March 19, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Hello,
I have a chance to choose between:
1. SQL Server 2008 on Windows 2008;
2. SQL Server 2008 on virtual server 2008 (on core installation);
What do you think, performance-wise, administration-wise etc. I was even, well, just thinking, of making two SQL Servers on same core, and then make a cluster 🙂 (I know, i know, but as a possibility to move one of them in the future to another box, when I convince management that we need that). Anyway, virtualization looks promising, I don't know, what do you think?
Brano
March 19, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I would use caution with Microsoft. I say this...I have three of them set up at home for testing and am seeing some good results. Microsoft hasn't completely reached maturity in this area; VMware and Parallels Virtuozzo are a bit further along. I consulted for awhile and set up a Linux host/VMWare set of SQL Servers and they worked ok, but not great. IOPS weren't what we expected, but still outperformed the legacy server.
Use caution, read white papers, test.
March 19, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Lee has good advice here. Test, test, test.
Be very careful about IO here. Sharing IO (same disk/array) for two virtual SQL Server can be asking for trouble.
Clustering two virtual servers on a single physical is a waste of resources. You still have a single point of failure there with the physical. At least cluster the VMs across 2 machines, unless this is just for testing.
March 20, 2009 at 8:05 am
Thank you, and yes: testing, testing, and testing - most important. And, in addition, of course, to ask experienced guys here, who already tested :-). Hyper-V doesn't have same level like VMWare products (at least VMWare is here far longer), but you know Microsoft, it is like a justice: "slow but reachable" :-).
Regards,
Brano
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply