• Perry Whittle (1/11/2009)


    homebrew01 (1/10/2009)


    Perry Whittle (1/10/2009)


    homebrew01 (1/10/2009)


    Our plan is to take our 2 heaviest hit SQL servers and put them onto their own physical machines running VM. They will have the VM overhead, but not sharing with any other servers. We like the VMotion DR type aspects.

    if you're putting each VM onto a dedicated box of their own its pointless spending the $$$$$$$ on the vmware licences, they may just as well be physical sql servers straight off. No problem with storing a 1TB db on the SAN at all, better in fact i would think.

    No DR or other advantages with using VM in this case ?

    possibly but for the cost of the licences you could possibly find other ways. The general rule of thumb is if you get to the point where you dedicate a whole host to a VM it may as well be a physical machine

    I absolutely agree. You would probably be better served clustering the two servers (HA) using boot from SAN technology and SAN mirroring (DR), and putting the additional cost of VM licensing into more RAM / stronger hardware and segmenting the databases into different instances on the cluster. You can't address the same amount of memory or processors in a VM that you can physically. This isn't a practical use of putting SQL in a VM, from two people who run SQL in VM's standpoints.

    Jonathan Kehayias | Principal Consultant | MCM: SQL Server 2008
    My Blog | Twitter | MVP Profile
    Training | Consulting | Become a SQLskills Insider
    Troubleshooting SQL Server: A Guide for Accidental DBAs[/url]