Sue,
Thanks so much for sharing your experience. I am glad to hear this before
making any server recommendations.

"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> I have seen some problems with production servers that were
> virtual. Had some even with light loads that still had
> performance issues which cleared up when moved to physical
> servers. We've tried it at a few places I've been at and I
> wouldn't recommend it for production servers. Even with a
> beefy ESX server.
>
> -Sue
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:55:02 -0700, HenryT
> <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for your reply, Andrew.
> >
> >If anyone else out there reads this discussion thread, can you share your
> >thoughts? What is the best practice or common industry practice in putting
> >SQL server on virtual server. I can understand putting test SQL servers on
> >virtual environment. What about production SQL servers? Should they be
> >virtualized?
> >
> >"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> The minimum hardware varies greatly depending onthe workload and how well
> >> optimized the process is. The is no guideline per say. If you are concerned
> >> with performance then I would tend to stay away from using virtual servers
> >> for Sql Server. If the load is very light it may not be a problem but I see
> >> little value in running SQL server on a virtual server. Are you talking
> >> about a systemt hat will do 10 transactions a minute or 10,000 a second?
> >> Will the data you use daily be 10MB's or 100GB's? How many concurrent
> >> users. Etc, Etc.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >> "HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:384101C3-FE76-4AFE-BE68-0DDBEEE66FB5@microsoft.com...
> >> > Andrew,
> >> >
> >> > Thank you so much for your quick response. It s me a lot. Since you
> >> > are a SQL MVP, may I ask more questions? - what kind of horse power
> >> > (CPU's,
> >> > RAM, disk space, etc. ) for a server do I need to run SQLserver 2005
> >> > comfortably? The minimum hardware requirements from the Book on Line
> >> > doesn't
> >> > . Is this a good idea to run SQL server 2005 on a virtual server? I
> >> > try
> >> > set spec out a base-line hardware requirements for both physical and
> >> > virtual
> >> > server to run SQL Server 2005 in my shop. Any information is appreciated.
> >> > Thanks again.
> >> >
> >> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You will loose very few features in SQL Server if any. The main one I see
> >> >> if
> >> >> the ability to not have to zero initialize the data files. I believe
> >> >> there
> >> >> are some security features that may require Win 2003 but I am not 100%
> >> >> sure.
> >> >> What I am thinking of is the ability to use the windows security
> >> >> policies.
> >> >> But off hand I believe all the other functionality is there. You do
> >> >> loose
> >> >> some performance by not going to Win2003 but that is due to the advances
> >> >> in
> >> >> the OS that SQL Server takes advantage of not SQL Server itself per say.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> >>
> >> >> "HenryT" <HenryT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:84694D76-D550-441A-8B87-43C6206913A1@microsoft.com...
> >> >> > What features of SQL 2005 will I loose if I install SQL Server 2005 on
> >> >> > Windows 2000 Adv Server? also will there be any problems running it?
> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >> > in advanced
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>