Post reply

Stairway to SQL Server Virtualization Level 2 - The Ideal SQL Server Virtual Machine Architecture

  • May 12, 2015 at 11:39 pm

    #398447

    Comments posted to this topic are about the item Stairway to SQL Server Virtualization Level 2 - The Ideal SQL Server Virtual Machine Architecture

  • May 13, 2015 at 2:31 am

    #1797459

    Nice series, thank you!

    Just learned about vNUMA at a customer that finally bumped up the memory for a SQL Server to 150GB to be able to handle the load. Looked a bit funny i task manager with 3 NUMA nodes, but I learned that Hyper-V automatically split the configuration, placing two of the eight vCPU on to the other pNUMA.

    Now they SQL Server runs on 2 x 3 vCPU in two vNUMA and 1 x 2 vCPU in the third vNUMA.

    The physical server has 2 CPU 8 cores, HT enabled (so 32 cores total), 196GB RAM total.

    Is this config OK, or should we consider something different with the NUMA config? There are some other VMs running on the host as well.

    Will you cover VMQ and SR-IOV in the next article? Sounds like really interesting options, but are they hard to implement and get working as expected? The H/W is supposed to support it according to the documentation.

    Best regards

    / Jan

  • May 13, 2015 at 7:22 am

    #1797524

    Thanks for the info. I'll be passing this on to our admin.

  • May 13, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    #1797653

    Great article, and very timely for me.

    In the Virtual Disk presentation illustrations, it shows a disk cylinder with OS, Data and Logs all in one cylinder, seemingly attached to one LUN.

    In researching system optimization, I've come to believe that we need to distribute each of these on their own LUN (along with TempDB, paging, and file groups.)

    The next graphic showing the bottleneck scenarios shows the distributed file groups attaching to a few LUNs, though not specifically to their own LUN.

    Is my general belief flawed? Is the deeper concern just to ensure that the Data, Logs, tempDB, etc. are transiting via separate HBAs? Should this happen automatically if they all live on their own separate virtual drives (vmdks)? Or is it good enough to have each virtual drive attach to individual data stores that reside on one LUN?

    Thanks again for a great treatment of a complex topic!

  • May 19, 2015 at 8:43 am

    #1799038

    rachilles (5/13/2015)

    Great article, and very timely for me.

    In the Virtual Disk presentation illustrations, it shows a disk cylinder with OS, Data and Logs all in one cylinder, seemingly attached to one LUN.

    In researching system optimization, I've come to believe that we need to distribute each of these on their own LUN (along with TempDB, paging, and file groups.)

    The next graphic showing the bottleneck scenarios shows the distributed file groups attaching to a few LUNs, though not specifically to their own LUN.

    Is my general belief flawed? Is the deeper concern just to ensure that the Data, Logs, tempDB, etc. are transiting via separate HBAs? Should this happen automatically if they all live on their own separate virtual drives (vmdks)? Or is it good enough to have each virtual drive attach to individual data stores that reside on one LUN?

    Thanks again for a great treatment of a complex topic!

    Thank you for the series.

    This too is a very complicated topic for me to understand and I keep seeing conflicting information about distributing your files among many drives.

    If the VMDK are in the same LUN... do I have any performance gain by using many disk?

    What about the HBA? Does each VMDK need to have its own HBA and its own LUN?

    and lastly... from within the VM host... how can I tell how the disks were provisioned without having to hunt down a VM Admin?

    Any links would be appreciated.

    Great series!

    Miguel

  • October 14, 2016 at 9:04 am

    #1906591

    One question, in the vNUMA Scalability example what was the underlying hardware? Was it a 4 socket host? The article seems to indicate that it is, but I'm not sure and my morning coffee hasn't kicked in. 😀

  • October 14, 2016 at 9:21 am

    #1906601

    Hi David,

    Do you think it's really a good idea to have both data (primary and secondary data files) and transaction logs of tempdb in the same disk/drive letter/volume ?

    Cheers,

  • October 17, 2016 at 7:52 am

    #1906865

    Still a good read even a year later.

  • November 29, 2016 at 5:41 am

    #1914914

    Thanks David, great article.

    qh

    [font="Tahoma"]Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. – Carl Jung.[/font]

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

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