> I'm trying to figure out what is best practice from avirtualserver
> stance..
>
> I want to virtualize one MS role.. it has a SQL database in addition
> to program files..
>
> Typically in the physical world.. i put the OS files on a mirrored
> array for C, then the sql database files on another array (raid5) D,
> then the logs on another mirror call it E drive...
>
> In thevirtualworld.. should i be creating the same structure.. ie:
> create a new VHD for D, then E..
>
> Should these VHDs all be on the same array on the host.. or should i
> split them up over different arrays.. or is it only important to have
> the actual groupings ofvirtualserverfiles on different arrays..
>
> IE: put say 2virtualserverinstances on one array, maybe two others
> on another etc?
>
> Thanks

> On Dec 3, 11:16 am, markm75 <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>> I'm trying to figure out what is best practice from avirtualserver
>> stance..
>>
>> I want to virtualize one MS role.. it has a SQL database in addition
>> to program files..
>>
>> Typically in the physical world.. i put the OS files on a mirrored
>> array for C, then the sql database files on another array (raid5) D,
>> then the logs on another mirror call it E drive...
>>
>> In thevirtualworld.. should i be creating the same structure.. ie:
>> create a new VHD for D, then E..
>>
>> Should these VHDs all be on the same array on the host.. or should i
>> split them up over different arrays.. or is it only important to have
>> the actual groupings ofvirtualserverfiles on different arrays..
>>
>> IE: put say 2virtualserverinstances on one array, maybe two others
>> on another etc?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> The user load is about 40 users.. but i doubt there will be that many
> simultaneously.

> If you want to maintain performance - make 3 separate VHDs and place
> them on separate arrays. Or - create one VHD and place it on a single -
> faster - array.
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin Armstrong
> ============================
> Windows Virtualization Program Manager
> Blog:http://blogs.msdn.com/Virtual_PC_Guy
> Book:http://tinyurl.com/ysxcbm
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights. You assume all risk for your use.
>
>
>
> markm75 wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 11:16 am, markm75 <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
> >> I'm trying to figure out what is best practice from avirtualserver
> >> stance..
>
> >> I want to virtualize one MS role.. it has a SQL database in addition
> >> to program files..
>
> >> Typically in the physical world.. i put the OS files on a mirrored
> >> array for C, then the sql database files on another array (raid5) D,
> >> then the logs on another mirror call it E drive...
>
> >> In thevirtualworld.. should i be creating the same structure.. ie:
> >> create a new VHD for D, then E..
>
> >> Should these VHDs all be on the same array on the host.. or should i
> >> split them up over different arrays.. or is it only important to have
> >> the actual groupings ofvirtualserverfiles on different arrays..
>
> >> IE: put say 2virtualserverinstances on one array, maybe two others
> >> on another etc?
>
> >> Thanks
>
> > The user load is about 40 users.. but i doubt there will be that many
> > simultaneously.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

> On Dec 3, 2:55 pm, "Benjamin Armstrong [MSFT]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
> > If you want to maintain performance - make 3 separate VHDs and place
> > them on separate arrays. Or - create one VHD and place it on a single -
> > faster - array.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Benjamin Armstrong
> > ============================
> > Windows Virtualization Program Manager
> > Blog:http://blogs.msdn.com/Virtual_PC_Guy
> > Book:http://tinyurl.com/ysxcbm
>
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights. You assume all risk for your use.
>
> > markm75 wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 11:16 am, markm75 <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
> > >> I'm trying to figure out what is best practice from avirtualserver
> > >> stance..
>
> > >> I want to virtualize one MS role.. it has a SQL database in addition
> > >> to program files..
>
> > >> Typically in the physical world.. i put the OS files on a mirrored
> > >> array for C, then the sql database files on another array (raid5) D,
> > >> then the logs on another mirror call it E drive...
>
> > >> In thevirtualworld.. should i be creating the same structure.. ie:
> > >> create a new VHD for D, then E..
>
> > >> Should these VHDs all be on the same array on the host.. or should i
> > >> split them up over different arrays.. or is it only important to have
> > >> the actual groupings ofvirtualserverfiles on different arrays..
>
> > >> IE: put say 2virtualserverinstances on one array, maybe two others
> > >> on another etc?
>
> > >> Thanks
>
> > > The user load is about 40 users.. but i doubt there will be that many
> > > simultaneously.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So you are saying create the C, D, E inside the virtual server and put
> those on seperate arrays/volumes.. is this what most people are
> doing? (it makes management a little less elegant i guess).
>
> I have a sataII raid 5 array that pulls 120 MB/sec.. but it also does
> file serving.. i guess it depends how many hits it takes throughout
> the day.
>
> I guess loading this single raid5 array up with 3 virtual servers, all
> with sql, but only one majorly hit sql database would probably slow
> things down a bit? I will run quad core x 2 xeon 2.33ghz cpus and 6gb
> of memory though.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

> On Dec 3, 3:21 pm, markm75 <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2:55 pm, "Benjamin Armstrong [MSFT]"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>>> If you want to maintain performance - make 3 separate VHDs and place
>>> them on separate arrays. Or - create one VHD and place it on a single -
>>> faster - array.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Benjamin Armstrong
>>> ============================
>>> Windows Virtualization Program Manager
>>> Blog:http://blogs.msdn.com/Virtual_PC_Guy
>>> Book:http://tinyurl.com/ysxcbm
>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>> rights. You assume all risk for your use.
>>> markm75 wrote:
>>>> On Dec 3, 11:16 am, markm75 <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>>>>> I'm trying to figure out what is best practice from avirtualserver
>>>>> stance..
>>>>> I want to virtualize one MS role.. it has a SQL database in addition
>>>>> to program files..
>>>>> Typically in the physical world.. i put the OS files on a mirrored
>>>>> array for C, then the sql database files on another array (raid5) D,
>>>>> then the logs on another mirror call it E drive...
>>>>> In thevirtualworld.. should i be creating the same structure.. ie:
>>>>> create a new VHD for D, then E..
>>>>> Should these VHDs all be on the same array on the host.. or should i
>>>>> split them up over different arrays.. or is it only important to have
>>>>> the actual groupings ofvirtualserverfiles on different arrays..
>>>>> IE: put say 2virtualserverinstances on one array, maybe two others
>>>>> on another etc?
>>>>> Thanks
>>>> The user load is about 40 users.. but i doubt there will be that many
>>>> simultaneously.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> So you are saying create the C, D, E inside the virtual server and put
>> those on seperate arrays/volumes.. is this what most people are
>> doing? (it makes management a little less elegant i guess).
>>
>> I have a sataII raid 5 array that pulls 120 MB/sec.. but it also does
>> file serving.. i guess it depends how many hits it takes throughout
>> the day.
>>
>> I guess loading this single raid5 array up with 3 virtual servers, all
>> with sql, but only one majorly hit sql database would probably slow
>> things down a bit? I will run quad core x 2 xeon 2.33ghz cpus and 6gb
>> of memory though.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Also.. i keep seeing this going either way.. but we have SATAII for
> raid5 at the speed i mentioned.. how much does the MB/sec jump for the
> same SAS setup? We really cant justify the cost of SAS for our small
> org. though.. but many say not to go the sata route.. we were fine
> with the old server and no virtualization, just raid5 data and 3 sql's
> and file serving (xeon single core 2.4) before she blew.
>

> I do not have figures for SaS versus Sata (sorry). If you are going to
> be running multiple VMs on the same array - just go with a single VHD.
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin Armstrong
> ============================
> Windows Virtualization Program Manager
> Blog:http://blogs.msdn.com/Virtual_PC_Guy
> Book:http://tinyurl.com/ysxcbm
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights. You assume all risk for your use.
>
>
>
> markm75 wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 3:21 pm, markm75 <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
> >> On Dec 3, 2:55 pm, "Benjamin Armstrong [MSFT]"
>
> >> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
> >>> If you want to maintain performance - make 3 separate VHDs and place
> >>> them on separate arrays. Or - create one VHD and place it on a single -
> >>> faster - array.
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Benjamin Armstrong
> >>> ============================
> >>> Windows Virtualization Program Manager
> >>> Blog:http://blogs.msdn.com/Virtual_PC_Guy
> >>> Book:http://tinyurl.com/ysxcbm
> >>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >>> rights. You assume all risk for your use.
> >>> markm75 wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 3, 11:16 am, markm75 <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
> >>>>> I'm trying to figure out what is best practice from avirtualserver
> >>>>> stance..
> >>>>> I want to virtualize one MS role.. it has a SQL database in addition
> >>>>> to program files..
> >>>>> Typically in the physical world.. i put the OS files on a mirrored
> >>>>> array for C, then the sql database files on another array (raid5) D,
> >>>>> then the logs on another mirror call it E drive...
> >>>>> In thevirtualworld.. should i be creating the same structure.. ie:
> >>>>> create a new VHD for D, then E..
> >>>>> Should these VHDs all be on the same array on the host.. or should i
> >>>>> split them up over different arrays.. or is it only important to have
> >>>>> the actual groupings ofvirtualserverfiles on different arrays..
> >>>>> IE: put say 2virtualserverinstances on one array, maybe two others
> >>>>> on another etc?
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>> The user load is about 40 users.. but i doubt there will be that many
> >>>> simultaneously.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> So you are saying create the C, D, E inside the virtual server and put
> >> those on seperate arrays/volumes.. is this what most people are
> >> doing? (it makes management a little less elegant i guess).
>
> >> I have a sataII raid 5 array that pulls 120 MB/sec.. but it also does
> >> file serving.. i guess it depends how many hits it takes throughout
> >> the day.
>
> >> I guess loading this single raid5 array up with 3 virtual servers, all
> >> with sql, but only one majorly hit sql database would probably slow
> >> things down a bit? I will run quad core x 2 xeon 2.33ghz cpus and 6gb
> >> of memory though.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Also.. i keep seeing this going either way.. but we have SATAII for
> > raid5 at the speed i mentioned.. how much does the MB/sec jump for the
> > same SAS setup? We really cant justify the cost of SAS for our small
> > org. though.. but many say not to go the sata route.. we were fine
> > with the old server and no virtualization, just raid5 data and 3 sql's
> > and file serving (xeon single core 2.4) before she blew.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -