[GrandMstrBud]

Originally Posted by jimbob_

I have 350 users on a BES (4.1.6) using MDSE with no issues. CPU usage rarely pops over 10% and mail delivery is quite zipppy. I'll consider going to SQL when we get 500 users, ~january....

Good to know that MDSE runs smoothly with that many users. I don't think we'll ever hit that many users but still good to know.

[richard205]

Ii have a BES (domino) install running under vmware with MSDE database for 30 users. Make sure you give the vm enough memory otherwise you will run into problems, but even with the domino instance co-existing on this the i/o is not that high.

[CaptMorgan]

Sorry to bump this thread but i have the same question pretty much.

We are looking at moving to a VM and upgrade to the latest BES version. We are currently serving 851 users on with a MDSE database and a stand alone server. Due to the network and some politics we cant put the database on one of our dedicated SQL servers.
RIM recommended to me to put the server on a VM but to leave the SQL database on a stand alone server. To me putting the SQL database on the VM is more important due to the HA of VMs. I am going to run some hard drive monitoring on our current environment but i don't think its going to give me an accurate depiction of what a full SQL install would do, due to the current MDSE install.

Anyone with a user base similar to mine have this setup? If so how is your disk I/O? Any information or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Matt

edit: Sorry this is an exchange 2007 environment in case it matters.

[Keyscan]

Originally Posted by CaptMorgan

Sorry to bump this thread but i have the same question pretty much.

We are looking at moving to a VM and upgrade to the latest BES version. We are currently serving 851 users on with a MDSE database and a stand alone server. Due to the network and some politics we cant put the database on one of our dedicated SQL servers.
RIM recommended to me to put the server on a VM but to leave the SQL database on a stand alone server. To me putting the SQL database on the VM is more important due to the HA of VMs. I am going to run some hard drive monitoring on our current environment but i don't think its going to give me an accurate depiction of what a full SQL install would do, due to the current MDSE install.

Anyone with a user base similar to mine have this setup? If so how is your disk I/O? Any information or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Matt

edit: Sorry this is an exchange 2007 environment in case it matters.

Have you seen many messages in your applog talking about concurrent connections being exceeded in MSDE? That is A LOT of BES users for an msde-based database. Typically anywhere from 150-500 (depending on system resources) is the maximum RIM will recommend based on previous threads.

And RIM doesn't recommend putting SQL on a VM because Microsoft doesn't support it usually.

[CaptMorgan]

Hehe, we actually just had to completely uninstall and reinstall the bes server and upgrade to SQL express because our agents wouldn't come online after a reset.

As for Microsoft not supporting it, i don't really care. They only say that because VmWare is competing directly with their virtual software.
Support policy for Microsoft software running in non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software

What im curious about is if anyone has SQL installed on their BES in a VM. RIM mentioned the disk I/O but we have some pretty hefty SANs and servers running the ESX environment so im not too concerned about that. I just want to know how heavy of a disk load are we talking about so we can manage the loads on the ESX server better.

Originally Posted by CaptMorgan

We are currently serving 851 users on with a MDSE database and a stand alone server.

Wow, that's pretty risky. Way too many users for MSDE in my experience.
You're just asking for trouble, even with MSDE on a physical machine.

Originally Posted by CaptMorgan

Due to the network and some politics we cant put the database on one of our dedicated SQL servers.

Plead your case harder. The BES SQL Config database is the lifeblood of your 851 users. It's a critical database and should be on a solid, physical SQL server.

Originally Posted by CaptMorgan

RIM recommended to me to put the server on a VM but to leave the SQL database on a stand alone server.

That would be my recommendation as well.

Originally Posted by CaptMorgan

To me putting the SQL database on the VM is more important due to the HA of VMs.

This a bad idea. SQL databases shouldn't be on a virtual machine... especially an 851 user database.

Originally Posted by CaptMorgan

Any information or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Go with RIM's recommendation. They are steering you in the right direction.

[CaptMorgan]

But WHY shouldn't a SQL database be on virtual machine? Thats what im trying to figure out. Because its not supported is not really an acceptable answer. And having a sql database on a standalone server IS dangerous. Key word "Stand Alone". So if the server goes now we have to procure a server and restore from backups.

And if support ever becomes an issue i can restore the database from backups to a standalone server (if its temporary the political issues can be put to the side), take a snapshot of my BES VM and point the bes to another database. When done testing just revert the BES to the last snapshot.

[scott_perry]

Hate to argue all of those saying don't run Sql Server on a virtual machine, but here is a performance study from VMWare saying otherwise...

http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/SQLServerWorkloads.pdf

Now, it may very well be that Microsoft doesn't recommend or support it, but that wouldn't be because it wasn't a viable option.... I'm sure it is supported on Hyper V.

We have several VM Machines (on ESX) that have Sql Sever (2000/2005) running on them with no performance problems.

[CaptMorgan]

Thanks Scott! This helps a lot.

[scott_perry]

No Problem - I do highly recommend that you do test/benchmark any high-utilization databases before committing them to VM. I would also error on the side of more memory and more hosts in your VM Environment. I definitely would not run any high performance machine in the VM Server (GSX) product - only ESX.

[AlanM]

If it helps I have a BES supporting ~900 users that is running BES 4.1.6 and SQL 2000. I converted it using the convert tool from VM to a VM several months ago and it has been running great. I have committed ~1.5-2 GB to the VM.

[CaptMorgan]

Thanks for the reply's. Unfortunately we ran into some delays on our new esx setup so i need to build this on a physical server until thats setup. At least this will give me a chance to monitor disk activity. I will try and remember to post my findings.

[NeptuneIT]

Originally Posted by scott_perry

Hate to argue all of those saying don't run Sql Server on a virtual machine, but here is a performance study from VMWare saying otherwise...

http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/SQLServerWorkloads.pdf

Now, it may very well be that Microsoft doesn't recommend or support it, but that wouldn't be because it wasn't a viable option.... I'm sure it is supported on Hyper V.

We have several VM Machines (on ESX) that have Sql Sever (2000/2005) running on them with no performance problems.

We have 9 SQL servers (some 2000 some 2005 some Express some MSDE) running in our ESX environment with no performance issues at all. In fact on a couple of our servers that were running on older hardware we got a performance boost. We heard all the arguments against it and even after taking that in to consideration we decided that the HA advantages outweighed the "supposed" performance hits. We have been very pleased with this decision. I will be migrating our BES (120 users local Express DB) to a VM later this year.