June 18, 2008 at 2:17 am
With VMware Infrastructure and VMware HA (High Availability), in many ways I am more comfortable running mission-critical apps in a VM than on a physical server.
June 18, 2008 at 3:30 am
Thanks for all the feed back.
I expect we will continue with the VM route, but with the proviso that the hosting company will switch us back to physical hardware if the virtualisation becomes an issue. How we prove that any issues are caused by the virtual environment is another matter!
On the positive, our applications/databases aren't massive in comparison to other systems, I think the largest customer is still less than 20GB. All current performance issues are caused by poor application/database design, rather than hardware restrictions, hopefully this won't change with the new infrastructure.
June 18, 2008 at 7:17 am
AndyD (6/18/2008)
With VMware Infrastructure and VMware HA (High Availability), in many ways I am more comfortable running mission-critical apps in a VM than on a physical server.
How so?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 18, 2008 at 8:04 am
gah, I knew someone would ask an awkward question :hehe:
Just being slightly provocative, as I keep hearing that VMware is not suitable for mission critical apps. It certainly is suitable, and is used by many of the largest companies in the world, where money is not necessarily the main issue.
From personal experience, I have had more reliability and less downtime with VMware VirtualInfrastructure (plus VMware HA) then I have with, for example, Microsoft Cluster Service. That is not to say one is better than the other, but I am certainly very happy to run critical apps on a VM platform.
June 19, 2008 at 6:27 am
Just a suggestion...
Use PolyServe to virtualize your database instances in production.
Use VMware to virtualize databases in Test and Development.
For pricing reasons... eventually start using Microsoft VMM in Test and Development as the technology matures. Then move the VMware licenses into production.
Purchases beefier servers to force the eventual use of virtualization.
My 2 cents.
June 19, 2008 at 6:47 am
Do you have any direct experience of PolyServe? I am currently evaluating it for possible deployment.....
Andy
June 19, 2008 at 9:10 am
Well we did it, We moved all of our 15 SQL Servers (450 Databases) to a consolidated Env. To IBM DataCenters with SAN(FC) and 4 itanium 8 way boxes. And yes on VMWARE ESX.
So consider the HArdware and Storage before you do the move.
we were initially planning on a HP Prolient's with VMWare, but we also needed FAST Storage to reduce the overhead, so YES if you hasve the resources and want to consider cutting down on managing the servers, make the move.
But consider, the learning Curve and the HEADACHE of managing the Virtual Environment.
SPEED+SPEED+SPEED that what what we crave for and yes
better Read your SLA's before taking this Plung.
Maninder
www.dbanation.com
July 8, 2008 at 6:00 am
HI All
I have migrated all our machines into VM ware (Produciton, testing and developement) and its been running fine for last 8 months, in other words all our servers are in VM ware now,first we moved database mchines into Local storage, then i tried one report machine into RAID 5, this works perfectly fine, i lost performance and when i configured and did a database clean up this machine performed fine, so i wolud suggest to change machines on to SAN( but test it before u go for it).
Cheers
July 14, 2008 at 10:34 am
ALZDBA (6/16/2008)
Another downside of virtualisation is cpu licensing:If you license an instance on a physical server, you license per cpu socket.
With virtual servers, you license per available cpu (i.e. cpu-core !)
If you plan on virtualisation for high availability, there are other options:
- clustering
- db mirroring
- replication options
if you licence the physical ESX host with MS Enterprise licensing it covers unlimited VM's
ALZDBA (6/16/2008)
AFAIK a virtual machine can only use 4Gb RAM, that too may cause issues.
VM's under ESX 3.x can support 16GB RAM, 4 vCPU, 4 vNIC. ESX 3.x also allows you to use the full 8 node MSCS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
July 15, 2008 at 12:42 am
Perry Whittle (7/14/2008)
VM's under ESX 3.x can support 16GB RAM, 4 vCPU, 4 vNIC. ESX 3.x also allows you to use the full 8 node MSCS
That's an enhancement indeed. Thanks for notifying;
Apparently the downside of ESX 3x in full flavor is budget.
On the other hand, the VM world is changing rapidly and deserves a close follow up, at least until you buy a solution/strategy.
Johan
Learn to play, play to learn !
Dont drive faster than your guardian angel can fly ...
but keeping both feet on the ground wont get you anywhere :w00t:
- How to post Performance Problems
- How to post data/code to get the best help[/url]
- How to prevent a sore throat after hours of presenting ppt
press F1 for solution, press shift+F1 for urgent solution 😀
Need a bit of Powershell? How about this
Who am I ? Sometimes this is me but most of the time this is me
July 16, 2008 at 4:14 am
Apparently the downside of ESX 3x in full flavor is budget.
It's Virtual Centre and other fancy add-ons that cost the big bucks. You can install Virtual Infrastructure Client for nothing and buy ESX 3.x Server licenses for about $500 per 2-proc license. The only downside I found with Virtual Infrastructure Client is you have to manage each ESX 3.x server independently, but then I remember how much money we saved by not having Virtual Centre, and all is well again.
August 15, 2008 at 4:13 am
Thanks for all the tips.I think i wil setup sql 2005 in a vm enviroment and then do some testing over a period of a month and take it from there.
Thanks
Jody
Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply