Comparative Analysis of Transaction Performance in Different Virtualization Environments

Abstract

Virtualization technologies are increasing in importance day by day. The selection of virtualization software is an important factor to realize efficient use of physical hardware. In this study, the Ubuntu 22.04 LTS operating system was run on Virtu alBox, VMware, and Docker, which are widely used virtualization software. Then, the Tiobench, Compress-7zip, C-ray, Smallpt, Tachyon, and OSBench tests were per formed on the Ubuntu operating system with the Phoronix Test Suite software, and the test results were analyzed and compared. The results demonstrate that Docker out performed the other virtualization technologies, although not in every test. Owing to its rapid deployment and efficient use of resources, Docker is suitable for applications that require agility and scalability. However, traditional virtualization technologies, such as VMware, maybemoresuitable for applications that require high security and extensive resource management. In addition, this study provides information that can guide users in selecting virtualization software.

Keywords

• Virtualization
• VirtualBox
• VMware
• Docker
• Virtualization Technologies

References

1. Ayaz, Ö., Aydın, G. (2016), Uygulama Sanallaştırmada Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: Docker. Retrieved from https://ab.org.tr/ab15/bildiri/312. google scholar
2. Brady, K., Moon, S., Nguyen, T., Coffman, J. (2020), Docker Container Security in Cloud Computing, 2020 10th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC), doi: 10.1109/CCWC47524.2020.9031195 google scholar
3. Benchmark Tests: https://openbenchmarking.org/tests, 01.01. 2024. google scholar
4. Ferrari, D. (1972). Workload characterization and selection in computer performance measurement. Computer 5: 18-24. google scholar
5. Gupta, A., Bansal, A. and Khanduja, V. (2017), Modern lossless compression techniques: Review, comparison and analysis, 2017 Second International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT), Coimbatore, India, pp. 1-8. google scholar
6. Gurjar, D. and S. S. Kumbhar, (2019) A Review on Performance Analysis of ZFS & BTRFS, 2019 International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing (ICCSP), Chennai, India, pp. 0073-0076, doi: 10.1109/ICCSP.2019.8698103. google scholar
7. Kaiser, S., Haq, M.S., Tosun, A.S., & Korkmaz, T. (2022). Container technologies for ARM Architecture: A Comprehensive Survey of the State-of-the-Art, IEEE Access, 10, 84853-84881. google scholar
8. Mongia, V., Sharma, A. (2020 July-August), Performance Comparison of Virtual Machine Selection Policies in Cloud Environment, International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, Volume 9, No.4. google scholar

9. Natawiguna, A., & InggrianiLiem, M. M. (2016), Virtualization Methods for Securing Online Exam, 2016 International Conference on Data and Software Engineering (ICoDSE), Denpasar, Indonesia, pp. 1-7. google scholar
10. Pahl, C., Brogi, A., Soldani, J., & Jamshidi, P. (2017). Cloud container technologies: A State-of-the-art review. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 7, 677-692. google scholar
11. Patil, S. (2021 May), Study of container technology with docker. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science Communication and Technology. google scholar
12. Perez, R., vanDoorn, L., & Sailer, R. (2008 November). Virtualization and hardware-based security. IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine 6(5):24-31 google scholar
13. Potdar, A.M., Naraya, D. G., Kengond, S., Mulla, M.M. (2020), Performance Evaluation of Docker Container and Virtual Machine, Procedia Computer Science, 171, 1419-1428. google scholar
14. Reis, D., Piedade, B., Correia, F. F., Dias, J. P., & Aguiar, A., (2022). Developing Docker and Docker-Compose Specifications: A Developers’ Survey. IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 2318-2329. google scholar
15. Robbi, F. A. A., A. B, Prasetijo, and E. D., Widianto ED (2019 January), Perbandingan Kinerja Block Storage Ceph dan ZFS di Lingkungan Virtual, Jurnal Teknologi dan Sistem Komputer, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 7-11. google scholar
16. Schlosser, D., Duelli, M., & Goll, S. (2011). Performance comparison of hardware virtualization Plaforms, International Conference on Research in Networking, 393-405. google scholar
17. Sudha, M. (2013), Performance Analysis of Kernel-Based Virtual Machine, International Journal of Computer Science and Information Tech-nology. google scholar
18. Syauqi, M. R., Sabrina, N. P., Santikarama, I. (2023), K-Means Clustering with KNN and mean computation on CPU Benchmark Compilation Data, Journal of Applied Informatics and Computing, 7(2), pp. 231-239. https://doi.org/10.30871/jaic.v7i2.6491 google scholar
19. Unit42 (2022, April 12). I Am Your Defense against Cloud Threats: The Latest Unit 42 Cloud Threat Research. Available online: https: //unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/iam-cloud-threat-research (accessed on 20 July 2024). google scholar
20. Wang, W., (2022), Research on Using Docker Container Technology to Realize Rapid Deployment Environment on Virtual Machine, 2022 8th Annual International Conference on Network and Information Systems for Computers (ICNISC), Hangzhou, China, pp. 541-544. google scholar
21. Wei, S., Zhang, K., & Tu, B. (2019 June). HyperBench: A benchmark suite for virtualization capabilities. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst. 3, 2, Article 24, 22 pages. google scholar
22. Yılmaz, E. C., Oktaş, R., & Karabulut, B. (2016). DOCKER İLE WEB UYGULAMASI GELİŞTİRME. Küresel Mühendislik Çalışmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 116-121. google scholar