• subscribe
September 20, 2007 12:00 AM

Virtualization in the SMB Market

SQL Server Pro
InstantDoc ID #97094

Virtualization in the Wintel space first became prevalent with VMware's introduction of its VMware GSX Server in 2001. Then, Microsoft launched Virtual Server in 2004. Today, there are several other virtualization solutions available and virtualization is making substantial inroads in the small-to-midsized business (SMB) market beyond its early toeholds in the enterprise market.

I'll be honest. I don't have a lot of direct professional experience with virtualization. Sure, I know the basics of using Virtual Server. It's an invaluable way to have multiple sandboxes on your primary "work" machine. But I don't have a lot of experience using Virtual Server to host multiple virtual machines (VMs) running SQL Server in production on a single physical machine. Server-consolidation needs drove the earliest rounds of virtualization for production. Initially, most customers consolidating in this way were looking to consolidate dozens—and often hundreds—of SQL servers, each running on a separate machine, into a substantially smaller number of "big iron" data center–style servers. In general, most SMB customers I've run across over the years have tended to use virtualization as a means of effectively handling certain development and testing needs when they didn't have enough physical servers. However, I haven't seen much SQL Server–based Virtual Server usage for SMB production applications. I think the general consensus has been that the management of virtual servers is hard, but managing a smaller number of physical servers is actually easier. And for the most part, SMBs believe it's easier to manage and control SQL Server performance if you have an instance of SQL Server installed on a physical machine rather than in a virtualized environment.

However, I've been seeing a lot of press coverage about virtualization usage in the SMB space lately, although not necessarily around virtualized SQL Server and database usage. In addition, Microsoft is making substantial improvements to its virtual server technology that will ship as part of the upcoming Windows Server 2008.

Is SQL Server in a virtual world poised to move beyond the massively large data center and development, testing, and quality assurance roles in the SMB space? I don't expect a rapid move in this direction because the management tools for both Microsoft's and other vendors' virtualization products still aren't quite up to snuff. But the technology is alluring. My sense is that customers want virtualization to work and want to adopt it. Who wouldn't prefer to have just one or perhaps a handful of servers hosting dozens of servers? I'm curious. What do you think are the main impediments to adopting virtualization technology in the SMB space today? Do you think virtualization is poised to become a widely adopted technology, or will it remain a somewhat niche solution for the foreseeable future?



ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • Jennifer
    5 years ago
    Nov 06, 2007

    I definitely think that virtualization is poised to become a widely adopted technology.

  • JOHN
    5 years ago
    Oct 01, 2007

    We have recently installed a production database application that will eventually be over 100 GB/350+ million rows (after all divisions are converted) on VMWare...against my will of course.

    The client insisted and will only accept failure as an indicator of poor performance. And if I'm not mistaken, MS doesn't support SQL Server in a virtual environment...I was told that if we ever needed real support, MS would probably tell us to put the app on iron before they could help.

    I just hope that I am wrong in thinking this was and is a BAD IDEA!!!! If it goes south, I'll be looking for a new job...don't want to deal with it after I told them not to do it...

    Wish me luck!!!

    John R.
    MCITP-DBA/DBD

  • DAVID
    5 years ago
    Sep 21, 2007

    We have started virtualizing small single application instances. Such as Crystal Enterprise and Sharepoint. The storage requirments are small and performance was never an issue for them. I discussed with the VM admin about virtualizing large instances with large databases 50 GB or more. It was explained to me the storage should be virtualize and because of its size it was not possible. Instead the storage would be attached to the virtual server which defeats the portablity benefit of virtualizing it. It seems to me that large busy systems do not benefit from virtualization. This may change in the future.

    I am not sure how much windows administration work is saved by having multiple virtual images running on a shared server. Each image has its own copy of windows and other software that needs to be patched individually.

  • Ray
    5 years ago
    Sep 20, 2007

    We are only use it in test, very good if you set up clustering in this inexpensive test environment.

  • COLLEEN
    5 years ago
    Sep 20, 2007

    regarding post by ptansey - I would be interested to hear how it all turns out. We've tried out some sql server virtuals in a testing environment but never in production. I wasn't thrilled about the performance but then again, we didn't set them up on our best servers. So, maybe it's just us...

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here
  • SP1?
    I know there is a SP1 for SQL 2008 R2 available....and there is a "feature pack" as well... ...
  • SQL database mirroring
    I have SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise 64bit on Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise 64bit.  Each SQL Server has...
  • Dell Compellent Disk Drive
    Does anybody has experience with Dell Compellent Disk Drive? Basically, this system manages all disk...
  • Sql server performance tuning
    I need to find a tool that help me to optimize sql server,queries,improve the performance and solve ...