Increased attention to power consumptionĪdditionally, the approach is shifting from a server-based capacity planning exercise to a service-based capacity planning exercise.The following changes in system architectures have challenged fundamental assumptions about designing and scaling a service: Over the last several years, capacity planning guidance for scale-up systems has changed dramatically. This is about “defensive driving,” Active Directory-style. Performance alert thresholds indicate that client experience is currently suffering and immediate steps are needed to address the issue.Īs an analogy: capacity management is about preventing a car accident (defensive driving, making sure the brakes are working properly, and so on) whereas performance troubleshooting is what the police, fire department, and emergency medical professionals do after an accident. The difference is that when a capacity management threshold is continually exceeded (a one-time event is not a concern), adding capacity (that is, adding in more or faster processors) would be a solution or scaling the service across multiple servers would be a solution. Whereas, to be notified of abnormal performance incidents, a monitoring alert threshold might be set at 90% over a 5 minute interval. In capacity planning, an organization might have a baseline target of 40% processor utilization during peak periods in order to meet client performance requirements and accommodate the time necessary to upgrade the hardware in the datacenter. Minimize the time spent troubleshooting performance issues.Properly implement and operate an environment.They are closely related, but quite different. Goals of capacity planningĬapacity planning is not the same as troubleshooting performance incidents. This topic is originally written by Ken Brumfield, Program Manager at Microsoft, and provides recommendations for capacity planning for Active Directory Domain Services (AD DS).
0 kommentar(er)
