Video Screencast Help
Symantec to Separate Into Two Focused, Industry-Leading Technology Companies. Learn more.

SMP who is running Virualized SQl server.

Created: 04 Dec 2012 | 5 comments

Been going back and forth with professionl services and getting some conflicting answers.

So can I get some feed back from real world users.

 

1. For those that Virtualized the SQL boxes.

How many clients.What reservations.

 

2. For those with SQL on physical servers

How many clients.

Would you go virtual.

Comments 5 CommentsJump to latest comment

andykn101's picture

Virtual SQL but 16GB RAM and 4 virtual processors for approx 2,800 endpoints with no Patch or pcAnywhere. Runs fine.

Authorised Symantec Consultant (ASC) with Endpoint Management Limited, an Authorised Symantec Delivery Provider based in the UK.

Connect Etiquette: Please "Mark as Solution" posts that fix your problem.

PeeGee's picture

We are running all sorts of combinations at our customers, where larger implementations favour a physical SQL server.

For 5.000+ workstations with CMS (including patch) we have 16 cores (or even more, but you won't get physicial servers with less cores) and 32 GB RAM on physical servers.

But you can also hook up larger systems to a virtual SQL server. Anyway no matter if your SQL is virtual or physical, usually you'll have the same bottle-neck: Disk IO.

I prefer virtual servers as you can simple monitor the CPU and RAM utilization and add more, if needed, where a 2.000+ nodes CMS implementation benefits from 16 GB and more RAM.

Whenever performance of a CMS implementation is slow, everybody starts talking about cores and RAM but in 99% of the cases the disk IO of SQL server is the root cause.

So whatever you decide to do, use the best, most modern and fastest disk systems you can get for your SQL server and ensure that this disk system is not overutilized by other services.

bmagurn's picture

Tech support yelled at me a lot after the fact for having SQL on-box.  I was really pissed because they already wanted me to buy 4 physical servers and then they told me I needed a separate SQL server from the 4 phyiscal servers for the SMP hierarchy 1 parent, 2 children, 1 helpdesk.

 

I would strongly recommend having a separate physical box for SQL.  If you already have a SQL server and a good DBA who knows how to run it and watch the performance indications, you can just point to that existing box.

Virtuals can be problematic in 2 ways - 1.  SQL is a resource hog, and if somebody forgets and throws other virtuals on the same host, you may not even know it. 

2.  IO is crucial, RAM, disk IO, you're better off being able to just have a direct interface with the host O/S than having to worry about performance of virtualization disk drivers, etc. 

 

I think the rule of thumb they gave us was about 10,000-15,000 clients per SMP.

 

joevax's picture

Yes, they yelled at me to.  I am surprised to see so many people that are using a virutal SQL Server, albeit they are beefy.

 

Where are you located bmagnum? I am in a School District in San Diego with about 10,000 users.

 

Thanks

Joe

 

Sally5432's picture

We run SQL on a separate VM, only 550 clients. 2 cores, 4 gigs ram - runs fine.

---
Don't forget to mark posts as helpful if they are, and mark answers as solutions.