-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Web servers running on VMWARE?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
her209...
while I'm not a server/storage guy I am involved with the SAN aspect of things...
That being said - we run anything and everything on vmware and EMC storage. The SANs are a collection of Cisco MDS and Brocade/McData SAN switches.
That's the beauty of a SAN - it doesn't matter what is attached to it or the application it runs. It is there to provide access to storage.
while I'm not a server/storage guy I am involved with the SAN aspect of things...
That being said - we run anything and everything on vmware and EMC storage. The SANs are a collection of Cisco MDS and Brocade/McData SAN switches.
That's the beauty of a SAN - it doesn't matter what is attached to it or the application it runs. It is there to provide access to storage.
We don't run database server apps in VM. If your SQL, MYSQL or Oracle servers are heavy hitters I'd suggest you do not entertain that notion either. VM's are good for alot of things. Heavy use SQL servers is not one of them.
For the record, our VM's run on IBM es800 shark and EMC DMX SAN devices.
FreshPrince
Diamond Member
our VM sql server attached to our iSCSI performs 2X as fast as regular physical server...
when you take the storage out of the VM, it becomes extremely fast!
FreshPrince
Diamond Member
apparently some people don't seem to care to find for out themselves...that's ok 😉
No need to. Only way a VM will perform as well, much less better than a physical box where SQL is concerned, is if it's the only VM running on the host and the hardware is superior by levels. Hey, its your money but I can't find a reason to run a server in a VM if it's the only virtual server on the host. Defeats the point. To each his own but trying has nothing to do with it. Just common sense and lots of VM environment experience.
Suspicious-Teach8788
Lifer
Yeah with its crazy overhead... Xen > VMWare
Our installations of ESX 2.5 get 192 MB of memory for the service console (ESX is a stripped Red Hat 7.2) and the cpu utilization to run up to around 8 servers is in the middle to low single digits percentage wize once the VM's are up and running. Our blades run two 3.2 Ghz Xeons with 8 GB of memory. I hardly think 5% or less resource utlization is crazy overhead but hey, your definition of crazy may be vastly different than mine.
maybe hes refering to vmware workstation/player? ESX is pretty fast... we have a not-so-heavily loaded sql server running in a vm and it's doing pretty well for us. much faster than the physical machine it replaced (yes, the machine was POS though). Even vmware GSX/server runs pretty well for us.
I could come up with scenarios where a VM would run faster than a physical box. None that would ever come up in our environment. Which is ESX. About 200 VM's at this point spread out across 4 IBM BladeServer Chassis. Fully populated so 14 Blades a piece. The SQL farm at the data center the servers I support are Dell 6650' Quad Xeon's with 8 GB RAM. Hundreds of heavily utilized databases spread across a 4 node Active/Active Windows 2003 cluster. VM's are not even a consideration for our production environment where SQL is concerned. Activity on our SQL boxes would facilitate one VM on one blade running ESX. Not cost effective. Too many servers that could run as a multiple VM blade. We actually did have a couple of blades running Windows 2004 enterprise running a two node active/active cluster. Eventually it was just pitifully obvious the db's needed to be moved to the farm. ESX and a single VM on those blades would run worse than the windows installations. Only VM's with SQL in my world are Sql 2005 Test and a few SQL dev servers but once we go live with 2005, in the distant future, they will definitely be on physical boxes. Apples for Apples a VM is not going to compete with a physical box. Just the way it is.
Yeah, if you have a Dual P3 with 2GB of memory running SQL and you upgrade to a box with significantly better specs running ESX and the only VM on that server is SQL, assuming it's banged pretty good, then sure, it will run faster than the legacy server. If it isn't hit hard then maybe even running a webserver or something in VM on that same esx instance would work as well. Maybe even a couple NLB servers.
Anyway, if I was a dick it wasn't intentional and I apologize if it came off that way. Two years in the VMWare universe. Many classes and an assload of experience. Our blades/ESX/VM's are not my sole responsibility by an means but when something goes wrong it's usually me that gets the call. VM's are wonderful things. I love virtualization. But there are some applications that are not good candidates. Enterprise Production SQL servers is one of those poor candidates. So I applaud your use of current and future technology, virtualization, and kudos for good performance on your SQL VM(s). Doesn't sway my opinion about what should or shouldn't be put on a VM. Ask your VMWare rep out SQL on VM's. If he's honest, or off the record, he/she'll tell you it's not a particularly good idea.
Having said all that, I will repeat that I acknoledge and accept a scenario where it could be a viable solution to run ESX and SQL on a VM. Just none that I would be working on.
Yeah, if you have a Dual P3 with 2GB of memory running SQL and you upgrade to a box with significantly better specs running ESX and the only VM on that server is SQL, assuming it's banged pretty good, then sure, it will run faster than the legacy server. If it isn't hit hard then maybe even running a webserver or something in VM on that same esx instance would work as well. Maybe even a couple NLB servers.
Anyway, if I was a dick it wasn't intentional and I apologize if it came off that way. Two years in the VMWare universe. Many classes and an assload of experience. Our blades/ESX/VM's are not my sole responsibility by an means but when something goes wrong it's usually me that gets the call. VM's are wonderful things. I love virtualization. But there are some applications that are not good candidates. Enterprise Production SQL servers is one of those poor candidates. So I applaud your use of current and future technology, virtualization, and kudos for good performance on your SQL VM(s). Doesn't sway my opinion about what should or shouldn't be put on a VM. Ask your VMWare rep out SQL on VM's. If he's honest, or off the record, he/she'll tell you it's not a particularly good idea.
Having said all that, I will repeat that I acknoledge and accept a scenario where it could be a viable solution to run ESX and SQL on a VM. Just none that I would be working on.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
