exact same here. On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Murray, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> LOL, me too. We only put the SQL volume on SSD, the others run on regular > fast disks. So they’re at least happy our entire environment isn’t using > SSD’s. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Todd Hemsell > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:13 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mssms] Current Branch - Safe to go all virtual servers? > > > > It works fine for me, but our VMware guys hate my server, it chews up more > resources than anything else. > > > > All depends on how much resources your server gets. > > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Burke, John <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 is out of date.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? > > > > > > > >
