My design was not irrational, on the contrary, by having the database sharing
the same physical box, the network trip was eliminated and my telephony service
saw the latency reduced by an 80%. My Linux softswitches have often 300 open
connections to SQL Server, because each open call needs routing information and
the cdr must be written, all of these in real-time. I have two databases
sharing the same box, one for CDR processing and another for routing. Those
hundreds of connections do not happens across a physical medium, like the
network, but across a XEN bridge, in RAM. The speed and performance is amazing.
If it worked, of course.
From: Stefan de Konink [mailto:skinkie@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] The death of XEN by Novell
> I cannot use 1 VCPU per windows domain. I have SQL Server running
> literally hundreds of transactions per second. I use Windows only to
> hold, to contain SQL Server, and since 100% of the transactions come
> from Linux domu's, the speed and performance is fantastic, for there
> is no trip over the network. Each of my windows domains has 32 GB of
> RAM and 8 VCPU's. Without SMP I am as good as dead. In fact, I am
> buying a dew Dell box on Monday only for SQL Server.
Who advised you to virtualize your most performance wise critical
system? I mean... there are now two groups that want to do this and only
to get high availability, or some big commercial bennefit. You didn't
talked about this at all.
So we can conclude you design was stupid. Is stupid and by running your
database on a dedicated server you could have reduced cost, increased
stability and performance. I'm glad you finally saw the light!
But thank you for trying 1 vcpu with your superb setup, it was great
Xen-users mailing list