October 20, 2016 at 7:39 pm
yes, it is, only on the cost of more hardware, but how about just visualize your original old server by install VM os and improve its performance at same time? and visualize host for just one VM, why you do that, also no one will visualize a host that already running at almost 100%, it's unlogical.
October 20, 2016 at 8:17 pm
To the op. My first response here said that you shouldn't assume a negative impact of virtualization.
1. Your are probably moving to new hardware
2. If done right, your are probably right sizing your vm for optimal cpu utilization now, not for the future.
3. Many times we are going from old to new storage
I'm not saying you 'won't' see a negative impact. However, if done for the right reason and the right way... It is more likely than not that you will see no change or an improvement in performance. Because of hardware or whatever. There are very few scenarios where I am going from same hardware to same hardware when moving from physical to virtual.
All I am saying is that by going virtual you are not guaranteeing less performance. Talk to an expert.
Jared
CE - Microsoft
October 21, 2016 at 2:40 am
SQLKnowItAll (10/20/2016)
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.
And that's the whole point, when you get to the scenario where you dedicate a whole host resource to 1 VM, it very likely shouldn't be a VM. That's wasting valuable money paying ESX licences, etc and as I said the storage is the weak point. Doesn't matter how hot your hardware is the virtual storage is the weakest link.
I'm sorry for you and more importantly your employers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
October 21, 2016 at 2:57 am
Perry Whittle (10/21/2016)
SQLKnowItAll (10/20/2016)
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.And that's the whole point, when you get to the scenario where you dedicate a whole host resource to 1 VM, it very likely shouldn't be a VM. That's wasting valuable money paying ESX licences, etc and as I said the storage is the weak point. Doesn't matter how hot your hardware is the virtual storage is the weakest link.
I'm sorry for you and more importantly your employers
Well.. there are, in fact, cases for this. Is it an edge case? Yes. However, my point is there are sometimes other advantages to virtualization. I.e. Ha/dr features, scalability, etc. And yes, sometimes an employer asks you to build a system that spends a lot of money to get HA and DR that it needs. In those cases could I have used the same hardware to build a better performing system, probably. However the business needs did not require that. FYI, that idea of 1 vm per host came from a sql vmware expert who's clients are very satisfied. Now my employers are as well.
Jared
CE - Microsoft
Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply