June 12, 2013 at 12:36 pm
We have a situation on one of our tier 3 sql servers where we want to move it to a vm. It currently has SQL Server 2005, 2008 R2 (2005 is named). We want to move this to a vm and upgrade some of the databases to 2012. So the thought was to have 3 separate VMs instead of just 1 with 3 instances. Thoughts?
Jared
CE - Microsoft
June 12, 2013 at 1:15 pm
I like separate VMs. You can better control resource usage, and more importantly, if you are overloaded, move one or more to a new physical host.
June 12, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Dealing with smaller virtual environments where I'm not necessarily constrained by a lack of resources, I'm always inclined to keep one instance on one server. The main reason being stability across applications, specifically in a production environment. Should something happen to one server not all services are affected. You have a better handle on administering the different builds and applications which allows more precise planning. Resource contention on a server isn't normally an issue either where you might have multiple instances fighting for the same limited RAM during peak hours.
In larger environments supporting many instances it might be more feasible and cost effective to consolidate and have multiple instances per vm. The definition of "large environment" varies drastically so when you reach that point is dependent on the administrator.
June 12, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Great thoughts! Thanks!
Jared
CE - Microsoft
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply