How Virtualized?

  • Close to 100%.

  • Our office here has 1 physical box running SQL Server (two including my dev machine).

    Nearby there is a datacenter that manages 5,000+ databases on all kinds of database engines and operating systems and it is 100% virtualized. Literally hundreds of servers. Way cool operation.

    ____________
    Just my $0.02 from over here in the cheap seats of the peanut gallery - please adjust for inflation and/or your local currency.

  • 100% of SQL Servers Virtual. For better utilization of resources, but most of all the disaster recovery, continuity, and resiliency afford by the virtual infrastructure is the main reason.

  • Our Development, Test, and Production SQL servers are 100% virtual. There are a few personal development/sandbox servers that are physical, but not many.

  • 8 years ago we were 100% physical SQL servers. Now we are 100% virtual. The performance of our applications running on the virtual SQL servers is measurably better today.

    Enjoy!

  • 90% virtualized presently, with more to retire/migrate on the horizon. We may need to maintain a handful of physicals, but that remains to be seen.

  • Our numbers from our All Instances report (SQL/Server only not including Oracle, DB2, etc... No HyperV all VM's are vmWare):

    Number of SQL Instances:

    Physical (Prod) 40

    Physical (Test) 39

    VM Machine (Prod) 68

    VM Machine (Test) 65

    Total: 212

    Number of Physical Machines:

    Physical Machine (Prod) 34

    Physical Machine (Test) 30

    VM Machine (Prod) 67

    VM Machine (Test) 55

    Total: 186

    note: most of our non-VMs (physical servers) are clustered per business requirements.

  • it's about 50-50, interesting that when working with Sharepoint Consultants the push is for physical not virtual.

  • About 80% virtual, but unlike many of the others that posted so far, our virtual environment is certainly worse performance than physical. Here we overload the virtual so much to save cost on hardware that we kill performance.

  • 100%

    It takes a lot more coordination and cooperation between SAN, VM, Network and Database administrators when there are performance problems than a DBA with a physical machine. Definitely a double edged sword.

  • 12 from a total of 17 SQL Servers are virtualized = 70.5%

    7 out of 9 DB-servers from other vendors are virtualized = 77.8%

    So 73% virtualization on average for our database servers.

    For the rest of the workload (about 220 servers) we have close to 100% virtualization.

  • Like several others posts, we have a mix;

    Physical servers are generally dedicated to MSSQL (including Reporting & BI) and are reasonably powerful machines, often with local fast disks to minimise latency. If the databases are likely to grow to more than 200GB, then often a physical machine is suggested.

    We also have at least 2 MSSQL Clusters, where all the nodes are physical.

    Most dev environments are virtual (VMware vSphere), as are a bunch of production servers.

    Overall, of the MSSQL servers which are carefully managed, about 9 instances run on physical hardware, and 15 on virtual.

  • Out of 200, all but 1 and that's only because the P2V failed.

    There are no facts, only interpretations.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

  • I work for a regional bank.

    We have 30 prod instances and 6 dev/dr all on VMware. We just retired a 500gb database app that was on a blade. We may have a couple of physical servers from our merger/acquisitions that are kept alive for research only. We are bringing a cloud app in-house that uses Oracle and will reside on an Oracle virtual host. I'm fairly certain that any future SQL Server deployment will also be on a VM host.

    So in our case it's practically 100%.

  • We have 1 SQL Server 2008 R2, 1 instance, several databases running on Windows Server 2008 R2, which itself is virtualized in a Citrix XenServer environment. So, 100%.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 69 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply