October 4, 2016 at 9:34 am
Hello experts,
I'm planning an upgrade from SQL 2012 Enterprise Edition to SQL 2016 Enterprise Edition that also includes a physical-to-virtual switch of our cluster.
Does anyone know of any links or other resources with things I should take into consideration for such a move? I don't know if there is anything over and above the regular considerations my systems team will have in setting up the virtual side.
As one example, I want to make sure I estimate the licensing costs correctly, so if anyone has any links/references to guidelines on how I can make an accurate estimate, that would be a huge help. I need to be fairly accurate in order to provide a reliable budget request for the SQL 2016 licenses and VMware licenses for a SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition cluster.
Thanks for any help!
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
October 7, 2016 at 3:40 am
webrunner (10/4/2016)
Hello experts,I'm planning an upgrade from SQL 2012 Enterprise Edition to SQL 2016 Enterprise Edition that also includes a physical-to-virtual switch of our cluster.
Does anyone know of any links or other resources with things I should take into consideration for such a move? I don't know if there is anything over and above the regular considerations my systems team will have in setting up the virtual side.
As one example, I want to make sure I estimate the licensing costs correctly, so if anyone has any links/references to guidelines on how I can make an accurate estimate, that would be a huge help. I need to be fairly accurate in order to provide a reliable budget request for the SQL 2016 licenses and VMware licenses for a SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition cluster.
Thanks for any help!
- webrunner
Virtualising a cluster is rarely pretty, what version of VMware are you using?
What licensing have you applied to the ESX hosts, if any?
The smart money would complete the 2012 to 2016 upgrade first and ratify the configuration.
Take some baseline stats maybe, no need for P2V and in fact I don't recommend it. Just add a new node to the WSFC, a node that's a virtual machine. Install the instances across the virtual nodes. Then when this is done you can remove the physical nodes from the cluster. These are all very high level steps and a lot more info would be needed to come up with the best design possible.
Your not going to gauge this from a forum post, if you're unsure get a consultant in who knows what they're doing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
October 10, 2016 at 8:29 am
Thanks very much for your feedback. We are going to enlist help from Microsoft in addition to my own assessment of our current environment.
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
October 11, 2016 at 5:55 am
normally you should ask vmware about the licenses choice and cost, generally sql server virulization it will have some negative performance effect, but you also got administration flexibility , it's just depended on the whole reqirement of your application and IT requirement, and you should have a lot of test to verify the migration.
there have some best pracice for sql + vmware configuration.
here is one from vmware
October 11, 2016 at 8:15 am
wtren (10/11/2016)
there have some best pracice for sql + vmware configuration.
here is one from vmware
Thank you!
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
October 19, 2016 at 4:59 am
webrunner (10/10/2016)
Thanks very much for your feedback. We are going to enlist help from Microsoft in addition to my own assessment of our current environment.- webrunner
You really need a consultant who is versed with VMware and has the relevant windows server failover cluster and sql server skills.
Microsoft will likely not make recommendations about VMware especially as they have their own VI product, in fact I would go so far as to say you do not want the vendor of one VI product helping you virtualise a cluster into a competitors VI product.
Add to this the cost of employing a large multi national software vendor as opposed to a neutral consultant and the benefits should be clear
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
October 19, 2016 at 7:07 am
wtren (10/11/2016)
there have some best pracice for sql + vmware configuration.
here is one from vmware
http://www.vmware.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/vmware/en/pdf/solutions/sql-server-on-vmware-best-practices-guide.pdf%5B/quote%5DWhat makes you say there will be negative performance impact of virtualization? I would say "generally" you can get a bump in performance. Also, I would be very cautious about the VMWare best practices guide... It suggests to always do a cpu for every core you want, and that is really bad for performance... Again, I'd cunsult with a SQL/VMWare expert. PM me if you want a recommendation of someone I have used in the past and who is probably the best one out there.
Jared
CE - Microsoft
October 20, 2016 at 2:29 am
SQLKnowItAll (10/19/2016)
What makes you say there will be negative performance impact of virtualization? I would say "generally" you can get a bump in performance.
Virtualisation carries an overhead, fact. Its going to be around 5 -15% depending on your configuration. Most times you'll notice a decline if you haven't configured the VI optimally.
SQLKnowItAll (10/19/2016)
It suggests to always do a cpu for every core you want, and that is really bad for performance
No, it's bad for licencing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
October 20, 2016 at 3:50 am
only if you configured badly, I migrated 10 plus different version SQL instances from old hard system to virtual platforms include vmware and hyper-v, normally it's just good and acceptable.
October 20, 2016 at 6:00 am
Perry Whittle (10/20/2016)
SQLKnowItAll (10/19/2016)
What makes you say there will be negative performance impact of virtualization? I would say "generally" you can get a bump in performance.Virtualisation carries an overhead, fact. Its going to be around 5 -15% depending on your configuration. Most times you'll notice a decline if you haven't configured the VI optimally.
SQLKnowItAll (10/19/2016)
It suggests to always do a cpu for every core you want, and that is really bad for performanceNo, it's bad for licencing
I suppose that depends on how you measure "overhead." I still stand by my statement that "in general" a properly configured VM can boost your performance. Maybe not noticeably, but measurably.
For the comment on licensing... That's really not my main concern there. My main concern is the presentation of CPU to a NUMA aware application. Sure, licencing can be an issue... but if I had all of the money in the world, I would not immediately configure a 16 core VM to be 16 virtual sockets. Might there be a place for such a thing? I'm sure there are edge cases... but for a default setup I would align my setup on the VM with the host and my needs and test the different configurations for the workload if possible.
Jared
CE - Microsoft
October 20, 2016 at 7:24 am
SQLKnowItAll (10/20/2016)
I suppose that depends on how you measure "overhead." I still stand by my statement that "in general" a properly configured VM can boost your performance.
:w00t: wow you stand by it then :hehe:
Virtualisation is a consolidation technique, sure you can get performance if you configure it well, but there is an overhead either way. You are introducing a software level tier to replace hardware and this is a software representation on a host server.
The real weak point is the storage, this will never provide the sort of throughput you get from hardware, so don't be under any illusion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
October 20, 2016 at 8:05 am
Perry Whittle (10/20/2016)
SQLKnowItAll (10/20/2016)
I suppose that depends on how you measure "overhead." I still stand by my statement that "in general" a properly configured VM can boost your performance.:w00t: wow you stand by it then :hehe:
Virtualisation is a consolidation technique, sure you can get performance if you configure it well, but there is an overhead either way. You are introducing a software level tier to replace hardware and this is a software representation on a host server.
The real weak point is the storage, this will never provide the sort of throughput you get from hardware, so don't be under any illusion
lol I think we are just mixing words... Overhead, sure. Performance degradation... not if done right. :hehe: I have done several migrations where overall user experience and server performance has gotten better. Of course, when virtualizing, we are typically moving to better hardware in the process. I agree that the "point" of virtualization is not usually to gain a performance improvement, I'm just saying that if done right you can get it. Not to mention the HADR benefits.
Jared
CE - Microsoft
October 20, 2016 at 8:52 am
most I've seen who get it wrong move to hardware that's inferior expecting it to be super fast and it isn't.
I've worked on projects where we've used high end kit for ESX server and virtualised pretty much a whole sql estate with no issues. The point is virtualisation is done for consolidation reasons, the storage being the weak link in the chain. Virtual disks do not like random I\O at all, they are after all just sequential files
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
October 20, 2016 at 5:10 pm
if you got better performance, it's just because you have a better hardware, virtual os does not come for free, but the overall productivity will increase, because you virtual provide better share support.
October 20, 2016 at 7:19 pm
Again, I agree to disagree. And again, I'm not saying that virtualization is done for performance. However, it is absolutely possible to get better performance with virtualization. Also, it's not just for consolidation. I have designed hosts specifically for only 1vm. If you believe you can't get the same or better performance after virtualization, I'm sorry for you. There's not much more I can say here, this really isn't the forum for it.
Jared
CE - Microsoft
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply