Sent: 09/05/2008
From: Kit
Message:Yes I will be using virtual Server 2005 not Hyper V. So what should I not
virtualize?
"Steve Jain" wrote:
Show quoted text
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:45:25 -0400, "Tim Walsh" <(email address - cut out)>
> wrote:
>
> >Great, but what about those of us still running Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1
> >in production?
>
> I don't know if VS2005 will have the same "ok" for exchange, etc. as
> Hyper-V
>
> >We tend to impliment new products late, would you believe we're still using
> >Office 97!
> >
>
> That's nothing! :-) I've still got an NT 4 domain running with
> Exchange 5.5
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.
>
Sent: 09/05/2008
From: Steve Jain <(email address - cut out)>
Message:On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:56:29 -0700, Kit <(email address - cut out)>
wrote:
Any reason you're not using Hyper-V?
You can virtualize anything.
What is important is what you're looking for.
Not all MS products are supported under virtualization. If this isn't
important to you, then you can do it. I've got a non-production
Exchange server under VS2005, runs great, but no official support.
also, some things don't virtualize well...for example SQL databases
usually aren't the best due to the amount of hard disk usage, which
really impacts performance.
--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.
Show quoted text
>Yes I will be using virtual Server 2005 not Hyper V. So what should I not
>virtualize?
>
Sent: 09/05/2008
From: "Tim Walsh" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:Great, but what about those of us still running Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1
in production?
We tend to impliment new products late, would you believe we're still using
Office 97!
"Steve Jain" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>
>>Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>>Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying to
>>virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>>processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>>were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>
> I think there will be announcements about what is/isn't supported on
> Monday with the office Hyper-V announcement.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.
Sent: 09/05/2008
From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:That announcement is already out for many products.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957006 for server products, and there's
another one somewhere up there as well...
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Steve Jain" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>
>>Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>>Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying to
>>virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>>processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>>were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>
> I think there will be announcements about what is/isn't supported on
> Monday with the office Hyper-V announcement.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.
Sent: 09/05/2008
From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has RTM'd.
It will have:
Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that won't
get loaded on it.
Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.
The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it there, but
it's not worth the pain.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Tim Walsh" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>
> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize any
> of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might be okay
> given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the above in lab
> settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of running them in
> production, with the exception of small apps that install SQL2005 express.
>
> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>> Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying
>> to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>> processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>> were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "Kit" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told Exchange
>>>and
>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>
>
>
Sent: 09/06/2008
From: "Tim Walsh" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:We finally shutdown our last NT server earlier this year.
"Steve Jain" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:45:25 -0400, "Tim Walsh" <(email address - cut out)>
> wrote:
>
>>Great, but what about those of us still running Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1
>>in production?
>
> I don't know if VS2005 will have the same "ok" for exchange, etc. as
> Hyper-V
>
>>We tend to impliment new products late, would you believe we're still
>>using
>>Office 97!
>>
>
> That's nothing! :-) I've still got an NT 4 domain running with
> Exchange 5.5
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.
Sent: 09/06/2008
From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:Yup. An HP ML350 G5 with 16 GB of RAM and dual Xeon dual-core 5130's. At the
time I got the box, a _honking_ machine. But now fairly plebian. What it
does have, and that makes a huge difference with a virtualized solution, is
an 8-wide, 15k 2.5" SAS disk array.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
> Charlie, just so I'm clear. These will all be on one physical server?
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has
>>RTM'd. It will have:
>>
>> Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
>> SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
>> SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that won't
>> get loaded on it.
>> Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.
>>
>> The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it there,
>> but it's not worth the pain.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "Tim Walsh" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
>>> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>>>
>>> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize
>>> any of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might be
>>> okay given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the above
>>> in lab settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of running
>>> them in production, with the exception of small apps that install
>>> SQL2005 express.
>>>
>>> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
>>> message news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of
>>>> virtualized Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably
>>>> avoid trying to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already
>>>> using 4 or more processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL
>>>> installations that were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>
>>>> "Kit" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told
>>>>>Exchange and
>>>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Sent: 09/06/2008
From: "dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com>
Message:Charlie, just so I'm clear. These will all be on one physical server?
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
>I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has RTM'd.
>It will have:
>
> Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
> SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
> SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that won't
> get loaded on it.
> Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.
>
> The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it there,
> but it's not worth the pain.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "Tim Walsh" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
>> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>>
>> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize any
>> of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might be okay
>> given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the above in lab
>> settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of running them in
>> production, with the exception of small apps that install SQL2005
>> express.
>>
>> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>>> Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying
>>> to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>>> processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>>> were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>> "Kit" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told
>>>>Exchange and
>>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>>
>>
>>
>
Sent: 09/06/2008
From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:People really don't "get it" yet. And part of that is that we're so used to
living in a 32-bit world, we really don't grasp the vast potential that
64-bit throws at us. I've been running predominantly 64-bit Windows since
the release of Server 2k3 SP1 and XP Professional x64 Edition over three
years ago. When you combine that huge RAM potential with multi-core
processors, there's a LOT you can do. But the limiting factor today is I/O
bandwidth. Virtualization is I/O intensive, and sticking a couple of big
SATA drives on a box just doesn't cut it.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
> Thanks. I'm just starting to really grasp what can be done with
> virtualization if you have enough server power.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> Yup. An HP ML350 G5 with 16 GB of RAM and dual Xeon dual-core 5130's. At
>> the time I got the box, a _honking_ machine. But now fairly plebian. What
>> it does have, and that makes a huge difference with a virtualized
>> solution, is an 8-wide, 15k 2.5" SAS disk array.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>> Charlie, just so I'm clear. These will all be on one physical server?
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
>>> message news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has
>>>>RTM'd. It will have:
>>>>
>>>> Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
>>>> SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
>>>> SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that
>>>> won't get loaded on it.
>>>> Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.
>>>>
>>>> The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it there,
>>>> but it's not worth the pain.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>
>>>> "Tim Walsh" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
>>>>> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>>>>>
>>>>> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize
>>>>> any of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might
>>>>> be okay given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the
>>>>> above in lab settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of
>>>>> running them in production, with the exception of small apps that
>>>>> install SQL2005 express.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
>>>>> message news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of
>>>>>> virtualized Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd
>>>>>> probably avoid trying to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that
>>>>>> was already using 4 or more processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen
>>>>>> lots of SQL installations that were perfect candidates for
>>>>>> virtualization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kit" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told
>>>>>>>Exchange and
>>>>>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Sent: 09/06/2008
From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:"If you feed your guests with the best resource you can afford then you will
have the best chance at success in your virtual environment."
I absolutely agree.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Rob McShinsky" <(email address - cut out).> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
> The overall answer that was stated above is it depends on the workload of
> the server and the type of host hardware resources. Our organization has
> 160 servers in our Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 environment and 27 in our
> Hyper-V environment. Examples of what we have in our Virtual Server
> Environment include:
>
> Web Server (Intranet/Internet/Portal etc... approx 20,000 hits a day and
> not using hardly any resources)
> WINs (Services 35,000 records)
> Domain Controllers (We have a mix of hardware and virtual guests)
> Medical Applications (low to medium transactional)
> SQL (low to medium transactional)
> Oracle (low to medium transactional)
> Symantec antivirus parent servers (2)
>
> Hardware for Virtual Server 2005 Hosts:
> DH585 G2 4 X 2.8Ghz Dual Core, 64 GB of RAM, 4GB Fiber, HP EVA 8000 SAN.
>
> Things to use are the MAPS 3.1 program, Perfmon, and we also use Cacti to
> do some short-term tending before and after to see if performance is
> comparable after a migration.
>
> If you have lesser hardware then you will need to adjust your
> expectations on what you can put into the virtual environment. If you
> feed your guests with the best resource you can afford then you will have
> the best chance at success in your virtual environment. This is
> independant of virtualization provider.
>
> --
> Rob McShinsky
> http://www.virtuallyaware.net
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> That announcement is already out for many products.
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957006 for server products, and there's
>> another one somewhere up there as well...
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>> "Steve Jain" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
>>> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>>>>Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying
>>>>to
>>>>virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>>>>processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>>>>were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>>
>>> I think there will be announcements about what is/isn't supported on
>>> Monday with the office Hyper-V announcement.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
>>> http://vpc.essjae.com/
>>> I do not work for Microsoft.
>>
>
Sent: 09/06/2008
From: Steve Jain <(email address - cut out)>
Message:On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:17:36 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<(email address - cut out)> wrote:
Aww, Charlie, now you spoiled my surprises for Monday :)
--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.
Show quoted text
>That announcement is already out for many products.
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957006 for server products, and there's
>another one somewhere up there as well...
Sent: 09/06/2008
From: "Rob McShinsky" <(email address - cut out).>
Message:The overall answer that was stated above is it depends on the workload of
the server and the type of host hardware resources. Our organization has
160 servers in our Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 environment and 27 in our
Hyper-V environment. Examples of what we have in our Virtual Server
Environment include:
Web Server (Intranet/Internet/Portal etc... approx 20,000 hits a day and not
using hardly any resources)
WINs (Services 35,000 records)
Domain Controllers (We have a mix of hardware and virtual guests)
Medical Applications (low to medium transactional)
SQL (low to medium transactional)
Oracle (low to medium transactional)
Symantec antivirus parent servers (2)
Hardware for Virtual Server 2005 Hosts:
DH585 G2 4 X 2.8Ghz Dual Core, 64 GB of RAM, 4GB Fiber, HP EVA 8000 SAN.
Things to use are the MAPS 3.1 program, Perfmon, and we also use Cacti to do
some short-term tending before and after to see if performance is comparable
after a migration.
If you have lesser hardware then you will need to adjust your expectations
on what you can put into the virtual environment. If you feed your guests
with the best resource you can afford then you will have the best chance at
success in your virtual environment. This is independant of virtualization
provider.
--
Rob McShinsky
http://www.virtuallyaware.net
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
> That announcement is already out for many products.
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957006 for server products, and there's
> another one somewhere up there as well...
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "Steve Jain" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:13:29 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
>> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>>
>>>Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of virtualized
>>>Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably avoid trying
>>>to
>>>virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already using 4 or more
>>>processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL installations that
>>>were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>
>> I think there will be announcements about what is/isn't supported on
>> Monday with the office Hyper-V announcement.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
>> http://vpc.essjae.com/
>> I do not work for Microsoft.
>
Sent: 09/06/2008
From: "dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com>
Message:Thanks. I'm just starting to really grasp what can be done with
virtualization if you have enough server power.
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
> Yup. An HP ML350 G5 with 16 GB of RAM and dual Xeon dual-core 5130's. At
> the time I got the box, a _honking_ machine. But now fairly plebian. What
> it does have, and that makes a huge difference with a virtualized
> solution, is an 8-wide, 15k 2.5" SAS disk array.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
> "dan" <dan(remove)@westerveltconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> Charlie, just so I'm clear. These will all be on one physical server?
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>I will be setting up my production network shortly, now that SBS has
>>>RTM'd. It will have:
>>>
>>> Server Core on the hardware (Parent Partition)
>>> SBS 2k8 - Child. that's exchange, DNS, domain, DHCP, etc. Sharepoint.
>>> SBS SecondServer - Terminal Services. I don't run SQL here, so that
>>> won't get loaded on it.
>>> Server 2k3 SP2, 32-bit. Running ISA 2k6.
>>>
>>> The parent will most likely not be domain joined. I could get it there,
>>> but it's not worth the pain.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>> "Tim Walsh" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>I am kind of curious what the current thinking is.
>>>> Should Active Directory be virtualized? WINS? DNS? SQL?
>>>>
>>>> At one time I recall reading that it wasn't recommended to virtualize
>>>> any of the above, but of late I've been hearing rumbles that it might
>>>> be okay given proper review of the work loads. I've done all of the
>>>> above in lab settings with pretty good results, but steer clear of
>>>> running them in production, with the exception of small apps that
>>>> install SQL2005 express.
>>>>
>>>> So what's the community think the best practice is or should be?
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
>>>> message news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>> Depends on your situation and load levels. I've seen lots of
>>>>> virtualized Exchange and SQL servers that were just fine. I'd probably
>>>>> avoid trying to virtualize a fully loaded SQL server that was already
>>>>> using 4 or more processors and lots of RAM. But I've seen lots of SQL
>>>>> installations that were perfect candidates for virtualization.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kit" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>>>>I need to know what things should not be virtualized? I was told
>>>>>>Exchange and
>>>>>> SQL should not be? Is there anything else?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Sent: 09/06/2008
From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:Ah, shucks. Didn't mean to spoil it for you.<G>
So, are you in Bellevue/Redmond Monday? If so, I look forward to meeting
you. I'm coming down for it.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Steve Jain" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:17:36 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>
>>That announcement is already out for many products.
>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957006 for server products, and there's
>>another one somewhere up there as well...
>
> Aww, Charlie, now you spoiled my surprises for Monday :)
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.
Sent: 09/07/2008
From: Steve Jain <(email address - cut out)>
Message:On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:57:49 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<(email address - cut out)> wrote:
Unfortuately, I'll be at work in SF.
I did "meet" you at the MVP summit...I sat in on your "so you want to
be an author" presentation.
--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.
Show quoted text
>Ah, shucks. Didn't mean to spoil it for you.<G>
>
>So, are you in Bellevue/Redmond Monday? If so, I look forward to meeting
>you. I'm coming down for it.
Sent: 09/08/2008
From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(email address - cut out)>
Message:Ah, an interesting exercise that was.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Steve Jain" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
news:(email address - cut out)...
Show quoted text
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:57:49 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>
>>Ah, shucks. Didn't mean to spoil it for you.<G>
>>
>>So, are you in Bellevue/Redmond Monday? If so, I look forward to meeting
>>you. I'm coming down for it.
>
> Unfortuately, I'll be at work in SF.
>
> I did "meet" you at the MVP summit...I sat in on your "so you want to
> be an author" presentation.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/
> I do not work for Microsoft.
Wiki