Report Archive for

Click on a report title to go to the download page for that report.

Kaspersky Lab Kaspersky Security Center 9 Management of Physical and Virtual Environments vs. Trend Micro Document number: 212118 Release Date: 21 Aug 2012 The benefits of server virtualization are so compelling that virtualized environments are now a part of business environments large and small. As with their physical counterparts, though, virtualized systems require security software to be installed and managed. Kaspersky Lab has designed their security management system to provide a consistent interface across both physical and virtual systems. Kaspersky Lab commissioned Tolly to evaluate Kaspersky Security Management and comparable security management products from Trend Micro in a scenario where both physical and virtual systems are managed. Testing confirmed that Kaspersky users can administer both physical and virtual environments from a single security console, while users of the Trend Micro products need to install and use separate management products for physical and virtual environments. Virtualization
Infoblox, Inc Infoblox IPAM Automation for VMware vCloud Director - IP Address and DNS Provisioning of VMware Virtual Machines Document number: 212124 Release Date: 01 Aug 2012 Server virtualization platforms such as VMware vSphere provide enterprise server architects with enormous flexibility in provisioning new environments for functions like application testing, staging or production rollouts. For all its power, common functions, including creating and deleting collections of virtual machines (VMs), gathering information about the myriad virtual servers, virtual switches and virtual VLANs in one’s environment and provisioning a new physical server (ESXi host), still require manual networking configuration. Infoblox commissioned Tolly to evaluate its IP address management (IPAM) automation solution for VMware. The Infoblox offering integrates with VMware vCenter Orchestrator as a plug-in and leverages Infoblox DNS functionality to decrease the amount of time and effort required to accomplish common tasks, eliminate errors and improve total cost of ownership (TCO) in VMware environments. With environments of 500 VMs, the staff costs of manual vApp provisioning and discovery can exceed $60,000. Since manual provisioning does not scale, effort increases linearly with the size of the virtual environment. According to Tolly calculations, the additional cost associated with manual provisioning in an environment of 5,000 VMs can exceed $600,000 per annum. Virtualization
Symantec Corporation Symantec Endpoint Protection 12.1 vs. Trend Micro Deep Security 8 Anti-virus Performance in VMware ESXi Virtual Environments Document number: 212117 Release Date: 07 May 2012 As IT architects scale deployments of virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) solutions, they must be aware of the resource requirements of “always on” and high-use components such as endpoint security systems. In virtual environments, vendors can implement their solution as a client-based agent where all security processing takes place on the client, a virtual appliance that handles the anti-virus (A/V) workload or, possibly, some hybrid of the two approaches. Symantec Corp. commissioned Tolly to benchmark the performance of its new Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) 12.1 within VMware ESXi 5 virtual environments vs. Trend Micro Deep Security 8. Specifically, this testing focused on the system resource requirements of each solution when performing on-demand and on-access scanning, and during distributed virus definition updates. Virtualization
Quantum Corporation Quantum vmPRO Data Protection Solution for VMware An Evaluation of Ease-of-Implementation, Functionality, and Interoperability in VMware vSphere 5 Environments Document number: 212100 Release Date: 02 Feb 2012 With virtualization’s ever-increasing adoption by small and medium size businesses (SMBs), and remote or branch offices (ROBOs), IT administrators face a major overhaul of the critical infrastructure that supports the expanding virtual environment. In the data protection arena, while the environment will shift, the goal remains the same: to provide backup and restore capabilities to every server instance both as a whole, and as a file structure for individual recovery. The task then becomes choosing and implementing data protection for virtualized environments while maintaining interoperability and manageability with existing disaster recovery deployments. Virtualization
Quest Software, Inc. Quest vRanger Pro 5.2  Performance and Ease-of-Use Evaluation in VMware ESXi 4.1u1 Environments Document number: 211134 Release Date: 05 Dec 2011 Small and medium size business (SMB) networks are facing increasing demands for data protection in their virtualized environments. As server consolidation continues, SMBs are unlikely to adhere to the level of redundancy sought by enterprise class datacenters. However, planning for the unexpected provides for a quick recovery in the event of an outage. All SMBs can benefit from a flexible platform which can provide the desired backup, recovery, and replication features, while effortlessly integrating with their specific environment. A solution which can be implemented as a virtual or physical machine, on the LAN or SAN is preferable where storage may not be centralized, or additional servers may be hard to come by. Virtualization
Hewlett-Packard Co. HP t5740e Thin Client Video User Experience Comparative Evaluation vs. Wyse Z90S7 & Wyse Z90D7 Running Microsoft Windows Embedded Standard 7 SP1 Document number: 211124 Release Date: 27 Sep 2011 As thin client deployments become more common for complex, graphics- intensive applications, the demand for multi-display functionality continues to increase. Not only must thin clients offer flexible solutions for multi-monitor requirements, but they must also provide for good quality performance for high- resolution multimedia applications. HP commissioned Tolly to evaluate the user experience and feature set of the newly-enhanced HP t5740e in three configurations, comparing those systems to the Wyse Z90S7 and Z90D7 thin client solutions. All systems ran the Microsoft Windows Embedded Standard (WES) 7 SP1 operating system in multi-monitor configurations with playback scenarios of high-definition video in popular formats. Overall, the HP solutions delivered a user experience comparable to the Wyse solutions. Only the HP solution offers out-of-box support for simultaneous use of 4 monitors. Furthermore, HP supports DisplayPort, VGA and legacy PS2, serial and parallel ports as standard features. Virtualization
Sophos Ltd. Sophos Endpoint Security and Control v9.7: Anti-virus Performance in VMware ESX Virtual Environments Document number: 211125 Release Date: 26 Aug 2011 As IT architects scale deployments of virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) solutions, they must be aware of the resource requirements of “always on” and high-use components such as endpoint security systems. In virtual environments, vendors can implement their solution as a client-based agent, where all processing for each client takes place on the client, a virtual appliance that handles the anti- virus (AV) workload or, possibly, some hybrid of the two approaches. Sophos Ltd. commissioned Tolly to benchmark the performance of its new Sophos Endpoint Security and Control v9.7 within virtual environments. Specifically, this testing focused on the system resource requirements of the Sophos client-based agent when performing on-demand/on-access scanning and virus signature definition update tasks. Virtualization
Symantec Corporation Symantec Endpoint Protection 12.1 vs. McAfee and Trend Micro Anti-virus Performance in VMware ESX Virtual Environments Document number: 211123 Release Date: 17 Aug 2011 As IT architects scale deployments of virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) solutions, they must be aware of the resource requirements of “always on” and high-use components such as endpoint security systems. In virtual environments, vendors can implement their solution as a client-based agent where all processing for each client takes place on the client, an virtual appliance that handles the a/v workload or, possibly, some hybrid of the two approaches. Symantec Corp. commissioned Tolly to benchmark the performance within virtual environments of its new Symantec Endpoint Protection 12.1 vs. comparable solutions from McAfee and Trend Micro. Specifically, this testing focused on the disk input/output requirements of each solution when performing on-access scan, on- demand scan and virus definition update. Virtualization
VMware Virtual Desktop Implementation and Maintenance: VMware View 4.6 Premier vs. Citrix XenDesktop 5 Platinum Document number: 211115 Release Date: 27 May 2011 Deploying server-hosted virtual desktops can provide significant benefits to IT organizations. By moving desktop computing environments from user desktops on physical PCs to virtual machines hosted on servers in the data center, companies can realize significant cost-of-ownership reductions associated with the ongoing support and maintenance of their end-user computing resources. As Desktop Virtualization technology matures, the latest versions of VMware View and Citrix XenDesktop represent an evolution in the Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) solutions towards ease of management and workflow efficiency, while aiming to deliver a rich user experience that is closer to using a physical PC. VMware’s PC over Internet Protocol (PCoIP) and Citrix’s HDX technologies make advances towards delivering smoother multimedia experience comparable to a physical PC. While Citrix XenDesktop 5 introduced several improvements - such as Machine Creation Services (MCS) and Desktop Studio - for creating and managing virtual desktops, VMware View 4.6 continues to offer a significantly simpler management and administration workflow using a single management interface. In contrast XenDesktop 5 continues to require the use of multiple interfaces - Desktop Studio, Provisioning Services Console, Active Directory, etc.. Combining these usability advantages with the lower licensing costs for a 1000 user deployment, View 4.6 delivers savings in both acquisition and ongoing administration costs over XenDesktop 5. Virtualization
Trend Micro, Inc Trend Micro Deep Security 7.5 vs. McAfee and Symantec Anti-virus Performance in VMware ESX Virtual Environments Document number: 211101 Release Date: 09 Feb 2011 Server and desktop virtualization are essential elements of any IT strategy that seeks to decrease capital and operational expenditures . In the rush to implement virtualization technologies, many organizations simply deploy the same anti-virus solution that is in use on their physical server and desktop systems. Because these traditional anti-virus solutions are not designed specifically for virtual environments, they can create significant operational issues such as anti-virus (AV) storms, resource wastage and administrative overhead, and hamper the organization’s objective of maximizing VM densities. Trend Micro, Inc. commissioned Tolly to benchmark the performance within virtual environments of the Trend Micro Deep Security solution vs. McAfee Total Protection for Endpoint and Symantec Endpoint Protection 11.0. Specifically, this testing evaluated the impact each solution had on host system (physical server) resources especially as guest machine density increased to up to 100 virtual machines simultaneously running in a VMware ESX 4.1 environment. Virtualization
Symantec Corporation Symantec Backup Exec 2010 R2: Exchange & VMware Backup & Restore vs CA ARCserve r15 Document number: 210149 Release Date: 18 Oct 2010 Symantec commissioned Tolly to evaluate the performance of its Backup Exec 2010 solution in Microsoft Exchange 2007 and VMware ESX 3.5/4 scenarios and compare that to CA’s ARCserve r15. Virtualization
Akamai Technologies, Inc. Akamai IP Application Accelerator Service: Real-world Performance Benchmarking of the Citrix Virtual Desktop Environment Document number: 209121 Release Date: 21 Sep 2009 Akamai commissioned Tolly to evaluate the performance benefits of using Akamai IP Application Accelerator service when using a real-world deployment of the Citrix Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) solution Tests evaluated the end-user experience when accessing the VDI solution over the standard Internet and compared the experience to that while using optimized delivery over the Internet using Akamai's IP Application Accelerator Service Virtualization
VMware Virtual Desktop Implementation: VMware View 3 Premier vs. Citrix XenDesktop Enterprise 3.0 Document number: 209119 Release Date: 31 Aug 2009 Testers set out to build and deploy a virtual desktop environment capable of supporting 30 to 40 users. Engineers layered the virtual desktop capabilities onto a pre-existing virtualization environment to serve as a starting point. Once virtual desktops were built, testers conducted an informal examination of application responsiveness for LAN-based VDI users when running traditional business applications, as well as when accessing high-definition multimedia. The goal of the test was to help prospective users of the Vmware and Citrix desktop virtualization solutions better understand the process of setting up and managing the respective VDI environments. Current release offerings were used for each of the solutions. The Vmware View 3 VDI solution deployed more simply and more rapidly than Citrix XenDesktop 3.0. Vmware provided more comprehensive, efficient image and storage management of virtual desktops. It provides end-users with a quality of experience on the LAN that matches or exceeds that offered by the Citrix solution. Download the free report. Virtualization
VMware Application Virtualization: VMware ThinApp 4.0 versus Microsoft App-V 4.5 CU1 and Citrix XenApp 5.0 Document number: 209136 Release Date: 31 Aug 2009 VMware commissioned Tolly to evalute the packaging and deployment chracteristics of VMware ThinApp 4.0 and compare that solution with Microsoft App-V 4.5 CU1 and Citrix XenApp 5.0 Benchmark scenarios explored applications packaged for streaming as well as applications packaged for offline use. Download the free report. Virtualization
Symantec Corporation Symantec Backup Exec 12.5 & Symantec Veritas NetBackup 6.5.3: VMware ESX 3.5 Environment Data Protection Performance Versus CommVault Simpana 8 Document number: 209124 Release Date: 25 May 2009 Symantec Corporation commissioned Tolly to evaluate the data protection performance of Symantec Backup Exec 12.5 & Symantec Veritas NetBackup 6.5.3 and compare them with CommVault Simpana 8 in a VMware ESX 3.5 environment. Testing evaluated backup performance and recovery performance for the full VMware ESX virtual machines as well as individual files residing within a given virtual machine. Download the free test report. Virtualization
Symantec Corporation Symantec Backup Exec 12.5 & Symantec Veritas NetBackup 6.5.3: VMware Environment Data Protection Performance Versus EMC NetWorker 7.5 Document number: 209118 Release Date: 17 May 2009 Symantec Corporation commissioned Tolly to evaluate the data protection performance of Symantec Backup Exec 12.5 & Symantec Veritas NetBackup 6.5.3 and compare them with EMC NetWorker 7.5 in a VMware environment. Testing evaluated backup performance and recovery performance for the full VMware ESX virtual machines as well as individual files residing within a given virtual machine. Download the free test report. Virtualization
Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix XenServer 5: Optimized Performance for XenApp Compared to VMware ESX 3.5u3 Document number: 209103 Release Date: 15 Apr 2009 Citrix Systems commissioned Tolly to evaluate the performance of Citrix XenApp when running on Citrix XenServer 5 and compare that with XenApp running on VMware ESX 3.5u3. Testing focused on system scalability and user quality-of-experience. This test report was approved for publication by VMware. The VMware End User License Agreement (EULA) requires such approval. The testing was conducted in accordance with Tolly Common Test Plan #1101, Virtual Server Performance. That document is available for license and you can find more information about it on the Tolly Common Test Plan website. Click on the report icon to purchase the report. Virtualization
VMware Virtual Desktop-Implementierung: VMware View 3 Premier verglichen mit Citrix XenDesktop Enterprise 2.1 Document number: 209101DE Release Date: 09 Mar 2009 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Die VDI-Lösung View 3 von VMware lässt sich leichter und schneller implementieren als Citrix XenDesktop 2.1. VMware bietet eine umfassendere u n d e f fi z i e n t e r e I m a g e - u n d Speicherverwaltung für virtuelle Desktops. Endanwendern erhalten im LAN eine Erlebnisqualität, die der Citrix-Lösung gleichkommt bzw. diese übertrifft. Virtualization
VMware Virtual Desktop Implementation: VMware View 3 Premier vs. Citrix XenDesktop Enterprise 2.1 Document number: 209101 Release Date: 09 Feb 2009 Testers set out to build and deploy a virtual desktop environment capable of supporting 30 to 40 users. Engineers layered the virtual desktop capabilities onto a pre-existing virtualization environment to serve as a starting point. Once virtual desktops were built, testers conducted an informal examination of application responsiveness for LAN-based VDI users when running traditional business applications, as well as when accessing high-definition multimedia. . The goal of the test was to help prospective users of the VMware and Citrix desktop virtualization solutions better understand the process of setting up and managing the respective VDI environments. Current release offerings were used for each of the solutions. The VMware View 3 VDI solution deployed more simply and more rapidly than Citrix XenDesktop 2.1. VMware provided more comprehensive, efficient image and storage management of virtual desktops. It provides end-users with a quality of experience on the LAN that matches or exceeds that offered by the Citrix solution. Download the free report. Virtualization
McAfee McAfee Total Protection for Virtualization Evaluation in VMware ESX and Microsoft Hyper-V Environments Document number: 208344 Release Date: 30 Jan 2009 McAfee, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate the effectiveness of McAfee Total Protection (ToPS) for Virtualization, managed by ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) 4.0, in providing a comprehensive suite of security services to virtualized Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 environments — online and offline — under both VMware and Microsoft’s Hyper-V server virtualization platforms. Tolly engineers built virtual server environments using both VMware ESX Server version 3.5 and Microsoft Hyper-V. In these environments they deployed virtual instances of Microsoft’s Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008. Engineers then exercised an extensive set of functions to illustrate that McAfee could provide extensive management and protection of virtual server environments in both online and offline states. Click on the report icon to purchase the report. Virtualization
Oracle Oracle Corporation Oracle VM Performance Evaluation of Oracle VM Server Virtualization Software Document number: 208322 Release Date: 22 Sep 2008 Oracle Corporation commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate the performance of Oracle VM running in a 32-bit Linux server environment and supporting a variety of workloads. Tolly Group engineers examined the performance of virtual servers running on Oracle VM compared to typical bare-metal servers that consume more real estate and cost more to deploy. Engineers also conducted the same tests on two virtual machines to prove the performance scalability of the Oracle VM virtualization technology. Tests were conducted in July 2008. Download the free report Virtualization
Acresso, Inc / Citrix Systems, Inc. Acresso Software Citrix Systems, Inc. AdminStudio® 8.6 Optimizes Packaging of Applications for Streaming via Citrix XenApp Document number: 208270 Release Date: 10 Sep 2008 Acresso Software, Inc. and Citrix Systems, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to illustrate the benefits of implementing Acresso’s AdminStudio packaging solution with Citrix XenApp™ as implemented using Citrix Presentation Server 4.5. Tolly Group engineers used the Profiler, the packaging tool built into the application streaming feature of XenApp, to provide a baseline for virtualized application packaging preparation time for a number of common enterprise applications. Engineers then implemented Acresso AdminStudio and used the solution to prepare the same applications for streaming to quantify the benefits that Acresso can bring to system administrators deploying streaming applications in a Citrix XenApp virtual delivery environment. Tests were conducted in July 2008. Virtualization
Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix Systems, Inc. XenServer Enterprise 4.1.0 Performance Evaluation of XenApp in a 64-bit Virtualized Server Environment Using XenServer Document number: 208304 Release Date: 20 May 2008 Citrix Systems, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate the performance of XenApp when it is virtualized and optimized by its XenServer virtualization solution. Tolly Group engineers examined the maximum number of concurrent users a single XenApp server could support in a 64-bit virtualized server environment using XenServer. Engineers measured the performance of XenApp running on a physical 64-bit server and both 32-bit and 64-bit virtualized environments. The aim was to prove that virtualizing XenApp with XenServer does not degrade user scalability significantly compared to a native physical server environment. Tests were conducted in April 2008. Virtualization
Parallels Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac Microsoft Windows XP Virtualization on Mac OS X: Feature Verification of Desktop Virtualization Software Document number: 208260 Release Date: 19 Feb 2008 Parallels, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate a wide array of features of the Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac desktop virtualization software. Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac software aims to unify the user experience such that the virtual machines are integrated into the Mac operating system user interface providing a simple yet feature-rich user experience that enhances user productivity. Users whose work requires access to both Windows-only and OS X-only programs, have several alternatives: They can use separate machines, they can use a single physical machine that, through a utility like Apple’s Boot Camp, can be bring up either a dedicated OS X or a dedicated Windows machine, or they can employ virtualization technology. Such technology allows a single physical machine to run both the native Mac OS X operating system and a full version of Windows XP simultaneously. This report will examine the Parallels Desktop offering with respect to features that enhance user productivity. Tests were conducted in November 2007. Virtualization
Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix Systems, Inc. Presentation Server 4.5 Platinum Edition Bandwidth Consumption and Usability Study in Graphics-Rich Scenarios Document number: 207207 Release Date: 14 Jul 2007 Citrix Systems, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate the bandwidth and graphics display benefits of its Speed-Screen Progressive Display feature available in the latest release of Presentation Server over a variety of network types in a simulated healthcare Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) application. Tolly Group engineers evaluated the bandwidth usage benefits that the new SpeedScreen Progressive Display compression feature offers to enterprise end-users on multiple network links as compared to the SpeedScreen compression feature offered on Presentation Server 4.0. Engineers also objectively evaluated user experience improvements even in high latency networks. Tests were conducted in April 2007. Virtualization
Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix Systems, Inc. Presentation Server 4.5 Platinum Edition High Availability Study of Presentation Server 4.5 for Application Delivery Document number: 207188 Release Date: 01 Jun 2007 Citrix Systems, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate the high application availability delivered by Presentation Server 4.5 when deployed in a server farm with 1,000 servers. Tests aimed to show that a cluster of back-end servers running Presentation Server 4.5 can offer very high levels of application availability even for the most demanding enterprises. Tolly Group engineers evaluated the massive Presentation Server 4.5 farm’s ability to service large numbers of session requests to ensure application availability to thousands of simulated end-users. Moreover, engineers identified and validated the various components of Presentation Server that play an important role in application availability. Tests were conducted in March 2007. Virtualization
Citrix Systems, Inc. Tolly Group White Paper Series Sponsored by Citrix Systems: Virtualization’s Impact on the Desktop Document number: 206138 Release Date: 15 Sep 2006 Citrix Systems, Inc. — along with help from IBM and VMware, Inc. — commissioned The Tolly Group in June 2006 to conduct a comprehensive hands-on evaluation of a desktop virtualization environment combining solutions from Citrix, ESX Server software from VMware, Inc. and IBM System X and BladeCenter servers. Tolly Group engineers examined a variety of capabilities delivered by the Citrix Access Suite when used in a desktop virtualization solution. The tested solution included IBM blade servers and VMware virtualization; providing virtualized Windows XP "desktops" that could be accessed via remote desktop applications running on the Citrix Presentation Server. Tests focused on scalability, performance, and feature/functionality capabilities. Specifically, The Tolly Group focused on determining how many simultaneous remote control sessions could be supported by the "broker" machine. In addition, The Tolly Group performed functional testing aimed at assessing the solution's suitability for a remote deployment model. The report is informed reading for any company considering server virtualization. Virtualization
Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix Presentation Server 4 Enterprise Edition Performance and Scalability Value-Add to Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services Document number: 206146 Release Date: 30 Aug 2006 Citrix Systems, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to measure the performance and scalability boost that Citrix Presentation Server 4.0 brings to a Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services server deployment. Tolly Group engineers measured the time taken to execute a specific task across 9 and then 18 simultaneous, simulated users on both Citrix Presentation Server and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services environments. Test scenarios for 9 and 18 simultaneous consisted of measuring the elapsed time (in seconds) needed to complete a simulated user task on both Citrix Presentation Server and Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services under three different scenarios: (1) the time with no additional processor load on the server, (2) the time with 50% processor load on the server and (3) the time with 80% processor load on the server. Virtualization
Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix Presentation Server 4, Performance Comparison to Sun Secure Global Desktop 4.2 Document number: 206127 Release Date: 18 Apr 2006 Citrix Systems, Inc., commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate its Citrix Presentation Server 4, an application virtualization server that uses a centralized architecture, and how it performs in comparison to the Sun Microsystems’ Sun Secure Global Desktop 4.2. Both products enable IT departments to centrally deploy and manage business applications in a secure environment, providing on-demand access to these resources for users at any location, on any device and on any network. Tolly Group engineers measured the throughput (average Kbps), elapsed time in seconds, and bytes sent over the link in the areas of remote printing, audio and video display, 2D PowerPoint displays, and a WinBench99 2D graphic benchmark application using GDI/S/Text — Times New Roman 16. To provide a range of connection types, the results were measured using four simulated WAN connections: T1 (1.544 Mbps, 50 ms), DSL (1.5 Mbps/25 Kbps, 100 ms), Satellite/Wireless (512 Kbps, 500 ms), and Frame Relay (128 Kbps, 40 ms). Virtualization

Kaspersky Lab Kaspersky Security Center 9 Management of Physical and Virtual Environments vs. Trend Micro

Document number: 212118
Release Date: 21 Aug 2012

The benefits of server virtualization are so compelling that virtualized environments are now a part of business environments large and small. As with their physical counterparts, though, virtualized systems require security software to be installed and managed. Kaspersky Lab has designed their security management system to provide a consistent interface across both physical and virtual systems.

Kaspersky Lab commissioned Tolly to evaluate Kaspersky Security Management and comparable security management products from Trend Micro in a scenario where both physical and virtual systems are managed. Testing confirmed that Kaspersky users can administer both physical and virtual environments from a single security console, while users of the Trend Micro products need to install and use separate management products for physical and virtual environments. Virtualization

Infoblox, Inc Infoblox IPAM Automation for VMware vCloud Director - IP Address and DNS Provisioning of VMware Virtual Machines

Document number: 212124
Release Date: 01 Aug 2012

Server virtualization platforms such as VMware vSphere provide enterprise server architects with enormous flexibility in provisioning new environments for functions like application testing, staging or production rollouts. For all its power, common functions, including creating and deleting collections of virtual machines (VMs), gathering information about the myriad virtual servers, virtual switches and virtual VLANs in one’s environment and provisioning a new physical server (ESXi host), still require manual networking configuration.

Infoblox commissioned Tolly to evaluate its IP address management (IPAM) automation solution for VMware. The Infoblox offering integrates with VMware vCenter Orchestrator as a plug-in and leverages Infoblox DNS functionality to decrease the amount of time and effort required to accomplish common tasks, eliminate errors and improve total cost of ownership (TCO) in VMware environments. With environments of 500 VMs, the staff costs of manual vApp provisioning and discovery can exceed $60,000. Since manual provisioning does not scale, effort increases linearly with the size of the virtual environment. According to Tolly calculations, the additional cost associated with manual provisioning in an environment of 5,000 VMs can exceed $600,000 per annum. Virtualization

Symantec Corporation Symantec Endpoint Protection 12.1 vs. Trend Micro Deep Security 8 Anti-virus Performance in VMware ESXi Virtual Environments

Document number: 212117
Release Date: 07 May 2012

As IT architects scale deployments of virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) solutions, they must be aware of the resource requirements of “always on” and high-use components such as endpoint security systems. In virtual environments, vendors can implement their solution as a client-based agent where all security processing takes place on the client, a virtual appliance that handles the anti-virus (A/V) workload or, possibly, some hybrid of the two approaches.

Symantec Corp. commissioned Tolly to benchmark the performance of its new Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) 12.1 within VMware ESXi 5 virtual environments vs. Trend Micro Deep Security 8. Specifically, this testing focused on the system resource requirements of each solution when performing on-demand and on-access scanning, and during distributed virus definition updates. Virtualization

Quantum Corporation Quantum vmPRO Data Protection Solution for VMware An Evaluation of Ease-of-Implementation, Functionality, and Interoperability in VMware vSphere 5 Environments

Document number: 212100
Release Date: 02 Feb 2012

With virtualization’s ever-increasing adoption by small and medium size businesses (SMBs), and remote or branch offices (ROBOs), IT administrators face a major overhaul of the critical infrastructure that supports the expanding virtual environment.

In the data protection arena, while the environment will shift, the goal remains the same: to provide backup and restore capabilities to every server instance both as a whole, and as a file structure for individual recovery. The task then becomes choosing and implementing data protection for virtualized environments while maintaining interoperability and manageability with existing disaster recovery deployments. Virtualization

Quest Software, Inc. Quest vRanger Pro 5.2  Performance and Ease-of-Use Evaluation in VMware ESXi 4.1u1 Environments

Document number: 211134
Release Date: 05 Dec 2011

Small and medium size business (SMB) networks are facing increasing demands for data protection in their virtualized environments. As server consolidation continues, SMBs are unlikely to adhere to the level of redundancy sought by enterprise class datacenters. However, planning for the unexpected provides for a quick recovery in the event of an outage.

All SMBs can benefit from a flexible platform which can provide the desired backup, recovery, and replication features, while effortlessly integrating with their specific environment. A solution which can be implemented as a virtual or physical machine, on the LAN or SAN is preferable where storage may not be centralized, or additional servers may be hard to come by. Virtualization

Hewlett-Packard Co. HP t5740e Thin Client Video User Experience Comparative Evaluation vs. Wyse Z90S7 & Wyse Z90D7 Running Microsoft Windows Embedded Standard 7 SP1

Document number: 211124
Release Date: 27 Sep 2011

As thin client deployments become more common for complex, graphics- intensive applications, the demand for multi-display functionality continues to increase. Not only must thin clients offer flexible solutions for multi-monitor requirements, but they must also provide for good quality performance for high- resolution multimedia applications.

HP commissioned Tolly to evaluate the user experience and feature set of the newly-enhanced HP t5740e in three configurations, comparing those systems to the Wyse Z90S7 and Z90D7 thin client solutions. All systems ran the Microsoft Windows Embedded Standard (WES) 7 SP1 operating system in multi-monitor configurations with playback scenarios of high-definition video in popular formats.

Overall, the HP solutions delivered a user experience comparable to the Wyse solutions. Only the HP solution offers out-of-box support for simultaneous use of 4 monitors. Furthermore, HP supports DisplayPort, VGA and legacy PS2, serial and parallel ports as standard features. Virtualization

Sophos Ltd. Sophos Endpoint Security and Control v9.7: Anti-virus Performance in VMware ESX Virtual Environments

Document number: 211125
Release Date: 26 Aug 2011

As IT architects scale deployments of virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) solutions, they must be aware of the resource requirements of “always on” and high-use components such as endpoint security systems. In virtual environments, vendors can implement their solution as a client-based agent, where all processing for each client takes place on the client, a virtual appliance that handles the anti- virus (AV) workload or, possibly, some hybrid of the two approaches.

Sophos Ltd. commissioned Tolly to benchmark the performance of its new Sophos Endpoint Security and Control v9.7 within virtual environments. Specifically, this testing focused on the system resource requirements of the Sophos client-based agent when performing on-demand/on-access scanning and virus signature definition update tasks. Virtualization

Symantec Corporation Symantec Endpoint Protection 12.1 vs. McAfee and Trend Micro Anti-virus Performance in VMware ESX Virtual Environments

Document number: 211123
Release Date: 17 Aug 2011

As IT architects scale deployments of virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) solutions, they must be aware of the resource requirements of “always on” and high-use components such as endpoint security systems. In virtual environments, vendors can implement their solution as a client-based agent where all processing for each client takes place on the client, an virtual appliance that handles the a/v workload or, possibly, some hybrid of the two approaches.

Symantec Corp. commissioned Tolly to benchmark the performance within virtual environments of its new Symantec Endpoint Protection 12.1 vs. comparable solutions from McAfee and Trend Micro. Specifically, this testing focused on the disk input/output requirements of each solution when performing on-access scan, on- demand scan and virus definition update.

Virtualization

VMware Virtual Desktop Implementation and Maintenance: VMware View 4.6 Premier vs. Citrix XenDesktop 5 Platinum

Document number: 211115
Release Date: 27 May 2011

Deploying server-hosted virtual desktops can provide significant benefits to IT organizations. By moving desktop computing environments from user desktops on physical PCs to virtual machines hosted on servers in the data center, companies can realize significant cost-of-ownership reductions associated with the ongoing support and maintenance of their end-user computing resources.

As Desktop Virtualization technology matures, the latest versions of VMware View and Citrix XenDesktop represent an evolution in the Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) solutions towards ease of management and workflow efficiency, while aiming to deliver a rich user experience that is closer to using a physical PC. VMware’s PC over Internet Protocol (PCoIP) and Citrix’s HDX technologies make advances towards delivering smoother multimedia experience comparable to a physical PC. While Citrix XenDesktop 5 introduced several improvements - such as Machine Creation Services (MCS) and Desktop Studio - for creating and managing virtual desktops, VMware View 4.6 continues to offer a significantly simpler management and administration workflow using a single management interface. In contrast XenDesktop 5 continues to require the use of multiple interfaces - Desktop Studio, Provisioning Services Console, Active Directory, etc.. Combining these usability advantages with the lower licensing costs for a 1000 user deployment, View 4.6 delivers savings in both acquisition and ongoing administration costs over XenDesktop 5. Virtualization

Trend Micro, Inc Trend Micro Deep Security 7.5 vs. McAfee and Symantec Anti-virus Performance in VMware ESX Virtual Environments

Document number: 211101
Release Date: 09 Feb 2011

Server and desktop virtualization are essential elements of any IT strategy that seeks to decrease capital and operational expenditures . In the rush to implement virtualization technologies, many organizations simply deploy the same anti-virus solution that is in use on their physical server and desktop systems. Because these traditional anti-virus solutions are not designed specifically for virtual environments, they can create significant operational issues such as anti-virus (AV) storms, resource wastage and administrative overhead, and hamper the organization’s objective of maximizing VM densities.

Trend Micro, Inc. commissioned Tolly to benchmark the performance within virtual environments of the Trend Micro Deep Security solution vs. McAfee Total Protection for Endpoint and Symantec Endpoint Protection 11.0. Specifically, this testing evaluated the impact each solution had on host system (physical server) resources especially as guest machine density increased to up to 100 virtual machines simultaneously running in a VMware ESX 4.1 environment. Virtualization

Symantec Corporation Symantec Backup Exec 2010 R2: Exchange & VMware Backup & Restore vs CA ARCserve r15

Document number: 210149
Release Date: 18 Oct 2010

Symantec commissioned Tolly to evaluate the performance of its Backup Exec 2010 solution in Microsoft Exchange 2007 and VMware ESX 3.5/4 scenarios and compare that to CA’s ARCserve r15. Virtualization

Akamai Technologies, Inc. Akamai IP Application Accelerator Service: Real-world Performance Benchmarking of the Citrix Virtual Desktop Environment

Document number: 209121
Release Date: 21 Sep 2009

Akamai commissioned Tolly to evaluate the performance benefits of using Akamai IP Application Accelerator service when using a real-world deployment of the Citrix Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) solution

Tests evaluated the end-user experience when accessing the VDI solution over the standard Internet and compared the experience to that while using optimized delivery over the Internet using Akamai's IP Application Accelerator Service Virtualization

VMware Virtual Desktop Implementation: VMware View 3 Premier vs. Citrix XenDesktop Enterprise 3.0

Document number: 209119
Release Date: 31 Aug 2009

Testers set out to build and deploy a virtual desktop environment capable of supporting 30 to 40 users. Engineers layered the virtual desktop capabilities onto a pre-existing virtualization environment to serve as a starting point. Once virtual desktops were built, testers conducted an informal examination of application responsiveness for LAN-based VDI users when running traditional business applications, as well as when accessing high-definition multimedia.

The goal of the test was to help prospective users of the Vmware and Citrix desktop virtualization solutions better understand the process of setting up and managing the respective VDI environments. Current release offerings were used for each of the solutions.

The Vmware View 3 VDI solution deployed more simply and more rapidly than Citrix XenDesktop 3.0. Vmware provided more comprehensive, efficient image and storage management of virtual desktops. It provides end-users with a quality of experience on the LAN that matches or exceeds that offered by the Citrix solution.

Download the free report. Virtualization

VMware Application Virtualization: VMware ThinApp 4.0 versus Microsoft App-V 4.5 CU1 and Citrix XenApp 5.0

Document number: 209136
Release Date: 31 Aug 2009

VMware commissioned Tolly to evalute the packaging and deployment chracteristics of VMware ThinApp 4.0 and compare that solution with Microsoft App-V 4.5 CU1 and Citrix XenApp 5.0

Benchmark scenarios explored applications packaged for streaming as well as applications packaged for offline use.

Download the free report. Virtualization

Symantec Corporation Symantec Backup Exec 12.5 & Symantec Veritas NetBackup 6.5.3: VMware ESX 3.5 Environment Data Protection Performance Versus CommVault Simpana 8

Document number: 209124
Release Date: 25 May 2009

Symantec Corporation commissioned Tolly to evaluate the data protection performance of Symantec Backup Exec 12.5 & Symantec Veritas NetBackup 6.5.3 and compare them with CommVault Simpana 8 in a VMware ESX 3.5 environment.

Testing evaluated backup performance and recovery performance for the full VMware ESX virtual machines as well as individual files residing within a given virtual machine.

Download the free test report. Virtualization

Symantec Corporation Symantec Backup Exec 12.5 & Symantec Veritas NetBackup 6.5.3: VMware Environment Data Protection Performance Versus EMC NetWorker 7.5

Document number: 209118
Release Date: 17 May 2009

Symantec Corporation commissioned Tolly to evaluate the data protection performance of Symantec Backup Exec 12.5 & Symantec Veritas NetBackup 6.5.3 and compare them with EMC NetWorker 7.5 in a VMware environment.

Testing evaluated backup performance and recovery performance for the full VMware ESX virtual machines as well as individual files residing within a given virtual machine.

Download the free test report. Virtualization

Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix XenServer 5: Optimized Performance for XenApp Compared to VMware ESX 3.5u3

Document number: 209103
Release Date: 15 Apr 2009

Citrix Systems commissioned Tolly to evaluate the performance of Citrix XenApp when running on Citrix XenServer 5 and compare that with XenApp running on VMware ESX 3.5u3.

Testing focused on system scalability and user quality-of-experience. This test report was approved for publication by VMware. The VMware End User License Agreement (EULA) requires such approval.

The testing was conducted in accordance with Tolly Common Test Plan #1101, Virtual Server Performance. That document is available for license and you can find more information about it on the Tolly Common Test Plan website.

Click on the report icon to purchase the report. Virtualization

VMware Virtual Desktop-Implementierung: VMware View 3 Premier verglichen mit Citrix XenDesktop Enterprise 2.1

Document number: 209101DE
Release Date: 09 Mar 2009

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Die VDI-Lösung View 3 von VMware lässt sich leichter und schneller implementieren als Citrix XenDesktop 2.1. VMware bietet eine umfassendere u n d e f fi z i e n t e r e I m a g e - u n d Speicherverwaltung für virtuelle Desktops. Endanwendern erhalten im LAN eine Erlebnisqualität, die der Citrix-Lösung gleichkommt bzw. diese übertrifft. Virtualization

VMware Virtual Desktop Implementation: VMware View 3 Premier vs. Citrix XenDesktop Enterprise 2.1

Document number: 209101
Release Date: 09 Feb 2009

Testers set out to build and deploy a virtual desktop environment capable of supporting 30 to 40 users. Engineers layered the virtual desktop capabilities onto a pre-existing virtualization environment to serve as a starting point. Once virtual desktops were built, testers conducted an informal examination of application responsiveness for LAN-based VDI users when running traditional business applications, as well as when accessing high-definition multimedia. .

The goal of the test was to help prospective users of the VMware and Citrix desktop virtualization solutions better understand the process of setting up and managing the respective VDI environments. Current release offerings were used for each of the solutions.

The VMware View 3 VDI solution deployed more simply and more rapidly than Citrix XenDesktop 2.1. VMware provided more comprehensive, efficient image and storage management of virtual desktops. It provides end-users with a quality of experience on the LAN that matches or exceeds that offered by the Citrix solution.

Download the free report. Virtualization

McAfee McAfee Total Protection for Virtualization Evaluation in VMware ESX and Microsoft Hyper-V Environments

Document number: 208344
Release Date: 30 Jan 2009

McAfee, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate the effectiveness of McAfee Total Protection (ToPS) for Virtualization, managed by ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) 4.0, in providing a comprehensive suite of security services to virtualized Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 environments — online and offline — under both VMware and Microsoft’s Hyper-V server virtualization platforms.

Tolly engineers built virtual server environments using both VMware ESX Server version 3.5 and Microsoft Hyper-V. In these environments they deployed virtual instances of Microsoft’s Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008. Engineers then exercised an extensive set of functions to illustrate that McAfee could provide extensive management and protection of virtual server environments in both online and offline states.

Click on the report icon to purchase the report. Virtualization

Oracle Oracle Corporation Oracle VM Performance Evaluation of Oracle VM Server Virtualization Software

Document number: 208322
Release Date: 22 Sep 2008

Oracle Corporation commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate the performance of Oracle VM running in a 32-bit Linux server environment and supporting a variety of workloads.

Tolly Group engineers examined the performance of virtual servers running on Oracle VM compared to typical bare-metal servers that consume more real estate and cost more to deploy. Engineers also conducted the same tests on two virtual machines to prove the performance scalability of the Oracle VM virtualization technology.

Tests were conducted in July 2008.

Download the free report Virtualization

Acresso, Inc / Citrix Systems, Inc. Acresso Software Citrix Systems, Inc. AdminStudio® 8.6 Optimizes Packaging of Applications for Streaming via Citrix XenApp

Document number: 208270
Release Date: 10 Sep 2008

Acresso Software, Inc. and Citrix Systems, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to illustrate the benefits of implementing Acresso’s AdminStudio packaging solution with Citrix XenApp™ as implemented using Citrix Presentation Server 4.5.

Tolly Group engineers used the Profiler, the packaging tool built into the application streaming feature of XenApp, to provide a baseline for virtualized application packaging preparation time for a number of common enterprise applications. Engineers then implemented Acresso AdminStudio and used the solution to prepare the same applications for streaming to quantify the benefits that Acresso can bring to system administrators deploying streaming applications in a Citrix XenApp virtual delivery environment.

Tests were conducted in July 2008. Virtualization

Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix Systems, Inc. XenServer Enterprise 4.1.0 Performance Evaluation of XenApp in a 64-bit Virtualized Server Environment Using XenServer

Document number: 208304
Release Date: 20 May 2008

Citrix Systems, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate the performance of XenApp when it is virtualized and optimized by its XenServer virtualization solution.

Tolly Group engineers examined the maximum number of concurrent users a single XenApp server could support in a 64-bit virtualized server environment using XenServer. Engineers measured the performance of XenApp running on a physical 64-bit server and both 32-bit and 64-bit virtualized environments. The aim was to prove that virtualizing XenApp with XenServer does not degrade user scalability significantly compared to a native physical server environment.

Tests were conducted in April 2008.

Virtualization

Parallels Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac Microsoft Windows XP Virtualization on Mac OS X: Feature Verification of Desktop Virtualization Software

Document number: 208260
Release Date: 19 Feb 2008

Parallels, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate a wide array of features of the Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac desktop virtualization software. Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac software aims to unify the user experience such that the virtual machines are integrated into the Mac operating system user interface providing a simple yet feature-rich user experience that enhances user productivity.

Users whose work requires access to both Windows-only and OS X-only programs, have several alternatives: They can use separate machines, they can use a single physical machine that, through a utility like Apple’s Boot Camp, can be bring up either a dedicated OS X or a dedicated Windows machine, or they can employ virtualization technology. Such technology allows a single physical machine to run both the native Mac OS X operating system and a full version of Windows XP simultaneously.

This report will examine the Parallels Desktop offering with respect to features that enhance user productivity. Tests were conducted in November 2007.

Virtualization

Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix Systems, Inc. Presentation Server 4.5 Platinum Edition Bandwidth Consumption and Usability Study in Graphics-Rich Scenarios

Document number: 207207
Release Date: 14 Jul 2007

Citrix Systems, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate the bandwidth and graphics display benefits of its Speed-Screen Progressive Display feature available in the latest release of Presentation Server over a variety of network types in a simulated healthcare Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) application.

Tolly Group engineers evaluated the bandwidth usage benefits that the new SpeedScreen Progressive Display compression feature offers to enterprise end-users on multiple network links as compared to the SpeedScreen compression feature offered on Presentation Server 4.0. Engineers also objectively evaluated user experience improvements even in high latency networks. Tests were conducted in April 2007.

Virtualization

Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix Systems, Inc. Presentation Server 4.5 Platinum Edition High Availability Study of Presentation Server 4.5 for Application Delivery

Document number: 207188
Release Date: 01 Jun 2007

Citrix Systems, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate the high application availability delivered by Presentation Server 4.5 when deployed in a server farm with 1,000 servers. Tests aimed to show that a cluster of back-end servers running Presentation Server 4.5 can offer very high levels of application availability even for the most demanding enterprises.

Tolly Group engineers evaluated the massive Presentation Server 4.5 farm’s ability to service large numbers of session requests to ensure application availability to thousands of simulated end-users. Moreover, engineers identified and validated the various components of Presentation Server that play an important role in application availability. Tests were conducted in March 2007.

Virtualization

Citrix Systems, Inc. Tolly Group White Paper Series Sponsored by Citrix Systems: Virtualization’s Impact on the Desktop

Document number: 206138
Release Date: 15 Sep 2006

Citrix Systems, Inc. — along with help from IBM and VMware, Inc. — commissioned The Tolly Group in June 2006 to conduct a comprehensive hands-on evaluation of a desktop virtualization environment combining solutions from Citrix, ESX Server software from VMware, Inc. and IBM System X and BladeCenter servers.

Tolly Group engineers examined a variety of capabilities delivered by the Citrix Access Suite when used in a desktop virtualization solution. The tested solution included IBM blade servers and VMware virtualization; providing virtualized Windows XP "desktops" that could be accessed via remote desktop applications running on the Citrix Presentation Server.

Tests focused on scalability, performance, and feature/functionality capabilities. Specifically, The Tolly Group focused on determining how many simultaneous remote control sessions could be supported by the "broker" machine. In addition, The Tolly Group performed functional testing aimed at assessing the solution's suitability for a remote deployment model. The report is informed reading for any company considering server virtualization.

Virtualization

Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix Presentation Server 4 Enterprise Edition Performance and Scalability Value-Add to Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services

Document number: 206146
Release Date: 30 Aug 2006

Citrix Systems, Inc. commissioned The Tolly Group to measure the performance and scalability boost that Citrix Presentation Server 4.0 brings to a Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services server deployment.

Tolly Group engineers measured the time taken to execute a specific task across 9 and then 18 simultaneous, simulated users on both Citrix Presentation Server and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services environments. Test scenarios for 9 and 18 simultaneous consisted of measuring the elapsed time (in seconds) needed to complete a simulated user task on both Citrix Presentation Server and Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services under three different scenarios: (1) the time with no additional processor load on the server, (2) the time with 50% processor load on the server and (3) the time with 80% processor load on the server. Virtualization

Citrix Systems, Inc. Citrix Presentation Server 4, Performance Comparison to Sun Secure Global Desktop 4.2

Document number: 206127
Release Date: 18 Apr 2006

Citrix Systems, Inc., commissioned The Tolly Group to evaluate its Citrix Presentation Server 4, an application virtualization server that uses a centralized architecture, and how it performs in comparison to the Sun Microsystems’ Sun Secure Global Desktop 4.2.

Both products enable IT departments to centrally deploy and manage business applications in a secure environment, providing on-demand access to these resources for users at any location, on any device and on any network.

Tolly Group engineers measured the throughput (average Kbps), elapsed time in seconds, and bytes sent over the link in the areas of remote printing, audio and video display, 2D PowerPoint displays, and a WinBench99 2D graphic benchmark application using GDI/S/Text — Times New Roman 16. To provide a range of connection types, the results were measured using four simulated WAN connections: T1 (1.544 Mbps, 50 ms), DSL (1.5 Mbps/25 Kbps, 100 ms), Satellite/Wireless (512 Kbps, 500 ms), and Frame Relay (128 Kbps, 40 ms). Virtualization