Message-ID: <4BB0DEBF.5040401@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:09:19 -0400
From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Gould <mgould@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net>
CC: Ramiro Barreca <rbarreca@gmail.com>, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Virtualization vs. sharing a server
References: <f4bb7d2d0bb97154e5c7cb878cc7734a@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net>
In-Reply-To: 
 <f4bb7d2d0bb97154e5c7cb878cc7734a@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael Gould wrote:
>
> I don't know why virtualization is considered a no-no...Since these 
> are all quad core with 32 gig running Windows 2003 64 bit, we can run 
> about 100 users concurrently on each application server before we 
> start to see a strain.
>

You answered your own question here.  Ramiro is looking for suggestions 
for how to scale up to >500 connections at once, and it's not that 
likely virtualization can fill any useful role in that context.  If 
you're happy with 100, sure you can deploy on VMware ESX and have that 
work.  There are performance vs. manageability tradeoffs when deciding 
if virtualized deployment makes sense, and for smaller workloads it's 
easy to dismiss the performance side of things as not a limiting factor 
and therefore favor VMs.

-- 
Greg Smith  2ndQuadrant US  Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com   www.2ndQuadrant.us