May 28, 2014 at 4:39 am
We are going to migrate to a new server and we have a large virtual environment already, but we want as much performance as possible for this SQL server, so we are thinking a host dedicated for the single SQL 2008 R2 enterprise edition rather than have other VMs on the host, but apart from the management (DR/HA etc.) advantage of the virtualisation is this a bad idea compared to having a physical server with SSDs etc. especially for performance.
I guess this goes to the overhead of a hyper-v 2012 instance has to the SQL performance.
Thanks
May 29, 2014 at 7:55 am
Lots of factors can come into play.
Properly sized and setup, virtual is very comparable to physical, plus has some better recovery options.
Baselining and testing is the only real way to compare.
Making sure your new host addresses any pain points you may have now will give you a good start.
Generally speaking, the current host is likely larger than the new server will be.
If the new machine is the same as the current, you already will see increased performance due to eliminating any resource contentions.
May 29, 2014 at 8:10 am
I agree with Greg.
Looking at just one VM on the host seems to be overkill for the VM. If you are looking into DR that means a additional servers just for the SQL DR.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
May 29, 2014 at 9:12 am
Hi,
Actually it is more for performance, we have an 'old' vm at the moment 4 cpu 64gb ram etc. and want to upgrade to Ent edition and many more cpu's so move to hyper-v 2012 but am thinking if for performance we went 'back' to physical would that be faster than virtual with a dedicated host when we add another 200 users to our application
May 29, 2014 at 10:41 am
sotn (5/29/2014)
Hi,Actually it is more for performance, we have an 'old' vm at the moment 4 cpu 64gb ram etc. and want to upgrade to Ent edition and many more cpu's so move to hyper-v 2012 but am thinking if for performance we went 'back' to physical would that be faster than virtual with a dedicated host when we add another 200 users to our application
Microsoft has published whitepapers describing performance tuning for both environments.
You might also want to look at some of the appliance type offerings.
Out of the box, they are pretty well architected for performance.
Part of the overall picture includes additional load of 200 users - no indication of how many you have today.
And if it is just SQL Server, or SSRS, SSAS, etc.
Enterprise also offers some features that can enhance performance.
Be sure to consider licensing implications, especially if also going to a newer version of SQL Server.
Database design can have great impacts on performance.
Virtual vs. Physical - assuming both are done correctly - is not the main determination of speed.
Understand why and how much hardware you need.
It is very easy to spend a lot of money on hardware, and in the end be disappointed.
I used to have to justify even adding memory to a server.
And on server upgrades, had to justify, not assume, how much more hardware I needed.
Sounds like quite a different environment than yours.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply