Server virtualisation

I posted a question a while ago about running virtual servers on OS X/XServe. It'd be pretty spiffy to keep a little Linux/BSD/Windows server running in a sandbox environment, particularly considering how powerful the XServe hardware is.
Of course, with the Intel XServe coming out, this will be a piece of cake, as there are plenty of options - Q, Parallels, and soon VMWare will be available. However, until someone in the bean-counting department decides they want to give me a load of money to spend, I'm stuck with an XServe G5. I've tried running x86 stuff under Q/Virtual PC, but it's not really fast enough to use, as it's emulating an entirely different CPU architecture.
Is there any software that provides direct PPC host -> PPC guest virtualisation, in the same way that Parallels does on Intel? If nothing else, I'd be able to run PowerPC Linux distributions, which'd be handy for building a little web/database server... does anyone have any experience of this sort of thing?

VMWare for Mac doesn't exist yet, but it's been announced and should be released/beta tested fairly soon. Selling the XServe might be a bit tricky, as it took a lot of convincing to get the powers that be to spend £5,000 on it in the first place, and if I say it's obsolete when it's eight months old I'd probably cause all sorts of trouble. (A lesson, kids: Windows servers can actually be pretty handy if you're using them for the right thing). There are a couple of emulators/virtualisers that claim to support PPC-PPC work, including a obscure port of Q, but I thought I'd check if anyone had any first-hand experience before I started messing about with compilers and dodgy hacks.

Similar Messages

Cisco Content Server (Virtualized Application)

Hi.
Can anyone tell me what the hardware requirements are to run a Cisco Content Server virtualised?
Looking at the below link on table 5 I see that is it availiable as a Virtulized Application but lookinh further online I see nothing that gives hardware specifications required.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/conferencing/telepresence-content-server/data_sheet_c78-626482.html?cachemode=refresh
Any advice would be great.

Your question would be better placed in the TelePresence section of the forums where these devices are more actively discussed than in the Digital Media section you've posted in.
Given your thread is 11 months old, I'd assume you've found an answer to your problem, but just in case, and for reference for any others that happen to be looking, you can find the specs on what is required on the Cisco docwiki:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Virtualization_for_Cisco_TelePresence_Content_Server
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_in_a_Virtualized_Environment
Note: all current versions (up to and including S6.1) do not officailly support running on anything other than Cisco hardware. S6.2 which is due out in the near future is supposed to include support for running on 3rd party hardware, but as it has not been released yet, at the time of this post, this cannot be confirmed.
Wayne
Please remember to rate responses and to mark your question as answered if appropriate.

Server 4.0: Client and Computer Authentication

Hello. In Active Directory we have Domain Controllers. Is there any way I can make the Mac OS Server the authentication and authorization server for all Macs on a remote LAN. -Rather than installing another DC. At this time they're authenticating via WAN VLAN tunnel to one of our DCs.
Thanks in advance!

If you're using only OD you can set up a master OD and have other MOSX servers bound to that master OD (or it's replicas). The same thing should be possible to do by binding your MOSX server(s) to AD and then having clients authenticating towards the server(s) with AD accounts. It is really pesky to have to sets of users. We are at a transfer state from OD to AD and, well, it's a little messy so I definitely prefer having one user directory.
If you have the possibility to set up a test server (virtualised is wonderful with snapshots and everything, could be possible to do on your own desktop/laptop even, VMWare/ESXi only) I would definitely try to bind the server(s) to AD if that's already existing and see if it works as expected before setting up another user directory.

Can I instal SAP Netweaver 2004s trial on windows vista home premium

Hi ,
Can I install SAP Netweaver 2004s trial on WIndows vista home premium. Please advise.
One more thing is I am not able to download the Trial version from the SAP's FTP site. Because ftp is blocked in our company. Is there any other site from which I can download the trial version. Please advise.
Thanks,
Sam.

In this Forum it appears that Windows 2000 with SP4 will work as well (haven't tried it).
If you've got VISTA you could consider running the trial on a Virtual Machine. Parallels, and vmware offer commercial vm products for generating Virtual machines whilst Microsoft (Virtual Pc2007) and VBOX offer Free virtualisation products. Vmware also provides a FREE vmware server virtualisation product --this works fine as well although no multi-media support. However if you only need the Virtual Machine to run the Netweaver trial then that's no big deal.
As I've posted elsewhere a Win XP pro Virtual Machine using only 512MB of RAM will give quite adequate performance of the ABAP trial. Don't even THINK of the Java edition unless you've got at LEAST 2GB - even on a Virtual Machine.
Cheers
Jimbo

Solaris 8 in a Solaris 10 Container

Dear all,
we came upon the question whether it's possible to run Solaris 8 in a Solaris 10 container. Hereby, the idea is to be able to use Solaris 10 with its great ability of server virtualisation but also to use a Oracle 8i certified operating system at the same time.
Any ideas?
Greetings
/Marc

Ok, that was exactly my first impression. Anyway, i
came to know that there's a project about running
FreeBSD in a Solaris 10 Container. How does this work
if there's just a single (so shared) kernel? Can't
image a FreeBSD system running a Solaris kernel.Here's a quote from a Sun blog on the project:
An example of what I mean is ZoneBSD, an opensource initiative with as goal "will be to factor as much Solaris code as necessary into FreeBSD in order to support running a FreeBSD container within a Solaris 10 Zone", really cool stuff... or as they say around here "Sweeet".
(I can no longer find any current link to the project).
So yes, it appears to have been quite an ambitious project involving merging kernel bits. Not something that's going to help you do anything with Oracle on Solaris 10 GA.
Darren

MacBook Pro 13" vs MacBook Air 13"

I have a late 2008 MacBook Pro 15” that I purchased nearly two years ago as a desktop replacement and which rarely leaves my house. I have been thinking about purchasing a 2nd MacBook to use for traveling purposes when I am out of town on business or on vacation. The question I have is does anybody know or have any thoughts on which of the following has better benchmarks or would be faster and more responsive---with upgraded specs the two would cost me almost the same--about $1500.00. A 2010 MacBook Air 13”1.86GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor 2GB memory comes with a 128GB flash storage (Toshiba) and I would have Apple add 2 GB of Ram. Or, a 2010 MacBook Pro 13” 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 4GB Memory and a 128GB SSD (Toshiba) which is available as an installed option by Apple for $350.00. Both SSDs are made by Toshiba for Apple although the one in the MacBook Pro is a standard SSD and the one in the MacBook Air is a flash drive. I have seen benchmarks for each of these machines on Andandtech and Macworld and other places but I have not been able to locate any results in which a MacBook Pro 13” with an Apple installed 128GB SSD was tested. I have seen plenty of benchmarks in various places with a third party SSD on a MacBook Pro such as OWC and others but none in which the Apple installed SSD was tested (and ideally compared to the current MacBook Air 13” with or without the extra ram). I was wondering if anyone has seen any data on this and/or if anyone has a MacBook Pro 13” with an Apple installed SSD or a new MacBook Air 13” and can relate their experience. Thanks in advance for any helpful responses.

I'm not sure who that's directed at. While I roughly agree with some of your points I think there's more to it.
====
First off, the SSD is replaceable and not soldered though I would agree it is not 'easily replaceable' for your average home users. More importantly, the reasons that a user would even WANT to replace a SSD are slim to none. Most people replace their hard drives because they either want a faster one, more space, or it simply fails. SSDs are much MUCH faster than their spinning counterparts and have amazing life expectancy -- usually far longer than the user will actually hold on to the computer itself.
====
Slim to none? Hardly. 128Gb is simply not enough for me for my work or play. My MBP has a 240Gb SSD and a 1Tb SATA drive in it. The Air for me is a great travel buddy, it's not a great complete replacement. It would mean carrying around with me an Air & External storage. Cloud storage? Understand that for some stuff, but storing my DVD stuff in the cloud isn't feasible - the download times would be tiresome. I don't mean movies by the way, I mean DVD software images that I use a lot.
I totally agree with an SSD being years ahead in terms of performance. I'd never go back to a physical drive for OS & Apps. Reliability? Well, it's early days on that. See my article here: http://www.markc.me.uk/MarkC/Blog/Entries/2010/4/1SSD_Failures_More_thoughts_on_thetech.html
I use a lot of SSDs in the kit I have. My Mini has one, my MBP has one, my Air has one (obviously) as do my two windows machines. Completely sold on the tech. More reliable? That's not been my experience to date. They should be, I agree, and I expect reliability to get better, that's true, but they're not as infallible as you seem to indicate.
====
Optical drive? Are you serious? When is the last time you actually used a CD/DVD. To install Mac OS X? The new MBA comes with a USB stick containing Snow Leopard, iLife '11 (and iWork '09 if you purchase it with your Mac). You can still use a USB CD-ROM drive or even another Mac via Remote Disc. For the few times a year you use one, I am sure you can make due with other means. If not, get the Superdrive, it also is a DVD+DL burner.
====
Completely agree. Rarely use a DVD drive. As you can see from my notes, I replaced the DVD in my MBP with another hard disk.
====
Now for RAM, unless you do heavy Photoshop editing or the like, 4GB is more than enough. I was running World of Warcraft and Starcraft 2 simultaneous in windowed mode and I didn't notice any issue switching between the two. Also, I run Parallels 6 with Win7 using 1280MB of RAM without a hitch. The 4GB amount is perfect for 99% of computing needs.
====
You're making a lot of assumptions about people's usage patterns. 4Gb is great for general operation. I survived with my main machine running 4Gb for years, before moving to 6Gb and then 8Gb. For my main work I can not use a machine with only 4Gb. It can't cope. My 8Gb machine can.
How did I cope before? Well, I had my laptop and another machine at home.... I'm not that far from that solution now with the Air & the MBP am I? Difference is the more powerful machine is mobile.
If you're an office type user who wants Office in OSX, maybe Photoshop, and you want to run Win7 & Office in Parallels/Fusion then yes, 4Gb is probably enough. If like me you're a tech architect who has documents that run into 4/500 pages including embedded Excel, Visio etc. then 4Gb just ain't enough. Never mind the stuff I have to do with server virtualisation. I can run about 8 VMs on my MBP, no way can the Air cope with that. I admit this is probably an unusual requirement.
====
Now flexible, I DEFINITELY disagree with. Everyone that uses an Air for more than a day wonders why in the world they used to carry such a bulky computer before. The Air does it all and for a fraction of the weight/size. I've owned one for about a month now and I'm still amazed at how capable of a computer it is and how fast it is.
====
Me too, I was astonished how well the Air performs considering it's specifications.
====
Needless to say, all my doubts quickly disappeared. The initial boot took a whopping 15 seconds into OS X. After that, it now takes about 8 seconds from powered off to get into OS X and it's completely responsive as soon as you see the dock. My friend was floored. How could a machine like that be seemingly faster than his MBP? How did they fit all this power in such a small computer?
====
Isn't that different from my SSD equipped MBP.
====
On paper, the MBP looks faster but in practice the MBA -feels- faster in every aspect. Windows appear instantly, boot times are amazing (5 second restart?), and it's all around just a dream. I've used computers for over 15 years and this is the fastest computer I've ever owned. It's that good.
====
It is a fast unit. It's as no way as fast and capable as my MBP. It just isn't. I can do more and faster on the MBP than I can on the Air. But here's the thing - a lot of it's down to what you're doing isn't it?
The Air for me is very much a second machine. I use it to go to meetings, when I'm travelling to site, I often use it for documentation. I'm off to Aus for a couple of weeks - the Air will be coming with me, not the MBP.
====
Don't underestimate the Air. I know the previous revisions have been underdogs, but this one is a real winner. Anyone that owns one will tell you the same story I have.
====
I completely agree. The only caveat I'd add is that you need to assess it against your requirements of course. I for one could not replace my day to day machine with one - it's not able to cope with the stuff that my MBP can do with ease.

Virtualised Multi-Instance SQL Server Cluster - Processor Resource Management

Hi - We're in the process of implementing a multi-instance SQL 2014 guest cluster on Windows 2012 R2. To our dismay, it seems that Windows System Resource Manager (WSRM) is deprecated in Windows 2012 R2, so we're now stuck for how best to manage CPU usage
between SQL instances....
As far as I can see, I'm left with two options, but both of these have problems:
1) Use SQL Processor affinity within the guest cluster, with each SQL instance assigned to dedicated v-CPU. However, I'm not certain that setting SQL Processor affinity within a VM will actually have the desired affect!?..
- When there is physical CPU capacity available, I'd hope Hyper-V would provide it to whichever v-CPU is demanding it.
- When VM processor demand exceeds the physical CPU capacity, I'd hope the SQL instances would receive a proportion of the physical CPU time according to the number of v-CPU(s) assigned through the affinity settings.
2) Use a VM (actually 2, because its a 2-node guest cluster) per SQL instance!.. This is not ideal, as we need multiple SQL instances and it would result in have an administrative and performance overhead
Does anyone have any information or thoughts on this? How can we manage a virtualised multi-instance SQL deployment now that WSRM has been deprecated? Help me please!

I'm not sure what are the requirements for each of the 2 VMs in in the SQL guest cluster.
I'm assuming the guest cluster resides on a Hyper-V CSV with at least 2 Hyper-V hosts, and the 2 VMs are configured with Anti-affinity to ensure they never reside on the same Hyper-V host.
I've been able to configure CPU resources to VMs from the standard controls in Hyper-V Manager:
See this blog post
What edition of SQL 2014 you're using?
This matters because of these limitations.
Also consider running SQL Server with Hyper-V Dynamic Memory - see Best Practices
and Considerations
Hyper-V performance tuning - CPU
Hyper-V 2012 Best Practices
Sam Boutros, Senior Consultant, Software Logic, KOP, PA http://superwidgets.wordpress.com (Please take a moment to Vote as Helpful and/or Mark as Answer, where applicable) _________________________________________________________________________________
Powershell: Learn it before it's an emergency http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/scriptcenter/powershell.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/scriptcenter/dd793612.aspx

Problems starting services after virtualising Crystal server

We have virtualised our crystal server and the machine starts up but we are getting errors when starting the services and a message
"There is an error: A server running on a machine different from the CMS machine may not register to the CMS with your current set of license keys. The product must be upgraded.. It is with server APM-WP-CRYSTAL2.EVENTSERVER"
the cms server is showing true for alive and enabled
crystal reports cache server is false for both and so are all other servers.
we have had new license keys provided but this has not worked

Hi Mark,
Can you let us know is this key was working earlier.
Try to Enable all the servers and then restart the servers.
Also Stop your Central configuration manager and restart all services.
Is this enterprise version is a named user or concurrent user's version.
Just let us know if any.
Regards,
Naveen.

Virtualisation of SAP Server

My aplogies if this question is in the incorrect section.
I was told that virtualising the SAP B1 server typically causes deterioation of the system speed. ie users find that it takes loger to interface, use the SAP B1 system etc.
Does anyone know if this is the case? Are there any other problems? Also how can we can get around this? Any advice from users running B1 in a virtualised server or anyone else will be very much appreciated.
Thank You
Raj108

Hello Gordon
Thank you for your reply.
We are thinking of using Hper V, HP server with at least 2 TB hd space, 20 GB of ram etc so really high spec'd machine. It will run at least 5 servers, the busiest of which will be MS exchange (our SAP data in not big). I am not sure if this is adeqauate, how do we find out?
Also do you know when SAP is likely to make B1 compliant for virtualisation (officially), I would have thought it would be high on thier agenda, given the growing trend of companies looking at hardware management minimistaion and improving data recovery.
Regards
Raj108

Virtualising a 2008 Server to DR site

Hope someone has an easy answer to this...!
I have a Windows 2008 SP2 server (physical) that houses a critical SQL database and Apache Server. What I want to do is have another server at a DR site with Server 2012 r2 preferably and have a Virtual machine setup that will replicate the Windows 2008
server. I want to do this without changing anything on the physical server now.
I have looked at Double Take availability but the target DR server has to be 2008 sp2 as well. I just want the simplest way to do this where if the 2008 source goes down they can continue working at the DR site if need be. What do you suggest?

Hi Sir,
Hyper-v replica is used for sync VM change to VM regularly .
>>where if the 2008 source goes down they can continue working at the DR site if need be.
It seems that you want to sync physical to VM residing at DR site .
As far as I know hyper-v can not do that .
If you need to P2V that physical server , you can try to use
Disk2VHD .
But I still suggest you to create a new VM then migrate these applications to VM if it is possible .
In addition , SCVMM 2012 sp1 can handle P2V operation too .
http://www.robertborges.us/2014/05/questions-answers/p2v-migration/
Best Regards,
Elton Ji
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Subscriber Support, contact [email protected] .

Virtualisation Remote Access and Server

Guys,
Question about licensing:
I have a Mac Lion 10.7.2 Server, so the questions are based around that but would like to know differences for other licenses or systems. This is being used in a corporate testing enviroment and we would like to increase its use by have multiple users/remote users.....but licensing looks an issue/complex.
There seem to be 2 licenses Mac OS X Server (Lion) licence and Mac OS X (Lion 10.7.2) licence? Does one superceed the other or do they run 'together' if you have Mac Lion 10.7.2 Server?
According to the 2nd (Lion 10.7.2) license you can run 2 virtual machines in addition the the running one. So this is 3 altogether? One being the main OS and the other 2 virtual. Are there anyways of running all 3 in a hypervisor (vmware Vsphere like?) and is this allowed under the license(s)? This also seems to be only for 'downloaded' and not pre-installed software.
Also in the 2nd (Lion 10.7.2) license it is possible to have Remote Desktop Connections. This is not mentioned in the first (server) license?
Both licenses mention the you can use the OS "by multiple individuals on a single shared Mac Computer that you own or control." but then seem to limit this to one user at a time. Can you have multiple Remote (VNC) desktop with multiple users? If not with these licenses which can you use?
Can you point me to who to/how to ask about these?
Thanks
Ben

The ACLs appear to be working fine. I am passing IP traffic for all of the configured subnets with the exception of the remote access subnet. I have both ends of the tunnel configured with the RA subnet in the crypto map. I am not using reverse route injection. Actually I am not at all familiar with it. Do you think this is where I should start looking?
Thanks

What is the difference between OSX 10.6 and 10.6 server? I need to install Snow Leopard in a Parallels VM and it only allows 10.6 server. Will Rosetta work if I use the server edition?

I MUST use an app that was discontinued which requires Rosetta, yet I also want to upgrade to Mavericks. I was told that Parallels and VMWare Fusion both support running Snow Leopard SERVER, but not Snow Leopard. Two questions: Will Rosetta run on Snow Leopard Server when it is running inside the Parallels/Fusion/whatever virtual machine which is running under Mavericks? The second question is: Is there any problem with running any specific software in Snow Leopard Server when it is set up this way?

Richard Cartledge wrote:
The problem with client as virtualised OS is the Apple EULA, not a technical one.
I don't know if it works, or you're just not meant to do it.
PS. If you download or have Snow Leopard DVD, you can install Rosetta in later OSs, certainly Lion and Mountain Lion and Mavericks.
insert your Snow Leopard disc, open the Optional Installs folder on that disc, and double-click the Optional Installs.mpkg package. The Installer will open and you’ll be prompted to click Continue a couple of times and then choose a destination for the installation. Choose your startup volume and click Continue yet again.
In the Custom Install on “nameofvolume” window that appears, enable the Rosetta option and click Continue. In the next window click Install to do just that.
NB/ I don't have any old software to test to see if it actually makes it work!
WRONG TWICE!
Bad idea to attempt to install Rosetta into Lion, Mt. Lion or Mavericks and good luck trying to remove it after that attempt. Result: NO powerpc app will run after that installation and you will have to complete a wipe of your hard drive and a complete pre-Rosetta install to get rid of Rosetta!
It was a common Urban Myth that the Snow Leopard EULA prohibited its virtualization in Lion or Mt. Lion on a Mac. That myth has been largely debunked over the last two years.
In addition, Apple's release of Snow Leopard Server at a 95% discount ($20) has rendered the issue largely moot!
OP: what application are we talking about here?
For example here is the long beloved powerpc application Appleworks running in Snow Leopard Server installed in Parallels for use in a post Lion world:
[click on image to enlarge]
More information here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1365439

10.6 Server - ISP-in-box - Can it be done?

I have long home-hosted a vanity domain, complete with IMAP/SMTP, web, NAT firewall, DHCP, self-hosted DNS server and the like, using the standard unix tools build into regular 10.4 machine (a 500 MHz G4 that gave 10 years of 24/7 service). Decided to graduate to a MacMini with 10.6 Server. It's not particularly easy to configure, though my ambitions may be pushing the limits.
In essence, I would like to set up a one-machine ISP/hosting service, with DNS server, standard web & email plus user-resolution file transfer/storage/permissions, and the 10.6 Apple-related bells and whistles, like home page syncing, iCal, Address Book, for the users of an arbitrary number of domains (but let's say 3). It's still mainly for me, so bandwidth and reliability are not a significant consideration - for years, I got by without configuring a secondary DNS server. And yes, I know it's cheaper and easier just to lease domains from real ISPs. I gotta server admin jones ... so kill me.
Though I can work the individual features and services (mostly) - create users, configure DNS, etc. - I'm missing some of the big picture concepts.
Is there a direct mapping between a "server" and a domain name (assuming the DNS faces out and is set up right)? Server Admin will let you create a "server", as long as the DNS resolves to a live machine (which can be itself, though it gets confused unless the domains resolve to different IP numbers, even though they are multi-homed through a single ethernet connection).
If so, can I control and configure the various services for each server/domain, independent of the others? If not, what can adding a "server" do, that a DNS entry cannot? What is the difference between a) creating a "server" having web and mail services and b) configuring virtual hosting for web and email? I realize that they'd all sharing the same kernel/applications/(maybe) libraries off the boot volume; what I want is a separate user space for each domain and associated home pages/mail/web/etc. files. Can OD handle the same user name for multiple, independent domains, resolving to their respective domain shares in the same box (in this case, partitioned on different volumes)?
I've spent a lot of time with 3 thick books, plus all the on-line docs, deciphering as much as I can. The virtual hosting info is scant. I'm not looking for a blow-by-blow (just yet), but it would be helpful to get a sense of whether this can be done at all, and if so, perhaps a sketch of the strategy - e.g., how much, and where if at all, do I need to go off the SLS GUI reservation and into the CLI?
Is this a bridge too far? Thanks to any server wizards who can shed some encouraging light.

You are limited to a single Open Directory - so in terms of authentication, you cannot have the same user names on the server more then once. That also means your directory administrator has access to all the users accounts - so you cannot separate account management. The Apple Admin Application does a good job for majority of the virtualisation you are seeking, e.g. mail, domain, web. What you cannot do using the Admin application, you can do by directly configuring the services themselves (but you may end up breaking the Admin). As you know, the majority of the products that apple use are open source and the web is full of information on how to configure them. You will find that whilst the Admin application is good to get you going and is does the job it is intended for, but after time, you will want to move away from it and use the more complex areas of the servers capabilities.
Other than posting questions here, good places for to get more 'internal' configuration information/help on the server are [TopicDesk|http://osx.topicdesk.com> and [afp548|www.afp548.com]

1 Server multiple instances or 1 instance or even Multiple servers?

I am a new DBA working for a charity and I have project to consolidate the multiple databases scattered across the organization.
I have identified the main databases that are mission critical to the organisation. We also have a virtualised infrastructure so plenty of VM's. We currently run SQL Server 2008R2.
Fundraising Database (off the shelf package - 30GB in size with about 100 users)
Fundraising Data warehouse (off the shelf package - 30GB in size with about 5 users)
SQL Reporting Services Database (1GB - reports used across the whole organisation so about 400 users)
Case Load Services Database (Developed in house - 4GB in size with about 300 users)
Finance Database (off the shelf package - 2GB in size with about 150 users)
GFI Exchange archive databases - (off the shelf database - 30GB in size with about 300 users)
Then we have about 10 other smaller databases for system monitoring etc... that are important but not mission critical.
Now the question I have is (bearing in mind limited budget and resources) is whether I should put all of these databases on 1 single instance on 1 single Windows Server 2008 VM. Or would
it be better to have them on a single box with separate named instances? Or possibly even separate VM Servers splitting out certain databases each?
My thoughts was to have 2 VM's. SQL01 for the missions critical databases. SQL02 for the other databases that are non mission critical. I was even toying with the idea
of separate named instances on SQL01 for security and the ability to manage services separately without affecting other databases? For example if we need to restart a service during working hours we would not have to take out the whole organisation but
only users on 1 database.
I know there are many factors that affect this decision but from your experiences and knowledge what is the general rule of thumb when redesigning the architecture for a SQL database landscape
like we have? Obviously each of the system requirements of the off the self packages say a single database ideally not contending with other database but I take it that its not really what happens in the real world as licensing SQL and hardware resources
would be significantly wasted that way.

Hi marko,
According to your description, personally, the type of your issue is set to discussion, more forum members can involve into the thread and help you out. Thanks for your understanding.
When you choose multiple SQL Server instances or not, you should consider the factors of CPU resources, memory, network access and I/O which would be affected performance and so on.
If applications do not create logins, do not reboot the server, do not drop or create databases. I recommend you using separate databases on one server. If you need to consider security settings, logins, linked servers and so on, you need
to install separate instances. There are details about multiple database instances, and multiple databases, you can review the following article.
http://www.sqlsolutions.com/articles/articles/Multiple_Databases_or_Multiple_Instances.htm
http://www.toadworld.com/platforms/sql-server/w/wiki/10388.multiple-database-instances.aspx
Hope it can help you.
Sofiya Li
Sofiya Li
TechNet Community Support

Multiple instances on single server

Hi all,
I have a Solaris 10 server with 2x dual core CPU's.
I am wondering if it was at all possible to install Business Intelligence Server on this single OS twice? And if it is, can I split the CPU between the different instances?
The reason for this is that I would like both production and test/development installed onto the same OS to cut costs. But I don't want the test/development instance to use resources that would affect the performance of the production environment.
Ideally I'd like the 2 instances, with the production instance using 3 cores, and the test/development instance using 1 core. If the RAM could also be split that'd be great.
Thanks for your help in advance.
Cheers

Yes, you can have multiple instances of Presentation Services (PS) ([see my blog posting for details|http://rnm1978.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/multiple-rpds-on-one-server-part-1-the-bi-server/]) which would let you split envs, but you'd do that with a single instance of BI server. I don't know if it's possible to run multiple BI servers
I don't think you should be trying to do this anyway, several reasons why not:
1) It's not supported to run multiple PS on one server. That should be reason enough not to do this on prod.
2) If it's not possible to run multiple BI Servers on one server then you'd end up running one BI Server with dev/test/prod RPDs - you'd never be able to bounce your BI Server for dev work without taking down prod
3) Any time you needed downtime for dev, you'd affect prod
4) Any patching you wanted to do on dev might affect prod
5) Any experimental work you do that crashes dev would affect prod.
If you only have the one box available to you for costs reasons then you should be looking into virtualisation of some kind, eg http://www.virtualbox.org

Server virtualisation

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for