The performance of Virtual Servers seem to increase with every release. The base operating systems are better tuned for hosting virtual servers, and the various VS software tools continue to improve in flexibility, manageability, and performance. Combined with a SAN, virtual servers make a great environment for keeping you servers running.
I remember when virtual servers first came out for hosting services like SQL Server. I remember managers dictating that all SQL instances needed to be hosted on virtual servers. They remembered the way virtual servers performed on the mainframe, and knew the value. But the performance was radically reduced, and the cost was much higher to virtualize you database server.
Those days are LONG gone. Moreover, you can break out the cores of a server today into many different configurations, better utilizing the complete capability of your hardware. Depending on how you configure your server you can allow loads to shift when an application requires additional horsepower.
What about the SMB who doesn’t have a lot of different databases. Do they still benefit from a virtual server? Perhaps the benefit isn’t in load balancing, or better utilization of hardware. Perhaps, the value is in the ability to take a snapshot of a virtual machine. There is a lot you can do with a snapshot.
Does it make sense to have a virtual machine for servers, even if they are not pooled or clustered? Share your opinion today in our comments, or send an Email to btaylor@sswug.org. Should we virtualize our servers?
Cheers,
Ben