"Eero Ahonen" <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote in message 
news:48bc0856$1@news.povray.org...
but
> depending on DB-size etc the saved cost of another HW can possibly give 
> you even better HW for that one machine to have better IOs for the DB, 
> it's not purely black and white).

No, it's not.
In my experience though, the majority of DB servers that have bottlenecks 
have IO ones, even on physical machines. Virtualising those means needing 
separate IO paths, separate physical raid arrays, etc or the virtuals will 
compeate with one another for IO. I know that all the SQL MVPs who have 
given an opinion on this have recommend not virtualising a production DB, 
especially not a large one with lots of activity.
I'd happily virtualise a dev or test environment. Not happy about doing it 
to a heavily-utilised prod server though. Not right now.

> Then again, MS surely don't want to support Xen, while they're working on 
> HyperV - no wonder SQL Server ain't supported on such competitor-software 
> ;).

Well, VMWare's joined the SVVP 
(http://www.windowsservercatalog.com/svvp.aspx?svvppage=svvp.htm), so 
there'll have to be some level of support. How much remains to be seen.
SQL's not supported at all on existing MS virtualisation products (virtual 
server, virtual PC) and it's not currently supported on Hyper-V (which has 
been available for a month or so)

Post a reply to this message