Recommended Posts

why would you do that and what VM you use?

Well, mainly because:

 

I run OS X as my main OS, but also because SQL Server installs so much crap that I didn't want to clutter Windows with it.

 

So even when I was running Windows as my main OS, I used it in a VM. 

 

 

The VM OS is Windows Server 2012 R2. I used to use VMWare, but I've recently switched to Parallels.

  • 7 months later...

If you install into a VM you don't need to worry about what happens in your system, when you aren't using it you can file it away and turn it off. If you install it locally it is much more convenient (assuming you have it set to automatically start with windows). However what you could also do is install the server itself in a VM and install the management tools locally and happy connect when the VM is up.

 

If you go the VM route you should try and install on an OS that will as closely match your intended production environment as that will help reduce funkiness you might experience when you push it live - although to be fair once SQL Server is up running it is pretty damn reliable and easy to work with.

 

Personally I run multiple versions of SQL Server locally for development since it is more convenient for me and I don't have to worry about performance.

We run over a hundred different instances of SQL Server, in production, on VMware virtual machines. Even for big applications such as data warehousing with databases that are approaching a couple hundred gigabytes in size. 

 

SQL Server virtualises just fine.

would it be best to install sql server 2012 on a virtual machine or on local for practice and training purposes?

Training? I would Install a localhost devserver which includes phpmyadmin and mysql for learning sql. This way creating databases in easy for those sql queries.

 

Also maybe a bit easier method would be installing microsoft access...     Sometimes things might be a little bit different from mysql etc but for simple sql training purposes it will be more then adequate.

would it be best to install sql server 2012 on a virtual machine or on local for practice and training purposes?

Depressingly simple - simply install the OS that it needs in a VM, then install the software.  Not only are VMware and Oracle VirtualBox options, so is Hyper-V - in fact, that is one of the biggest uses FOR Hyper-V in testing-lab situations - it can be the basis for an entire virtual network - given enough CPU, you can literally simulate an entire soup-to-nuts AD-based domain on a single physical PC.  (Given the level of skill of the administrator, there are three Hyper-V-based hosting options for the VMs - Microsoft Hyper-V Server, Windows 8+, or Server 2012R2.  CPU required - Core i5 or better (any generation), with i7 preferred.  RAM required - 16 GB (32 GB or more preferred).  Local storage - 2 TB (4 TB or greater preferred).  (Those are the hosting server requirements - administrator-box requirements are, naturally, a lot less.

 

The CPU requirement - This is so the VMs themselves don't bog down.  SQL is compute-intensive (that is any version, and from anybody); it's why I refuse to suggest anything less than a quad-core for any PC hosting SQL.  Further, Microsoft SQL Server 2012 and later explicitly supports HTT (a feature of Core i7) - if you can afford it, apply it.

 

RAM requirements - Virtualization eats memory like M&Ms - therefore, fill a virtualization box up if possible.

Without a question, absurd for practice.  If he is just talking about queries and what not the VM route is too much as well.

It's like a sandbox on steroids, which depending on how it's setup might be worth it (I used to use difference images for VMs for classwork, could run 6 VMs side by side with less than 1GB of on-disk footprint)

From Microsoft. http://blogs.technet.com/b/andrew/archive/2010/11/23/sql-server-performance-in-a-virtual-world.aspx

No virtual machine will ever work as fast as a physical so your question is a bit pointless.

Erm, that's not what the article says. 80% is an assumption and the author states 95% is more likely. In addition, the article was written in 2010, and is assuming 2008R2 as your hypervisor. Like everything else in life, performance of virtualized SQL depends on a slew of factors. For example, I run SCCM 2007 with a dedicated SQL VM. The SQL VM is running on an external SSD attached via USB 3.0. My customers dedicated SQL box is running on a DL580 rack server with 16 cores, 32GB of RAM, partitioned indexes, RAID 1+0, etc. I can run a simple query for all Windows updates on both servers. To emulate my customer, I have the same categories and classifications selected. On my laptop VM, the query completes in 6 seconds to return about 80000 rows. On the production server, it takes about 30 seconds for the same result set. Disk I/O is clearly the bottleneck in this scenario. For CPU intensive tasks, the server would beat my little VM for sure.

 

On a side note, if you want to make setting up a virtual lab easy, check out the hydration kit by Johan Arwidmark. His Deployment Research blog is fantastic.

Dude I work for a private cloud hosting company and we set up SQL on a daily basis. 8k rows is nothing for SQL. If you want the performance then you go for physical. Anyway this is a different conversation.

I said 80000, not 8K. The OP's original question was about the viability of virtualized SQL for training and practice. My point is that it's entirely feasible. There are several configuration items that can be tweaked to tease out more performance, but for a lab environment none of those are really necessary.

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

For database intensive servers you need to ask yourself if it is production or development. 

 

If it's production, it is recommended you don't run it off of a VM unless the drive you are running it on is dedicated purely to that database. So if you have multiple users read/writing data at the same time, you don't need to worry about another server operation slowing down database read/writes. (this is of course for big applications that have a lot of database interaction).

 

If you are just learning/developing, then by all means use a VM. It's quick, easy, and you won't notice any real usability concerns. 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Python programmers in a nutshell. Now, guess what lang most AI programmers use... :-)
    • There was nothing whatsoever wrong with Vista as an OS after the SP1 update. People who claim it wasn't were using ancient machines for some silly reason. Not kidding, no hyperbole/exaggeration. Vista was good.
    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      443
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!