if you can absolutely get guaranteed fast IO for your disks that'll have your SQL database (and of course enough memory, and you configure sql right); virtual is fine.
but if, as you say, you've gotten burned by I/O on virtual in the past--it's up to you to find out if your own internal resources for virtual are better than they were then. Get guarantees, and promises, and "yes you may call up the virtual guys when they are on vacation at 3am if needed" if there are ever any I/O issues so they can fix the issues. On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Daniel Ratliff <[email protected]> wrote: > Been running all virtual since about 2011. 72k clients, CAS + 3 Primaries. > So happy to be moving to a single site in a couple weeks! > > > > *Daniel Ratliff* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Burke, John > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:13 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [mssms] Current Branch - Safe to go all virtual servers? > > > > Hi folks, > > > > We got a little push back against going physical and perhaps my thinking > is out of date. In the past we have gotten burned by I/O on virtual > servers when we had a primary virtual server. Would you folks say it’s ok > to have virtual servers for primary and secondary sites now a days? > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed > and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this > material/information in error, > please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information. > > -- Thank you, Sherry Kissinger My Parameters: Standardize. Simplify. Automate Blogs: http://www.mofmaster.com, http://mnscug.org/blogs/sherry-kissinger, http://www.smguru.org
