Vmware View Horizon 7 Windows 10 Optimize Virtual Desktop

TECHNICAL WHITE PAPER – SEPTEMBER 2016
WINDOWS 10 OPTIMIZATION
TEST RESULTS
View in VMware Horizon 7
WINDOWS 10 OPTIMIZATION TEST RESULTS
Table of Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Audience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Horizon 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Testing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
VMware OSOT Fling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Login VSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Main Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Additional Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Benchmark Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Optimization Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
vCenter Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
T E C H N I C A L W H I T E PA P E R | 2
Introduction
This paper presents crucial test results that demonstrate the benefits of the VMware Operating System
Optimization Tool (OSOT) Fling for View desktops in VMware Horizon® 7. It compares optimized and
non-optimized versions of Windows 10 and optimized Windows 7, highlighting the resources needed to
upgrade to Windows 10 from Windows 7 in a virtualized environment. Additional optimizations not
handled by the Optimization Fling or described in the VMware Windows Operating System Optimization
Tool Guide are also included.
Audience
This paper was written specifically for data center administrators and IT personnel who want to upgrade
from Windows 7 to Windows 10 or to optimize Windows 10 operating systems for View virtual desktops
in Horizon 7. Architects and others interested in Horizon 7 or in improving the performance of Windows
desktops may also find it useful.
Horizon 7
Horizon 7 provides centralized image management for virtualized or hosted desktops and applications,
which can be delivered to end users through a single platform. Desktop and application services—
including RDS-hosted apps, packaged apps with VMware ThinApp®, SaaS apps, and even virtualized
apps from Citrix—can all be accessed from a single, unified workspace.
Horizon 7 supports both Windows and Linux-based desktops, including RHEL, Ubuntu, CentOS, and
NeoKylin. This paper, however, focuses on Windows 7 and Windows 10, especially the performance
differences between optimized and non-optimized versions.
Testing Details
The following sections discuss the testing performed, including the VMware OSOT Fling, additional
optimizations, testing methods, hardware, and results.
VMware OSOT Fling

The free OSOT Fling makes it easy to apply configuration settings to desktops and servers. It includes
settings to optimize the following Windows operating systems for both desktops and servers that reside
in the data center and in the cloud:
• Windows 7
• Windows 8
• Windows 8.1
• Windows 10
• Windows Server 2008 (including R2)
• Windows Server 2012 (including R2)
The OSOT Fling optimizes RDSH servers for VMware Horizon 6, Horizon 7, and VMware Horizon Air™.
Login VSI
All performance testing documented in this paper used the Login VSI benchmarking tool, the industry-
standard load-testing solution for centralized virtualized desktop environments. Login VSI measures the
total response time of several specific user operations performed within a desktop workload in a
scripted loop. The baseline measures the response time, in milliseconds (ms), of specific operations
performed in the desktop workload.
The Login VSI test suite defines several types of workloads to simulate various types of users, as shown
in Table 1.
WO RK LOAD P R OFILE WEIGHT v CPU APPS V IDEO
Task Worker Light 1 2–3 No
Office Worker Medium 1 4–6 240p
Knowledge Worker Medium 2 4–7 360p
Power User Heavy 2–4 5–9 720p
Table 1: Login VSI Workloads
For the tests reported in this paper, we used the Knowledge Worker workload, which simulates how
resources are used in VDI environments that use two virtual CPUs in their virtual machines. The
Knowledge Worker workload includes the following applications:
• Microsoft Outlook
• Microsoft Internet Explorer
• Microsoft Word
• Adobe Acrobat Reader
• Microsoft PowerPoint
• Microsoft Excel
• Adobe Flash Player
• Java 7
• FreeMind
• Login VSI photo viewer
• Doro PDF Writer
The Login VSI Benchmark mode predefines and constrains the launch window to 2880 seconds (48
minutes). This gives a normalized baseline to compare all tests and allows for the workload to complete
a full 48-minute cycle. There is only one phase to this profile. A user starts a remote desktop session on
a VM and begins the workload. At the end of the workload cycle, a benchmark, or baseline, score is
calculated. The lower the score, the better the result or performance.
M E AS URE M ENT I D M EAS UR EMEN T MEASU R EMEN T ACTION MEASU R ES- REL AT ED
AC TI O N DETAILED R ESOU R C E
WSLD Start Microsoft Word and Start and load a local random CPU, RAM, and I/O
load a random document. document file from the content
pool.
NSLD Start VSI Notepad and Start and load a local random text CPU and I/O
load a random document. file from the content pool.
WFO Open a file in VSI Ctrl+O CPU, RAM, and I/O

Notepad.
NFP Open Print in VSI Ctrl+P CPU

Notepad.
ZHC Compress files with high Compress a local random PST file CPU
compression. from the content pool (5 MB).
ZNC Compress files with no Compress a local random PST file I/O
compression. from the content pool (5 MB).
Table 2: Actions Taken During a Knowledge Worker Test Session
We took a methodical approach to all test operations. Tests were performed in an environment where
the only services and servers used were those needed by Login VSI. No core infrastructure servers, such
as Active Directory and SQL servers, were in use by any other applications.
After deploying all components and applications required for the Login VSI workload on each desktop,
we conducted functional validation, using a very simple test methodology.
Methodology
To begin, we ran a baseline Login VSI Knowledge Worker benchmark test, with the required
applications, to provide a simple baseline showing performance and scale information for a traditional,
non-optimized Windows 7 desktop. Next, we ran the same test on an optimized Windows 7 desktop to
see the difference in baseline performance. We then ran the Login VSI Knowledge Worker test on a
Windows 7 optimized desktop, Windows 10 non-optimized desktop, and Windows 10 optimized
desktop.
The measured operations in these benchmarks touch different subsystems, such as CPU (user and
kernel), memory, disk, the OS, the application, and print. The operations typically execute quickly. When
these operations consistently take a long time to execute, the system becomes saturated because of
excessive queuing, and the average response times escalate. This effect is reflected in the baseline score
and is also visible to end users.
For each desktop, we ran the test three times to ensure consistency.
Hardware
Each host used for testing was a Dell PowerEdge R730 with 28 cores at 2.29 GHz with 262 GB of
memory, and an EMC XtremIO all-flash array for storage.
Table 3: Host Specifications
The XtremIO storage array is an all-flash system, based on a scale-out architecture that uses building
blocks called X-Bricks, which can be clustered to increase performance and capacity as required. It is
controlled by a standalone, dedicated Linux-based server, called the XtremIO Management Server
(XMS). An XMS host, which can be either a physical or a virtual server, can manage multiple XtremIO
clusters. An array continues operating if it is disconnected from the XMS, but cannot be configured or
monitored.
Optimizations
We used all the available optimizations in the VMware OSOT Fling. You can choose not to apply all
optimizations, but your results may vary. If you do not apply all of the optimizations recommended, at
least apply the main optimizations.
Main Optimizations
These are some of the basic optimizations that were applied:
• Adjust Windows for best performance.
• Turn off all unneeded visual effects.
• Set unused services to either Manual or Disabled.
• Disable programs at startup.
• Use High Performance Power plan.
• Speed up the menu show time.
As shown in Figure 1, however, far more optimizations are applied by the VMware OSOT Fling.
Figure 1: Some Optimizations Applied by OSOT Fling
Additional Optimizations
Whether you choose to use the OSOT Fling or not, the following optional optimizations are strongly
suggested:
• Install the latest Windows updates.
• Enable write caching for storage devices.
• Move the page file to separate disk.
• Uninstall any unneeded or unused programs.
• Disable or uninstall all Internet Explorer add-ons and toolbars.
• Keep the index enabled and updated (or disable the index).
• Change how long notifications stay open.
• Adjust privacy settings to not share.
• Speed up Windows shutdown time.
You can set and adjust the following values for how long Windows waits for hung programs and other
programs to save data and close before shutting down:
––AutoEndTasks
––HungAppTimeout
––WaitToKillAppTimeout
––WaitToKillServiceTimeout
For each host, make sure the BIOS Power Management Policy settings are set for High performance.
Figure 2: BIOS Power Management Settings
Benchmark Test Results

We used the Login VSI 4.0 tool to run a representative workload on virtual desktops running each of the
operating system versions to get a benchmark or baseline score.
VSIbase is a baseline score that reflects the response time of specific operations performed in the
desktop workload when there is little or no stress on the system. A low baseline indicates a better user
experience, resulting from applications responding faster in the environment.
VS I BAS E S CO RE ( I N M I CROS ECON DS) PER FOR MAN CE
0–99 ms Excellent
800–1399 ms Very Good
1400–1999 ms Good
1999–9999 ms Reasonable/Poor
Table 4: VSIbase Scoring for This Test Environment
For this environment, a score of 1627 was considered a good score. A score less than 1399 is a very
good score compared to our baseline and shows better performance.
Optimization Results
With our testing we saw an 18–25 percent increase in performance with Windows 10 optimized as
compared to Windows 10 non-optimized and Windows 7 optimized, indicating better performance and
a better overall user experience.
Figure 3: Graph of LSI Benchmark Scores
WI ND OWS 7 O P TI M I Z E D W IN DOWS 10 N ON -OPTIMIZED W IN DOWS 10 OPTIMIZED
Test run 1: 1610 ms Test run 1: 1685 ms Test run 1: 1311 ms

Table 5: Optimization Test Results
vCenter Data
The vCenter data below also confirms that Windows 10 optimized had considerably less CPU usage,
memory usage, and disk latency than Windows 10 non-optimized. CPU average usage was
approximately 30 percent lower, and disk latency was lower by a little more than 50 percent. Although
Windows 10 optimized and Windows 7 optimized showed similar results, the overall CPU, memory, and
disk latency were lower on the Windows 10 optimized virtual machine. The Windows 7 optimized VM
also had a considerably longer login time, which contributed to its higher (that is, worse) benchmark
scores. The vCenter data scores are shown in the following graphs:
2000 100
1500 75
Percent
MHz
1000 50
500 25
0 0
10:00 PM 10:05 PM 10:10 PM 10:15 PM 10:20 PM 10:25 PM 10:30 PM 10:35 PM 10:40 PM 10:45 PM 10:50 PM 10:55 PM
Time
Performance Chart Legend

Key Object Measurement Rollup Units Latest Maximum Minimum Average
Win7-VSI-Opt Usage in MHz Average MHz 24 1764 24 478.961
0 Usage in MHz Average MHz 9 897 9 239.478
Win7-VSI-Opt Usage Average Percent 0.4 28.83 0.4 7.832
Figure 4: Windows 7 Optimized CPU Utilization
T E C H N I C A L W H I T E PA P E R | 1 0
5000000
3750000
Kilobytes
2500000
1250000
0
Time

Win7-VSI-Opt Granted Average Kilobytes 4130816 4130816 3960896 4090785.0
Win7-VSI-Opt Active Average Kilobytes 1468004 4110416 754972 1411381.2
Win7-VSI-Opt Balloon Average Kilobytes 0 0 0 0
Win7-VSI-Opt Consumed Average Kilobytes 4130816 4130816 3960892 4090784.5
Figure 5: Windows 7 Optimized Memory Utilization
10
7.5
Millisecond
2.5
0
Time

Win7-VSI-Opt Highest latency Latest Millisecond 0 8 0 0.467
Figure 6: Windows 7 Optimized Disk Latency
6000 100
4500 75
Percent
MHz
3000 50
1500 25
0 0
Time

Win10-VSI Usage in MHz Average MHz 546 5631 96 1026.589
Win10-VSI Usage Average Percent 8.93 92.05 1.57 16.784
Figure 7: Windows 10 Non-Optimized CPU Utilization
4000000
3000000
Kilobytes
2000000
1000000
0
Time

Win10-VSI Granted Average Kilobytes 3987440 3987440 1834980 3419297.8
Win10-VSI Active Average Kilobytes 1216348 3900700 880800 1439343.4
Win10-VSI Consumed Average Kilobytes 3987436 3987436 1834980 3419274.6
Win10-VSI Balloon Average Kilobytes 0 0 0 0
Figure 8: Windows 10 Non-Optimized Memory Utilization
4.5
Millisecond
1.5
0
Time

Win10-VSI Highest latency Latest Millisecond 0 5 0 0.739
Figure 9: Windows 10 Non-Optimized Disk Latency
4000 100
3000 75
Percent
MHz
2000 50
1000 25
0 0
Time

Win10-VSI-Opt Usage in MHz Average MHz 593 3598 61 677.439
Win10-VSI-Opt Usage Average Percent 9.7 58.82 1.01 11.076
Figure 10: Windows 10 Optimized CPU Utilization
4000000
3000000
Kilobytes
2000000
1000000
0
Time

Win10-VSI-Opt Granted Average Kilobytes 3067904 3489792 1200044 2745141.7
Win10-VSI-Opt Active Average Kilobytes 1048576 3900700 335544 1346369.7
Win10-VSI-Opt Consumed Average Kilobytes 3067804 3489792 1200044 2745068.8
Win10-VSI-Opt Balloon Average Kilobytes 0 0 0 0
Figure 11: Windows 10 Optimized Memory Utilization
4.5
Millisecond
1.5
0
Time

Win10-VSI-Opt Highest latency Latest Millisecond 2 4 0 0.339
Figure 12: Windows 10 Optimized Disk Latency
Conclusion
Windows 10 virtual desktops showed a considerable improvement in performance—around 30
percent—when optimized with the OSOT Fling. Non-optimized Windows 10 desktops showed a similar
performance improvement compared to optimized Window 7 desktops, so the contrast between
Windows 7, whether optimized or not, and Windows 10 optimized with OSOT is truly dramatic. The
OSOT Fling also reduced the amount of memory and storage I/O used by each desktop. A reduction of
this magnitude can improve resource utilization—or resource recovery—by enabling each host to
support a larger number of virtual desktops. We did not calculate or predict the cost or resource
savings because these must vary for each implementation, but a performance improvement in the
reported range should be reason enough to use the OSOT Fling.
About the Author

Chris White is an Architect on the VMware End-User-Computing Technical-Marketing Center of
Excellence team. He wishes to thank Gary Sloane, VMware Consulting Editor, for many suggestions
and contributions to this paper.
VMware, Inc. 3401 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto CA 94304 USA Tel 877-486-9273 Fax 650-427-5001 www.vmware.com
Copyright © 2016 VMware, Inc. All rights reserved. This product is protected by U.S. and international copyright and intellectual property laws. VMware products are covered by one or more patents listed
at http://www.vmware.com/go/patents. VMware is a registered trademark or trademark of VMware, Inc. in the United States and/or other jurisdictions. All other marks and names mentioned herein may be
trademarks of their respective companies. Item No: 4687-WP-APPVOLUMESREVIEWERSGUIDE-USLET-20160915-WEB
9/16

Vmware View Horizon 7 Windows 10 Optimize Virtual Desktop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

You might also like

Vmware View Horizon 7 Windows 10 Optimize Virtual Desktop

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Vmware View Horizon 7 Windows 10 Optimize Virtual Desktop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

TECHNICAL WHITE PAPER – SEPTEMBER 2016

About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

VMware OSOT Fling

WO RK LOAD P R OFILE WEIGHT v CPU APPS V IDEO

Task Worker Light 1 2–3 No

Office Worker Medium 1 4–6 240p

Knowledge Worker Medium 2 4–7 360p

Power User Heavy 2–4 5–9 720p

Table 1: Login VSI Workloads

WFO Open a file in VSI Ctrl+O CPU, RAM, and I/O

NFP Open Print in VSI Ctrl+P CPU

Table 3: Host Specifications

Figure 1: Some Optimizations Applied by OSOT Fling

Figure 2: BIOS Power Management Settings

Benchmark Test Results

VS I BAS E S CO RE ( I N M I CROS ECON DS) PER FOR MAN CE

800–1399 ms Very Good

Figure 3: Graph of LSI Benchmark Scores

WI ND OWS 7 O P TI M I Z E D W IN DOWS 10 N ON -OPTIMIZED W IN DOWS 10 OPTIMIZED

Test run 1: 1610 ms Test run 1: 1685 ms Test run 1: 1311 ms

Test run 2: 1605 ms Test run 2: 1609 ms Test run 2: 1310 ms

Performance Chart Legend

Figure 4: Windows 7 Optimized CPU Utilization

Performance Chart Legend

Figure 5: Windows 7 Optimized Memory Utilization

Performance Chart Legend

Figure 6: Windows 7 Optimized Disk Latency

Performance Chart Legend

Figure 7: Windows 10 Non-Optimized CPU Utilization

Performance Chart Legend

Figure 8: Windows 10 Non-Optimized Memory Utilization

Performance Chart Legend

Figure 9: Windows 10 Non-Optimized Disk Latency

Performance Chart Legend

Figure 10: Windows 10 Optimized CPU Utilization

Performance Chart Legend

Figure 11: Windows 10 Optimized Memory Utilization

Performance Chart Legend

Figure 12: Windows 10 Optimized Disk Latency

About the Author

You might also like