評估企業內部網路共同作業環境 (SharePoint Server 2013) 的效能與容量需求Estimate performance and capacity requirements for enterprise intranet collaboration environments (SharePoint Server 2013)

摘要:本文中使用測試結果和建議來評估 SharePoint Server 2013 的企業內部網路共同作業解決方案的效能和容量需求。Summary: Use test results and recommendations in this article to estimate performance and capacity requirements for an enterprise intranet collaboration solution for SharePoint Server 2013.

本文包含對效能與容量規劃根據 SharePoint Server 2013 的企業內部網路共同作業解決方案的指引。它包含下列內容:This article contains guidance on performance and capacity planning for an enterprise intranet collaboration solution that is based on SharePoint Server 2013. It includes the following:

  • 實驗室環境規格,如硬體、 伺服器陣列拓撲及設定Lab environment specifications, such as hardware, farm topology and configuration

  • 測試伺服器陣列工作負載與資料集是用來產生測試負載The test farm workload and dataset that was used to generate test load

  • 測試結果與分析︰ 示範與說明在特定刻度點的負載下,輸送量、 延遲及硬體需求的趨勢。Test results and analysis that demonstrate and explain trends in throughput, latency and hardware demand under load at specific scale points.

請使用本文中的資訊,了解在一般負載與尖峰負載下案例的特性,以及當陣列伺服器向外延展時,效能趨勢如何改變。本文也可協助您評估已規劃架構的適當起點,以及當您規劃伺服器陣列在尖峰負載下要維持可接受的效能等級所需之資源時,評估重要的考量因素。Use the information in this article to understand the characteristics of the scenario under both normal and peak loads, and how performance trends change when farm servers are scaled out. This article can also help you estimate an appropriate starting point for your planned architecture, and the factors that are important to consider when you plan for the resources your farm will need to maintain acceptable levels of performance under peak load.

環境簡介Introduction to this environment

本文提供有關如何向外延展伺服器中的 SharePoint Server 2013 企業內部網路共同作業解決方案的指引。容量計劃會告知硬體,以最佳化您的解決方案的購買和系統設定的相關決策。This article provides guidance about how to scale out servers in a SharePoint Server 2013 enterprise intranet collaboration solution. Capacity planning informs decisions about hardware to purchase and system configurations that optimize your solution.

個別 SharePoint Server 2013 伺服器陣列是唯一的而每個伺服器陣列的硬體、 使用者行為、 的已安裝的功能、 設定及許多其他因素而定的不同需求。因此,補充這份指導您自己環境中硬體上的其他測試。如果您計劃的設計和工作負載的格式類似於本文所述的環境,您可以使用本文來繪製結論有關如何擴充您的環境。Individual SharePoint Server 2013 farms are unique, and each farm has different requirements that depend on hardware, user behavior, the configuration of installed features, and many other factors. Therefore, supplement this guidance with additional testing on your own hardware in your own environment. If your planned design and workload resembles the environment described in this article, you can use this article to draw conclusions about how to scale your environment.

本文所示的測試結果是在實驗室中產生,使用工作負載、資料集及架構來模擬高度控制條件下的實際執行環境。雖然我們在設計這些測試時非常仔細,但實驗室中的效能特性絕對和實際執行環境下的行為不同,所以這些測試結果並不能代表實際執行環境的效能與容量特性。不過,測試結果可說明在傳送量、延遲及硬體需求中所觀察到的趨勢,並且對所觀察到的資料提供分析,協助您在如何規劃容量及管理自己的伺服器陣列方面做出決策。Test results that appear in this article were produced in a test lab, using a workload, dataset, and architecture emulate a production environment under highly controlled conditions. While great care was exercised in designing these tests, the performance characteristics of a test lab are never the same as the behavior of a production environment. These test results do not represent the performance and capacity characteristics of a production farm. Instead, the test results demonstrate observed trends in throughput, latency, and hardware demand, and provide analysis of the observed data that can help you make decisions about how to plan capacity and manage your own farm.

本文包括下列資訊︰This article includes the following:

  • 規格的硬體、 拓撲及設定Specifications, which include hardware, topology, and configuration

  • 工作量,包括需求的伺服器陣列、 使用者數目及使用狀況特性的分析The workload, which includes an analysis of the demand on the farm, the number of users, and usage characteristics

  • 資料集,例如資料庫大小和內容類型The dataset, such as database sizes and content types

  • 對於向外延展網頁伺服器測試結果與分析Test results and analysis for scaling out web servers

  • SharePoint Server 2010 與 SharePoint Server 2013 之間的比較輸送量、 延遲及實體伺服器和虛擬機器上的網頁伺服器效能Comparison between SharePoint Server 2010 and SharePoint Server 2013 throughput, latency, and web server performance on both physical servers and virtual machines

閱讀本文之前,請閱讀下列文章,以確認您了解 SharePoint Server 2013 中的容量管理的重要概念。Before you read this article, read the following articles to make sure that you understand the key concepts behind capacity management in SharePoint Server 2013.

這些文章提供下列資訊︰These articles provide the following information:

  • 容量管理的建議方法The recommended approach to capacity management

  • 如何有效利用本文中的資訊How to make effective use of the information in this article

  • 本文中所用詞彙的定義Definitions of terms that are used throughout this article

詞彙Glossary

以下為本文中會出現的部分特殊詞彙。Here are some specialized terms that you will encounter in this article.

  • RPS:每秒,要求或數目要求的伺服器陣列或伺服器收到一秒。這是常見的伺服器與伺服器陣列負載度量單位。RPS: Requests per second, or the number of requests a that a farm or server receives in one second. This is a common measurement of server and farm load.

    請注意,要求與頁面載入不同。頁面包含許多元件,當瀏覽器載入頁面時,每個元件都會建立一或多個要求。因此,一個頁面載入會建立許多要求。驗證檢查與使用極少量資源的事件一般不會計算在 RPS 度量中。Note that requests differ from page loads. A page contains several components, each of which creates one or more requests when a browser loads the page. Therefore, one page load creates several requests. Typically, authentication checks and events that use insignificant resources are not counted in RPS measurements.

  • 綠色區域:綠色區域代表一組已定義正常作業的情況,最多個預期每日的尖峰負載下的負載特性。在這個範圍中運作的伺服器陣列應該能夠維持回應時間與介於參數可接受的延遲。Green Zone: Green Zone represents a defined set of load characteristics under normal operation conditions, up to expected daily peak loads. A farm that operates in this range should be able to sustain response times and latency that are within acceptable parameters.

    在此狀態下,伺服器可維持下列準則︰This is the state at which the server can maintain the following set of criteria:

    • 至少 75% 的要求在伺服器端的延遲少於 1 秒。The server-side latency for at least 75% of the requests is less than 1 second.

    • 所有的陣列伺服器維持平均 CPU 使用率在 60% 以下。All farm servers maintain an average CPU utilization of less than 60%.

      注意

      因為此實驗室環境可能不具備執行使用中的搜尋編目、 資料庫伺服器已保留在大約 50 %cpu 使用率或降低齊備搜尋編目負載為 10%。本範例假設 SQL 伺服器資源管理員在生產環境中用來限制搜尋編目負載為 10 %cpu。Because this lab environment did not have an active search crawl running, the database server was kept at approximately 50% CPU utilization or lower to reserve 10% for the search crawl load. This assumes SQL Server Resource Governor is used in production to limit Search crawl load to 10% CPU.

    • 失敗率低於 0.01%。Failure rate is less than 0.01%.

  • 紅色區域 (Max):紅色區域代表一組已定義的尖峰作業的情況下的負載特性。紅色區域在伺服器陣列的錯誤率非常高暫時性的資源需求愈多,它可以維持僅針對有限的段前失敗並發生其他效能和可靠性的問題。Red Zone (Max): Red Zone represents a defined set of load characteristics under peak operation conditions. At Red Zone, the farm experiences very high transient resource demands that it can sustain only for limited periods before failures and other performance and reliability issues occur.

    在此狀態下,伺服器可在有限的持續時間內維持下列準則︰This is the state at which the server can maintain the following set of criteria for a limited duration:

    • 啟用 HTTP 要求節流功能,但不傳回 503 錯誤 (伺服器忙碌中)。HTTP request throttling feature is enabled, but no 503 errors (Server Busy) are returned.

    • 失敗率低於 0. 1%。Failure rate is less than 0. 1%.

    • 至少 75% 的要求在伺服器端的延遲少於 3 秒。The server-side latency is less than 3 seconds for at least 75% of the requests.

    • 所有的陣列伺服器 (資料庫伺服器除外) 維持平均 CPU 使用率約在 90% 以下。All farm servers (excluding database servers) maintain an average CPU utilization of less than approximately 90%.

    • 資料庫伺服器的平均 CPU 使用率約在 50% 以下,以容許足夠的額外負荷保留給搜尋編目負載。Database server average CPU utilization is less than approximately 50%, which allows for ample overhead to be reserved for the Search crawl load.

  • AxBxC (圖表示法):這是網頁伺服器、 應用程式伺服器及資料庫分別在伺服器陣列伺服器的數目。例如,10 x 1 x 1 表示此環境中有 10 個網頁伺服器、 1 部應用程式伺服器及 1 的資料庫伺服器。AxBxC (Graph notation): This is the number of web servers, application servers, and database servers respectively in a farm. For example, 10x1x1 means that this environment has 10 web servers, 1 application server, and 1 database server.

  • MDF 和 LDF:SQL Server 實體檔案。如需詳細資訊,請參閱檔案與檔案群組架構MDF and LDF: SQL Server physical files. For more information, see Files and Filegroups Architecture.

概觀Overview

本節提供延展方法與測試方法的概觀。This section provides an overview of our scaling approach and test methodology.

延展方法Scaling approach

本節說明我們在延展此實驗室環境所採用的方法。此方法可讓您找到最適合您工作負載的設定︰This section describes the approach that we took to scale this lab environment. This approach will enable you to find the best configuration for your workload:

  1. 我們向外延展網頁伺服器,直到使用四部網頁伺服器為止。每部伺服器都執行分散式快取服務。We scaled out the web servers until four web servers were in use. Each server runs the Distributed Cache Service.

  2. 我們新增一部執行分散式快取服務的專用伺服器。We added a dedicated server that runs the Distributed Cache Service.

  3. 我們停用網頁伺服器上的分散式快取服務。We disabled the Distributed Cache Service on the web servers.

  4. 我們向外延展額外的網頁伺服器,直到測試範圍的最大值為止。We scaled out additional web servers to the maximum for the scope of testing.

  5. 我們執行其他測試來比較 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 的效能特性。We conducted additional testing to compare the performance characteristics of SharePoint Server 2013 and SharePoint Server 2010.

方法與測試備註Methodology and test notes

因為本文提供實驗室環境的結果,所以我們能夠控制某些因素來顯示此工作負載下效能的特定層面。此外,實驗室環境省略了實際執行環境的某些要素 (列於以下清單中),以簡化測試的額外負荷。Because this article provides results from a test lab environment, we could control certain factors to show specific aspects of performance for this workload. In addition, certain elements of the production environment, which are in the following list, were left out of the lab environment to simplify the overhead of testing.

注意

我們建議您將這些要素包括在實際執行環境中。We recommend that you include these elements in production environments.

  • 在測試回合之間,我們一次只修改一個變數,以便容易比較測試回合之間的結果。Between test runs, we modified only one variable at a time to make it easy to compare results between test runs.

  • 資料庫伺服器並非叢集的一部分,因為就這些測試的目的而言,冗餘不是必要的。The database servers were not part of a cluster because redundancy was not necessary for the purposes of these tests.

  • 在測試期間未執行搜尋編目。當然,它可能會在生產環境中執行。若要事項此,我們會降低 SQL Server CPU 使用率中的 '綠色區域' 與 '紅色區域' 以容納執行搜尋編目通常會使用在測試期間的資源我們定義。Search crawl was not running during the tests. Of course, it might be running in a production environment. To take this into account, we lowered the SQL Server CPU utilization in our definitions of 'Green Zone' and 'Red Zone' to accommodate the resources that a running search crawl would normally consume during testing.

規格Specifications

本節提供實驗室環境中硬體、軟體、拓撲及設定的詳細資訊。This section provides details about the hardware, software, topology, and configuration of the lab environment.

硬體Hardware

以下章節說明此實驗室環境所使用的硬體。The following sections describe the hardware that was used in this lab environment.

重要

請注意,此測試實驗室中所有的網頁伺服器和應用程式伺服器都透過使用 Hyper-V 主機而虛擬化。資料庫伺服器並未虛擬化。以下將分別詳細說明實體主機硬體與虛擬機器虛擬硬體。Note that all web servers and application servers in the test lab were virtualized by using Hyper-V hosts. Database servers were not virtualized. The physical host hardware and virtual machine virtual hardware are detailed separately below.

Hyper-V 主機Hyper-V Hosts

測試使用了總共六部相同設定的 Hyper-V 主機。每部主機都執行一或二部虛擬機器。A total of six identically configured Hyper-V hosts were used for testing. Each host runs one to two virtual machines.

主機硬體 * * **Host Hardware* Value
處理器Processor(s)
2 個四核心 2.49 GHz 處理器2 quad-core 2.49 GHz processors
RAMRAM
32 GB32 GB
作業系統Operating System
Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1
網路介面卡數目Number of network adapters
22
網路介面卡速度Network adapter speed
1 Gigabit1 Gigabit

虛擬網頁伺服器與應用程式伺服器Virtual web servers and application servers

伺服器陣列有 1 到 10 部虛擬網頁伺服器。一部額外的專用虛擬伺服器執行分散式快取服務。The farm has from one to 10 virtual web servers. An additional dedicated virtual server runs the Distributed Cache Service.

注意

在實際執行環境下,執行分散式快取服務的專用伺服器通常會部署於高可用性設定中。為了測試目的,我們使用單一專用伺服器於分散式快取服務,因為高可用性並非重要因素。In a production environment, dedicated servers that run the Distributed Cache Service would typically be deployed in a highly available configuration. For test purposes, we used a single dedicated server for Distributed Cache because high availability was not a critical factor.

VM 硬體VM Hardware WFE1-10 與 DC1WFE1-10 and DC1
處理器Processors
4 個虛擬處理器4 virtual processors
RAMRAM
12 GB12 GB
作業系統Operating system
Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1
SharePoint 磁碟機的大小Size of the SharePoint drive
建立在內容資料庫中且可供轉譯文件的空間。根據預設,可供轉譯文件的快取為 100 GB。我們不建議您增加可用的快取。100 GB
網路介面卡數目Number of network adapters
22
網路介面卡速度Network adapter speed
10 Gigabit (主機間流量受限於主機 NIC 速度)10 Gigabit (inter-host traffic limited to host NIC speed)
驗證Authentication
Windows NTLMWindows NTLM
負載平衡器類型Load balancer type
F5 Big IPF5 Big IP
在本機上執行的服務Services running locally
WFE 1-10︰基本同盟服務。這包括下列服務︰SharePoint Timer Service、Trace Service、Word Automation Services、Excel Services 及 Microsoft SharePoint Foundation Sandboxed Code Service。WFE 1-10: Basic Federated Services. This includes the following: SharePoint Timer Service, Trace Service, Word Automation Services, Excel Services and Microsoft SharePoint Foundation Sandboxed Code Service.
DC1︰分散式快取服務。DC1: Distributed Cache Service.

資料庫伺服器Database Servers

一部實體資料庫伺服器執行具有 SharePoint 資料庫的預設 SQL Server 執行個體。在記錄資料庫不在本文中追蹤。One physical database server runs the default SQL Server instance that has the SharePoint databases. The logging database is not tracked in this article.

注意

如果您啟用流量報告,我們建議您將儲存在記錄資料庫上個別的邏輯單位編號 (LUN)。大型部署與某些中型部署可能需要專用的記錄資料庫伺服器以容納高的記錄檔磁碟區處理器需求。> 在此實驗室環境中,記錄受到限制,且記錄資料庫儲存在 SQL Server 的個別執行個體。If you enable usage reporting, we recommend that you store the logging database on a separate Logical Unit Number (LUN). Large deployments and some medium deployments might require a dedicated logging database server to accommodate the processor demand of a high log volume. > In this lab environment, logging was constrained, and the logging database was stored in a separate instance of SQL Server.

資料庫伺服器-預設執行個體Database Server - Default Instance SPSQLSPSQL
處理器Processors
4 個四核心 2.4 GHz 處理器4 quad-core 2.4 GHz processors
RAMRAM
32 GB32 GB
作業系統Operating system
Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1
儲存體與幾何Storage and geometry
直接連接儲存裝置 (DAS)Direct Attached Storage (DAS)
1 x 系統磁碟區 (RAID0,1 個主軸,300GB)1 x System volume (RAID0, 1 spindle, 300GB)
2 x 內容資料磁碟區 (RAID0,4 個主軸,每個 450GB)2 x Content Data volumes (RAID0, 4 spindles, 450GB each)
2 x 內容記錄磁碟區 (RAID0,2 個主軸,每個 450GB)2 x Content Log volumes (RAID0, 2 spindles, 450GB each)
1 x 暫時資料磁碟區 (RAID0,2 個主軸,每個 300GB)1 x Temp Data volume (RAID0, 2 spindles, 300GB each)
1 x 暫時記錄磁碟區 (RAID0,2 個主軸,每個 300GB)1 x Temp Log volume (RAID0, 2 spindles, 300GB each)
網路介面卡數目Number of network adapters
11
網路介面卡速度Network adapter speed
1 Gigabit1 Gigabit
驗證Authentication
Windows NTLMWindows NTLM
軟體版本Software version
SQL Server 2008 R2SQL Server 2008 R2

拓撲Topology

下圖顯示此實驗室環境的拓撲。The following diagram shows the topology in this lab environment.

此圖顯示適用於企業內部網路共用作業案例之效能與容量測試的實驗室拓撲。

設定Configuration

為了提供最佳的測試效能,還有測試參數與結果之間清楚的關係,此實驗室環境做出下列重大的設定變更。To allow for optimal test performance and clear relationships between test parameters and results, the following significant configuration changes were made in this lab environment.

設定Setting Value 附註Notes
網站集合Site collection
179179
測試環境中的網站集合使用預設設定與 Windows 宣告型驗證。The site collections in the test environment use default settings and Windows claims authentication.
Blob 快取Blob caching
開啟On
預設為關閉。若您啟用 Blob 快取,呼叫資料庫伺服器以取得可能經常要求之靜態頁面資源的情況就會減少,進而改善伺服器效率。The default is Off. If you enable Blob caching, you improve server efficiency by reducing calls to the database server for static page resources that may be frequently requested.
平行處理原則 (MAXDOP) 的最大程度Max degree of parallelism (MAXDOP)
11
這個參數會設定 SQL Server 執行個體或包含 SharePoint Server 2013 內容資料庫執行個體上。預設值為 0,可讓 SQL Server,以決定平行處理原則的最大程度。SharePoint Server 2013 需要 MAXDOP 設為 1 包含 SharePoint Server 2013 資料庫的 SQL Server 執行個體。This parameter is set on the SQL Server instance or instances that contain SharePoint Server 2013 content databases. The default value is 0, which enables SQL Server to determine the maximum degree of parallelism. SharePoint Server 2013 requires MAXDOP to be set to 1 for SQL Server instances that contain SharePoint Server 2013 databases.
如需如何設定 MAXDOP 設定的 SQL Server 2008 R2 的詳細資訊,請參閱 <平行處理原則選項的最大程度For more information about how to configure the MAXDOP setting for SQL Server 2008 R2, see max degree of parallelism Option.
如需如何設定 MAXDOP 設定的 SQL Server 2012 的詳細資訊,請參閱 < Configure parallelism Server Configuration Option 的最大程度For more information about how to configure the MAXDOP setting for SQL Server 2012, see Configure the max degree of parallelism Server Configuration Option.

工作量Workload

本節說明針對 SharePoint Server 2013 所執行的實驗室測試。測試詳細資料是一般的企業共同作業環境。This section explains the lab tests that are run against SharePoint Server 2013. The details of the tests are typical of an enterprise collaboration environment.

此圖將效能測試工作負載分解為作業類別來顯示。

資料集Dataset

針對本文中實驗室環境 (亦即代表一般的企業共同作業環境) 的資料集包含各個網站集合、網站、清單、程式庫、檔案類型及大小。The dataset for the lab environment in this article, which represents a typical enterprise collaboration environment, contains various site collections, sites, lists, libraries, file types and sizes.

資料集特性Dataset Characteristics Value
資料庫大小 (合計)Database size (combined)
174 GB174 GB
MDF 大小MDF size
154 GB154 GB
LDF 大小LDF size
20 GB20 GB
BLOB 大小BLOB size
152 GB152 GB
內容資料庫數目Number of content databases
22
網站集合數目Number of site collections
179179
Web 應用程式數目Number of web applications
11
網站數目Number of sites
1,4711,471

結果與分析Results and analysis

以下結果被按照本文概觀> 一節中說明的延展方法。The following results are ordered based on the scaling approach that is described in the Overview section of this article.

網頁伺服器向外延展Web server scale out

本節說明當我們在此實驗室環境下向外延展網頁伺服器數目時,所獲得的測試結果。This section describes the test results that were obtained when we scaled out the number of web servers in this lab environment.

測試方法Test methodology

  • 新增使用相同硬體規格的網頁伺服器,然後在不變更伺服器陣列或測試參數的情況下,再次執行測試。Add web servers that use the same hardware specifications, and run the test again without changes to the farm or test parameters.

  • 測量測試伺服器陣列中每部伺服器的 RPS、延遲及資源使用率。Measure RPS, latency, and resource utilization on each server in the test farm.

分析Analysis

我們在測試中發現下列結果︰In our testing, we found the following:

  • 環境延展到每部資料庫伺服器有十部網頁伺服器。傳送量的增加相當地線性。The environment scaled to ten web servers per database server. The increase in throughput was fairly linear.

  • 即使增加到最大測試規模的十部網頁伺服器,新增更多的資料庫伺服器並未增加傳送量。瓶頸一般是限制在網頁伺服器資源。Even up to the maximum tested scale of ten web servers, the addition of more database servers did not increase throughput. The bottleneck was generally confined to web server resources.

  • 在整個測試中,綠色區域中的平均延遲幾乎是固定的。網頁伺服器的數量與傳送量並未影響綠色區域的延遲。紅色區域的延遲資料則顯示了預期的趨勢線。在單一網頁伺服器下,延遲非常高。介於 2 部到 10 部網頁伺服器之間的曲線則輕鬆保持在紅色區域準則之內。The average latency at green zone was almost constant throughout the whole test. The number of web servers and throughput did not affect green zone latency. Red Zone latency data shows an expected trend line. Latency is very high at a single web server. A curve between 2 and 10 web servers remains comfortably within Red Zone criteria.

    注意

    當您將分散式快取服務從伺服器陣列的網頁伺服器移至分散式快取專用伺服器延遲可能會造成影響。因為已先前內部的每部網頁伺服器、 的分散式快取流量開始不必透過網路可能會發生此情況。若要判斷此取捨是否重要環境中測試向外延展效能。請注意我們的測試環境的延遲增加錯誤時的分散式快取服務已移轉至專用伺服器。降低每個新增的網頁伺服器與名義新增的延遲已位移來降低饋送的處理和記憶體負載網頁伺服器上的延遲。> 如需分散式快取容量規劃的詳細資訊,請參閱 <規劃摘要及 SharePoint Server 中的分散式快取服務Latency may be mildly affected when you move the Distributed Cache service from a farm's web servers to a server that is dedicated to the Distributed Cache. This may occur because Distributed Cache traffic, which was previously internal to each web server, begins traversing the network. Test scale-out performance in your own environment to determine whether this tradeoff is significant. Note that latency in our test environment increased mildly when the Distributed Cache service was migrated to a dedicated server. Latency decreased with each added web server as the nominal added latency was offset by the decreased processing and memory load on the web servers. > For more information about Distributed Cache capacity planning, see Plan for feeds and the Distributed Cache service in SharePoint Server.

  • 當效能測試可進行 SharePoint Server 2010 時、 資料庫伺服器會變成在使用四部網頁伺服器的最大輸送量的瓶頸。在 SharePoint Server 2013 中的快取及資料庫使用狀況特性的改良功能,因為資料庫伺服器圖層上的平均負載會大幅低於與其 in SharePoint Server 2010,並不是必要向外延展資料庫伺服器在測試。When performance testing was conducted for SharePoint Server 2010, the database server became a bottleneck at maximum throughput using four web servers. Because of improvements in caching and database usage characteristics in SharePoint Server 2013, the average load on the database server layer is significantly lower than it was in SharePoint Server 2010, and it was not necessary to scale out the database servers during testing.

    如需關於 SharePoint Server 2010 測試此案例的結果,請參閱企業內部網路共同作業環境教室研究 (SharePoint Server 2010)For more information about SharePoint Server 2010 test results for this scenario, see Enterprise intranet collaboration environment lab study (SharePoint Server 2010)

  • 新增虛擬網頁伺服器是否能增加效能,部分取決於主機硬體資源,以及在同一主機上執行之其他虛擬電腦的資源使用狀況。虛擬伺服器的容量計劃需要針對虛擬化進行額外的計劃與管理策略。Performance gains when you add virtual web servers depend partly on host hardware resources and on the resource usage of other virtual computers that are running on the same host. Capacity planning for virtual servers requires additional planning and management strategies specific to virtualization.

    HYPER-V 效能和容量規劃的詳細資訊,請參閱SharePoint 2013 的 HYPER-V 虛擬化需求使用最佳作法設定 SharePoint 2013 虛擬機器與 HYPER-V 環境For more information on Hyper-V performance and capacity planning, see Hyper-V virtualization requirements for SharePoint 2013 and Use best practice configurations for the SharePoint 2013 virtual machines and Hyper-V environment.

注意

本節所述的結論專屬於包含環境的硬體。環境可能會有可達到相同的輸送量使用多個但小於強大的 HYPER-V 主機伺服器或較少,但更強大的 HYPER-V 主機伺服器。增加資料庫伺服器上的硬體資源不會 materially 影響結果。The conclusions described in this section are specific to the hardware that comprises the environment. The environment might have achieved the same throughput by using more but less powerful Hyper-V host servers, or fewer but more powerful Hyper-V host servers. An increase of hardware resources on the database server would not materially affect the results.

結果、圖形與圖表Results, graphs and charts

下圖中,x 軸顯示伺服器陣列中網頁伺服器數量的變化。規模從一部虛擬網頁伺服器與一部實體資料庫伺服器 (1x1) 開始。最大規模為十部虛擬網頁伺服器、一部專用虛擬分散式快取伺服器 (新增於四部網頁伺服器時) 以及一部實體資料庫伺服器 (10x1x1)。In the following graphs, the x axis shows the change in the number of web servers in the farm. The scale starts with one virtual web server and one physical database server (1x1). The maximum is ten virtual web servers, one dedicated virtual Distributed Cache server (added at four web servers) and one physical database server (10x1x1).

注意

本節圖表中的代表每個資料點的平均值的測試持續時間。所有圖形都包含顯示 RPS 和延遲、 伺服器資源使用率和 SQL Server 磁碟使用量等因素之間的關係的綠色與紅色區域的 RPS 基準。The graphs in this section represent the average values for each data point over the duration of the test. All graphs include the RPS baseline for both Green and Red zones to show the relationship between RPS and factors such as latency, server resource utilization, and SQL Server disk usage.

1.RPS1. RPS

下圖顯示向外延展對 RPS 基準線的影響。The following graph shows how scaling out affects the RPS baseline.

此圖顯示綠色與紅色區域的 RPS 基準。

2.延遲2. Latency

下圖顯示向外延展對延遲的影響。請注意,綠色區域延遲大部分保持平穩,而紅色區域延遲則顯示稍微的變化,但都完全在可接受的限制內。The following graph shows how scaling out affects latency. Note that Green Zone latency remains mostly flat, while Red Zone latency shows moderate variations that are well within acceptable limits.

此圖顯示 RPS 和延遲之間的關係。

3.網頁伺服器處理器和記憶體使用率3. Web server processor and memory utilization

下圖顯示向外延展對網頁伺服器上平均處理器與記憶體使用率的影響。請注意,當 RPS 增加時,綠色區域的處理器使用率保持相當固定,而平均記憶體使用率稍微增加。The following graph shows how scaling out affects average processor and memory utilization on the web servers. Note that Green Zone processor utilization remains fairly constant as RPS increases, while average memory utilization increases slightly.

紅色區域的處理器使用率趨勢是向下,表示在最大負載下網頁伺服器處理器的平均需求是隨著伺服器數量增加而逐漸降低的。The Red Zone processor utilization trend is downward, which reflects the fact that the average demand of the web server's processor at maximum load is gradually reduced as the number of servers is increased.

此圖顯示 RPS 與網頁伺服器處理器和記憶體使用率之間的關係。

4.SQL Server I/O 作業每秒 (IOPs) 和處理器使用率4. SQL Server I/O operations per second (IOPs) and processor utilization

下圖顯示平均磁碟 IOPs (總計與讀寫) 和處理器使用率值,如何隨著網頁伺服器數量向外延展而變化。下列效能計數器是用於測量 IOPs 值︰The following graphs show how average disk IOPs (both total and reads/writes) and processor utilization values change as the number of web servers is scaled out. The following performance counters were used to measure IOPs values:

  • 實體磁碟︰每秒磁碟讀取數PhysicalDisk: Disk Reads / sec

  • 實體磁碟︰每秒磁碟寫入數PhysicalDisk: Disk Writes / sec

測試持續時間內每個計數器的值進行平均,然後加總得到 IOPs 總計。The values of each counter over the duration of the test are averaged, and then added together to produce total IOPs.

注意

SQL Server 記憶體使用率的資料無法使用,且並非在此圖中。Data for SQL Server memory utilization was not available and is not in this graph.

重要

這些 IOPs 測試結果並不能代表實際執行環境,因為我們的資料集比實際執行伺服器陣列的資料集要小得多。因此使得網頁伺服器可以比在實際執行環境下快取較大百分比的資料。因此,本節中的 IOPs 結果是基於可用測試資料的計算平均值,且預期比實際執行環境下的 IOPs 通常來得低。在試驗環境下完整測試您自己的伺服器陣列可能會得到不同的結果。These IOPs test results are not representative of a production environment because our dataset was much smaller than that of a production farm. It was therefore possible for a larger percentage of the data to be cached at the web servers than would be possible in a production environment. The IOPs results in this section are therefore calculated averages that are based on available test data and are expected to be generally lower than IOPs in a production environment. Thorough testing of your own farm in a pilot environment may produce different results.

請注意,在本節的圖表中,IOPs 與資料庫伺服器處理器使用率於 9 部和 10 部前端網頁伺服器時,都顯示下降,而 RPS 卻持續增加。上圖的網頁伺服器處理器使用率也反映這個差異。Note that in the graphs in this section, both IOPs and database server processor utilization show a drop at both 9 and 10 front-end web servers, while RPS continues to increase. This variation is also reflected in web server processor utilization as shown in the previous graph.

這顯示出伺服器陣列的規模已達在使用基準線負載與資料集時,就已對陣列伺服器資源造成最大壓力。伺服器資源必須要有較低的平均使用率,才能支援伺服器陣列的負載。This shows that the scale of the farm has reached a point at which maximum pressure on the farm server resources has been achieved using the baseline load and dataset. A lower average utilization of server resources is required to support the load on the farm.

可從此趨勢推斷下列結果︰It is possible to extrapolate the following from this trend:

  • 如果在第九部網頁伺服器刻度點增加測試負載,將可達到更大的 RPS,同時維持伺服器資源使用率的平穩曲線。Had the test load been increased at the ninth web server scale point, greater RPS could have been achieved while maintaining a flat curve in server resource utilization.

  • 如果繼續向外延展網頁伺服器數量,同時維持相同的測試負載,RPS 就會繼續增加,而對伺服器資源的壓力會繼續呈向下的趨勢。Had the number of web servers been scaled out further while maintaining the same test load, RPS would have continued to increase while pressure on server resources would have continued a downward trend.

  1. SQL Server IopSQL Server Total IOPs

    下圖顯示向外延展對 IOPs 總計的影響。The following graph shows how scaling out affects total IOPs.

    此圖顯示 RPS 和 SQL Server IOP 總和之間的關係。

  2. SQL Server IOPs 分為讀取與寫入作業SQL Server IOPs broken down into read and write operations

    下圖顯示向外延展對 IOPs 的影響,分為每秒讀取數與每秒寫入數。The following graph shows how scaling out affects IOPs, broken down into reads per second and writes per second.

    此圖顯示 RPS 和 SQL Server IOP 之間的關係,會細分為讀取與寫入作業。

  3. SQL Server 處理器使用率SQL Server processor utilization

    下圖顯示向外延展影響 SQL Server 處理器使用率。The following graph shows how scaling out affects SQL Server processor utilization.

    此圖顯示 RPS 和 SQL Server 處理器使用率之間的關係。

比較 SharePoint Server 2013 與 SharePoint Server 2010Comparing SharePoint Server 2013 and SharePoint Server 2010

本節提供資訊的此工作量效能 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 之間的而有所不同。This section provides information about how performance for this workload varied between SharePoint Server 2013 and SharePoint Server 2010.

工作量Workload

若要比較 SharePoint Server 2013 與 SharePoint Server 2010,我們使用不同的測試混合從某部規格一節所述。因為某些 SharePoint Server 2013 功能 (例如 「 分散式快取服務) 和作業不提供在 SharePoint Server 2010,這是必要的。To compare SharePoint Server 2013 with SharePoint Server 2010, we used a different test mix from the one outlined in the Specifications section. This was necessary because some SharePoint Server 2013 features (such as the Distributed Cache Service) and operations were not available in SharePoint Server 2010.

測試方法Test methodology

為了測試兩個環境的效能,我們使用下列方法︰To test performance in the two environments, we used the following methodology:

  1. 我們建立 SharePoint Server 2010 環境。We created a SharePoint Server 2010 environment.

  2. 我們使用本節先前概述的工作負載來測試 SharePoint Server 2010 環境。We tested the SharePoint Server 2010 environment by using the workload outlined earlier in this section.

  3. 我們而不變更環境之客戶端將內容資料庫升級到 SharePoint Server 2013。We upgraded the content databases to SharePoint Server 2013 without changing the clients consuming the environment.

再次使用相同的測試混合僅包括 SharePoint Server 2010 作業主控 SharePoint Server 2013 的升級伺服器上再測試此升級後的環境。This upgraded environment was then tested again on the upgraded servers that host SharePoint Server 2013 by using the same test mix, which includes only SharePoint Server 2010 operations.

  • 我們測試兩個環境進行比較。一個環境使用實體伺服器的硬體上,而且在其他環境用來執行 HYPER-V 主機上的網頁伺服器的虛擬機器。在這兩種情況下,資料庫伺服器執行的實體伺服器上。We tested two environments for comparison. One environment used physical server hardware, and the other environment used virtual machines to run the web servers on a Hyper-V host. In both cases, the database server ran on a physical server.

  • 我們並未在 SharePoint Server 2013 測試內容資料庫升級之後修改資料集。We did not modify the dataset after the content database upgrade for the SharePoint Server 2013 tests.

  • SharePoint Server 2010 的測試混合排除新的 SharePoint Server 2013 特定作業,並測試並本文稍早所述的企業內部網路共同作業解決方案類似。The test mix for SharePoint Server 2010 excluded new SharePoint Server 2013-specific operations, and resembled the enterprise intranet collaboration solution that was tested and described earlier in this article.

測試目標所使用的相同工作負載與資料集,套用類似載入針對 SharePoint Server 2013 與 SharePoint Server 2010 伺服器陣列以然後顯示輸送量、 延遲及伺服器資源使用率之間的差異。測試方法和目標得到之間實體和虛擬 web 伺服器測試:The goal of the testing was to apply similar loads against both SharePoint Server 2013 and SharePoint Server 2010 farms by using the same workload and dataset, and then show the differences in throughput, latency and server resource consumption. Test methodologies and goals differed between physical and virtual web server tests:

  • 實體伺服器測試的目的是要比較 SharePoint Server 2013 與 SharePoint Server 2010 伺服器陣列如何執行作業時的負載下向外延展。這項測試的網頁伺服器已從第二到五個網頁伺服器向外延展。The goal of physical server testing was to compare how SharePoint Server 2013 and SharePoint Server 2010 farms performed when scaled out under load. The web servers in this test were scaled out from two to five web servers.

  • 虛擬伺服器測試的目的是要比較 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 如何與四部網頁伺服器於綠色與紅色區域的使用者負載執行 farms。任何網頁伺服器向外延展測試已不進行。The goal of virtual server testing was to compare how SharePoint Server 2013 and SharePoint Server 2010 farms with four web servers performed at both Green and Red Zone user loads. No web server scale-out tests were conducted.

分析Analysis

  • 一般而言,SharePoint Server 2013 與 SharePoint Server 2010 時向外延展五個網頁伺服器、 更佳執行但 SharePoint Server 2010 結果較佳在兩部網頁伺服器。針對已升級的 SharePoint Server 2013 伺服器陣列的測試並未涉及升級後的最佳化或利用如分散式快取服務或 Request Manager 的 SharePoint Server 2013 的效能改進。SharePoint Server 2013 測試結果,因此,可從結果在實際環境中有明顯不同。In general, SharePoint Server 2013 performed better than SharePoint Server 2010 when scaled out to five web servers, but SharePoint Server 2010 results were better at two web servers. Testing against the upgraded SharePoint Server 2013 server farm did not involve post-upgrade optimizations or take advantage of SharePoint Server 2013 performance improvements such as the Distributed Cache Service or Request Manager. SharePoint Server 2013 test results, therefore, are significantly different from results in a real-world environment.

  • 本節圖表中資料趨勢之間的關係顯示 SharePoint Server 2013 的資源管理模式如何設定處理器資源的使用優先順序與磁碟 IOPs。The relationship between data trends in the graphs in this section show how the SharePoint Server 2013 resource management model prioritizes the use of processor resources over disk IOPs.

  • SharePoint Server 2013 於綠色區域在五個網頁伺服器、 具有超過 10%勝過 SharePoint Server 2010 中的 RPS 及較低延遲的改進功能。不過,在兩部網頁伺服器、 SharePoint Server 2013 產生較低的 RPS 及稍微改進的延遲透過 SharePoint Server 2010。At Green Zone, SharePoint Server 2013 outperforms SharePoint Server 2010 at five web servers, with more than 10% improvement in RPS and slightly lower latency. However, at two web servers, SharePoint Server 2013 produces lower RPS and a slight improvement in latency over SharePoint Server 2010.

  • 紅色區域在 SharePoint Server 2013 已達到大約 12%更輸送量相較於 SharePoint Server 2010 在五個網頁伺服器。在兩部網頁伺服器、 SharePoint Server 2010 的輸送量會是更大大約是 30%。SharePoint Server 2013 顯示透過 SharePoint Server 2010 的延遲中等改進了在五個網頁伺服器。At Red Zone, SharePoint Server 2013 achieves approximately 12% greater throughput compared to SharePoint Server 2010 at five web servers. At two web servers, the throughput of SharePoint Server 2010 was approximately 30% greater. SharePoint Server 2013 showed a moderate improvement in latency over SharePoint Server 2010 at five web servers.

  • 虛擬網頁伺服器測試 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 的結果會類似於綠色區域。SharePoint Server 2013 顯示大幅提升透過 SharePoint Server 2010 輸送量和延遲紅色區域。In virtual web server testing, both SharePoint Server 2013 and SharePoint Server 2010 results are similar at Green Zone. SharePoint Server 2013 shows significant improvement over SharePoint Server 2010 in both throughput and latency at Red Zone.

結果、圖形與圖表Results, graphs and charts

指出對這兩個實體和虛擬網頁伺服器執行產生圖表本節中的結果測試。在所有測試中使用單一實體資料庫伺服器執行 SQL Server 2008 R2 sp1。The tests that produced the results in the graphs in this section were run against both physical and virtual web servers as indicated. In all tests, a single physical database server running SQL Server 2008 R2 with SP1 was used.

  1. 拓撲的 RPS 及延遲RPS and latency

    下圖顯示輸送量和延遲的 SharePoint Server 2013 與 SharePoint Server 2010 含兩個及五個實體的網頁伺服器於綠色區域之間的差異。SharePoint Server 2010 具有較高 RPS 兩部網頁伺服器和更高的延遲。在五個網頁伺服器、 SharePoint Server 2013 示範兩者增加的 RPS 和低延遲。The following graph shows the difference in throughput and latency between SharePoint Server 2013 and SharePoint Server 2010 with both two and five physical web servers at Green Zone. SharePoint Server 2010 has higher RPS at two web servers and higher latency. At five web servers, SharePoint Server 2013 shows both increased RPS and lower latency.

    此圖比較 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 之間綠色區域的 RPS 和延遲。

    下圖顯示在紅色區域的兩個及五個實體的網頁伺服器的處理器使用率的網頁伺服器的差異。SharePoint Server 2013 勝過的 RPS 及延遲在 5 部網頁伺服器,但不是在兩部網頁伺服器的 SharePoint Server 2010。The following graph shows the difference in web server processor utilization with both two and five physical web servers at Red Zone. SharePoint Server 2013 outperforms SharePoint Server 2010 in both RPS and latency at 5 web servers, but not at two web servers.

    此圖比較 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 之間紅色區域的 RPS 和延遲。

  2. RPS 與伺服器資源使用率RPS and server resource utilization

    下圖顯示綠色區域載入網頁伺服器和資料庫伺服器的差異具有兩個及五個實體的網頁伺服器處理器使用率。請注意 SharePoint Server 2013 出版物透過更有效地利用可用的伺服器資源達到最五個網頁伺服器更大時之輸送量達成。The following graph shows the difference in web and database server processor utilization with two and five physical web servers at Green Zone load. Note that SharePoint Server 2013 achieves greater throughput at five web servers by more effectively taking advantage of available server resources.

    此圖比較 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 之間綠色區域的網頁伺服器處理器使用率。

    下圖顯示紅色區域負載網頁伺服器和資料庫伺服器的差異具有兩個及五個實體的網頁伺服器處理器使用率。同樣地,SharePoint Server 2013 已達到更大的輸送量在五個網頁伺服器,但不是在兩部網頁伺服器。The following graph shows the difference in web and database server processor utilization with two and five physical web servers at Red Zone load. Again, SharePoint Server 2013 achieves greater throughput at five web servers, but not at two web servers.

    此圖比較 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 之間紅色區域的網頁伺服器處理器使用率。

  3. RPS 與 IOPsRPS and IOPs

    下圖顯示兩個及五個實體的網頁伺服器於綠色區域與 IOPs 的差異。請注意,在綠色區域、 SharePoint Server 2013SharePoint Server 2016 Iop 之間兩個及五個網頁伺服器、 SharePoint Server 2010 的 IOPs 減少而增加。同時,增加的 SharePoint Server 2013 RPS 的速率大於大幅 in SharePoint Server 2010。趨勢此差異示範 SharePoint Server 2013 管理伺服器資源以達到更大的輸送量較大型伺服器陣列中有不同的方式。The following graph shows the difference in IOPs with two and five physical web servers at Green Zone. Note that at Green Zone, SharePoint Server 2013SharePoint Server 2016 IOPs increases between two and five web servers, while SharePoint Server 2010 IOPs decreases. At the same time, the rate of increase in SharePoint Server 2013 RPS is significantly greater than in SharePoint Server 2010. This difference in trends shows how SharePoint Server 2013 manages server resources differently in a larger farm to achieve greater throughput.

    此圖比較 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 之間綠色區域的 IOP。

    下圖顯示紅色區域負載的 IOPs 具有兩個及五個實體的網頁伺服器的差異。當這些結果會比較與紅色區域圖中的舊版 RPS 與伺服器資源使用率] 區段中時,您可以觀察到 SharePoint Server 2013 的資源管理模式設定與 SQL Server 磁碟 IOPs 優先順序的處理器資源使用。The following graph shows the difference in IOPs with two and five physical web servers at Red Zone load. When these results are contrasted with the Red Zone graph in the earlier RPS and server resource utilization section, you can observe that the SharePoint Server 2013 resource management model prioritizes the use of processor resources over SQL Server disk IOPs.

    此圖比較 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 之間紅色區域的 IOP。

  4. 虛擬網頁伺服器 RPS、 延遲及 IOPsVirtual web server RPS, latency and IOPs

    虛擬伺服器比較測試是對 4 部虛擬網頁伺服器與 1 部實體資料庫伺服器執行。Virtual server comparison testing was conducted against 4 virtual web servers and one physical database server.

    下圖顯示輸送量和延遲具有四部虛擬網頁伺服器的差異。綠色區域載入時 SharePoint Server 2013 中輸送量和延遲紅色區域會大幅提升顯示透過 SharePoint Server 2010,很相近,SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 的結果。The following graph shows the difference in throughput and latency with four virtual web servers. At Green Zone load, both SharePoint Server 2013 and SharePoint Server 2010 results are similar, while SharePoint Server 2013 shows significant improvement over SharePoint Server 2010 in both throughput and latency at Red Zone.

    此圖比較 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 之間的虛擬伺服器 RPS 和延遲。

    下圖顯示四部虛擬網頁伺服器與資料庫 IOPs 的差異。SharePoint Server 2013 顯示資料庫綠色與紅色區域的 Iop 效能大幅提升載入。The following graph shows the difference in database IOPs with four virtual web servers. SharePoint Server 2013 shows a significant improvement in database IOPs performance at both Green and Red Zone loads.

    此圖比較 SharePoint Server 2013 和 SharePoint Server 2010 之間的虛擬伺服器 IOP。

另請參閱See also

概念Concepts

規劃 SharePoint Server 2013 中規劃效能Performance planning in SharePoint Server 2013

效能及容量測試結果與建議 (SharePoint Server 2013)Performance and capacity test results and recommendations (SharePoint Server 2013)