Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128F3633275 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:36:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00487-01-3 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:36:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from serv01.siteground178.com (ns1.siteground178.com [67.15.255.19]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B86E633F70 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:33:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [67.15.255.19] (port=55122 helo=intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net) by serv01.siteground178.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NwGy7-0007OM-MM; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:33:35 -0500 Received: from phpmailer ([76.106.235.204]) by intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net with HTTP (PHPMailer); Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:33:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:33:35 -0500 To: Ramiro Barreca , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org From: Michael Gould Subject: Re: Virtualization vs. sharing a server Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: PHPMailer [version 1.71] X-Mailer: FeLaMiMail In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_f4bb7d2d0bb97154e5c7cb878cc7734a" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - serv01.siteground178.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - postgresql.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.434 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.436, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/229 X-Sequence-Number: 34028 --b1_f4bb7d2d0bb97154e5c7cb878cc7734a Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ramiro, I don't know why virtualization is considered a no-no.=A0 We use VMware = ESX.=A0 On some smaller applications we run both the application and database on the virutal machine.=A0 We've not had a issue with this combination in 5+ years.=A0 We also have 6 images that run on 2 machines just for the appliations.=A0 Each of these 5 machines is running Windows 2003 Server = with Citrix XenAPP.=A0 We do have 2 database servers that are running 2 Quad = Cores Intel processors, one with 32 gig and one with 64 gig.=A0 We also have a couple of old PIII 1 Gig machines running as our AD servers. Each of the database servers are currently running SQL Anywhere 9 and = MSSQL 2005.=A0 We've never had a issue.=A0 We keep one server (64 Gig one) as = our primary server and the other as a hot backup with auto failover. If it were not for the virtualized application machines we would have had to purchase quite a bit more hardware.=A0 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. In the past 5 years we've had one time when (when we only 2 physical servers) and we lost one and the other was able to handle all of the application needs although much more slowly. I think that the success of virutalization is like anything else, having the right people to set it up.=A0 We have no one in our compay to do this kind of thing so we contract it out to others with platinum = certifications from the various vendors (Citrix/ Windows Servers and VMWare).=A0=20 When we finish our commerical application to production we will probably contract with EnterpriseDB to help us with tuning Postgres and the = servers they run on. =A0 Best Regards =A0 -- Michael Gould, Managing Partner Intermodal Software Solutions, LLC 904.226.0978 904.592.5250 fax --b1_f4bb7d2d0bb97154e5c7cb878cc7734a Content-Type: text/html; charset = "iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ramiro,

I don't know why virtualization is considered a no-no.  We use = VMware ESX.  On some smaller applications we run both the = application and database on the virutal machine.  We've not had a = issue with this combination in 5+ years.  We also have 6 images that = run on 2 machines just for the appliations.  Each of these 5 = machines is running Windows 2003 Server with Citrix XenAPP.  We do = have 2 database servers that are running 2 Quad Cores Intel processors, = one with 32 gig and one with 64 gig.  We also have a couple of old = PIII 1 Gig machines running as our AD servers.

Each of the database servers are currently running SQL Anywhere 9 and = MSSQL 2005.  We've never had a issue.  We keep one server (64 = Gig one) as our primary server and the other as a hot backup with auto = failover.

If it were not for the virtualized application machines we would have = had to purchase quite a bit more hardware.  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.

In the past 5 years we've had one time when (when we only 2 physical = servers) and we lost one and the other was able to handle all of the = application needs although much more slowly.

I think that the success of virutalization is like anything else, = having the right people to set it up.  We have no one in our compay = to do this kind of thing so we contract it out to others with platinum = certifications from the various vendors (Citrix/ Windows Servers and = VMWare). 

When we finish our commerical application to production we will = probably contract with EnterpriseDB to help us with tuning Postgres and = the servers they run on.

 

Best Regards

 




Michael Gould, Managing Partner
Intermodal Software Solutions, LLC
904.226.0978
904.592.5250 fax
--b1_f4bb7d2d0bb97154e5c7cb878cc7734a--