL380 G5Intel Xeon2 x 2.33 Ghz4x648 GB 3 x 72gb 10k SAS Win2k8 EE 64bitBizTalk 2009 TAP4X- O01 BL680Intel Xeon4 Proc (Ghz TBC)4x6432GB 3 x 72gb 10k SAS Win2k8 EE 64bitSQL Server 2008 Comparison Tier

28. Test Concurrent Test Client Users Messages Per Second Avg Response (s) % < 3 seconds Messages Per 8-hour Day Test Length Logical Ports on Optimized Platform 2009 10060.641.6197.97 ~1,746,000 10 minutes 2009 Hyper-V 10052.961.8694.8 ~1,520,000 10 minutes Inline Sends on Optimized Platform 2009100 236.96 0.2499.98 ~6,824,000 10 minutes 2009 Hyper-V 100223.540.2899.87 ~6,438,000 10 minutes Hyper-V provides ~87% throughput* Hyper V ~15% worse latency* *Note: Calculated from Logical Ports Test Hyper-V Results To Complete

29. BizTalk Server Virtual Processors 0 0 BizTalk Server Virtual Processors 0 0 BizTalk Server Virtual Processors 0 0 BizTalk Server Virtual Processors 0 0 Logical Processors 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 to 1 MappingOverload Scenario BizTalk Server Virtual Processors 0 0 1 1 BizTalk Server Virtual Processors 0 0 1 1 BizTalk Server Virtual Processors 0 0 1 1 BizTalk Server Virtual Processors 0 0 1 1 Logical Processors 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 Virtual Processor Allocation 1 1 2 2

30. Processor Lessons Learned To measure Guest processors: −\Hyper-V Hypervisor Virtual Processor(*)\% Guest Run Time −\Hyper-V Hypervisor Virtual Processor(*)\% Total Run Time To measure Physical processors: −\Hyper-V Hypervisor Logical Processor(*)\% Total Run Time To measure Host processors: −\Hyper-V Hypervisor Root Virtual Processor(*)\% Total Run Time

31. Disk Lessons Learned For VHDs use: − \Logical Disk(*)\Avg. sec/s − \Logical Disk(*)\Avg. sec/Write − \Logical Disk(*)\Avg. sec/Read − \Logical Disk(*)\Avg. sec/Write For PassThrough Disk Analysis use: −“Hyper-V Virtual Storage Device” counters −xPerf Tool http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/dd871252.aspxhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/dd871252.aspx −

32. Pass-Through Disk Perf MeasurementPhysical SQL Physical Disk Virtual SQL Pass-through Disk Difference Transfers/Sec269.73250.477%*

33. Disk Lessons Learned Use PassThrough disks for high disk I/O: −BizTalk MessageBox Database −BizTalk Tracking Database −BizTalk File Adapter −%temp directory if BizTalk is streaming large files

34. Memory Lessons Learned Virtual machines require non-paged memory (physical memory) Ensure you have enough physical memory on both the host and guest computers Use Traditional Counters: − \Memory\Available Mbytes − \Memory\Pages/sec

35. Network Lessons Learned For high network I/O: −Use a 1:1 mapping of physical to virtual network adapters For measuring network adapters use: − \Network Interface −Bytes Total Per Second −Output Queue Length − \Hyper-V Virtual Network Adapter −Bytes Per Second − \Hyper-V Virtual Switch

36. BizTalk Server Performance Optimization Guide MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/cc558617.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/cc558617.aspx

37. Helpful Tools BizTalk BPA 1.2 PerfMon LoadGen BizUnit Log Man Relog Log Parser PAL SQLIO BizTalk Orchestration Profiler

38. Why Tune BizTalk Now - More than Ever? Reduce costs and expenses Win market share from expensive competitors Optimize to do more with less! Delight our customers

40. Resources BizTalk Server 2006: Managing a Successful Performance Lab −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa972201.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa972201.aspx Scaling Your Solutions −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa561567.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa561567.aspx Configuration Parameters that Affect Adapter Performance −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa561380.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa561380.aspx Persistence and the Orchestration Engine −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa547090.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa547090.aspx Troubleshooting MessageBox Latency Issues −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa561709.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa561709.aspx Performance Tips and Tricks −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa560694.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa560694.aspx Rule Engine Configuration and Tuning Parameters −http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa548008.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa548008.aspx Performance Considerations When Using the Rule Engine −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa952929.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa952929.aspx

41. Filegroup – Resources BizTalk Server Database Optimization −http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb743398.aspxhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb743398.aspx Understanding Files and Filegroups −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189563.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189563.aspx How to: Add Data or Log Files to a Database (SQL Server Management Studio) −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189253.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189253.aspx How to: Move an Existing Index to a Different Filegroup (SQL Server Management Studio) −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175905.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175905.aspx Physical Database Files and Filegroups −http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179316(SQL.90).aspxhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179316(SQL.90).aspx Working with tempdb in SQL Server 2005 −http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/workingwithtempd b.mspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/workingwithtempd b.mspx Optimizing Server Performance Using I/O Configuration Options −http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189892.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189892.aspx

42. © 2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries. The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.