Maximum PC

So we had a new server installed at work the other day, and this server is a Quad core Xeon (don't know the exact proc model) but we have Windows Server Standard running in a Hyper V virtualized environment.

Now, my impression of virtualization is that it can and often times is slow (dependent on the hardware and software being used). But, I'm a bit puzzled as to why (other than for cost purposes when expansion is needed) a virtualized environment would be "faster" or better than a normal server. I don't think that's the case, is it (or can it be)?

I would think that two separate servers running Windows Server 2008 Standard would be faster than one server running them virutalized/?? Right? AT this point in time, we only have one virtualized server, but in the future (5 years or so) we may want to add another server.

What's the big deal with virtualization any efficiency? I can see the cost benefits in regards to expansion, and that I understand, but I just don't quite get where people are saying it's "better" from a performance standpoint. I mean, we actually had to get 2 (if I am correct and I could be wrong) licenses for Server 2008 STandard: one for the primary OS, and then another license for the virtualized environment.

It's not about speed obviously.

If you need raw power there is still the need for a physical server.

But what do you do when you have a server that hosts an application and it only needs two threads and a few (4) gigs of RAM? Do you want a dedicated physical server, or would you rather have a one physical server that could host 8 of said server.

That's why virtual farms are big for data centers. My own physical servers have been reduced to a total of seven with three of those going away later this year. The only reason I will maintain the other physical servers is dedicated storage. They are media boxes and not only need multiple threads, but fast access to files.

Then you throw 'cloud' (read: off-site) systems into the mix. If your company needs a public facing server it makes a lot of sense. But if you need fast local access then it just isn't in your interests to throw your data into the cloud.

There are other benefits to having a virtual environment as well. I had to create a test server recently. Instead of racking hardware, having the network folks run an ethernet cable to the rack, as well as the power and cooling folks making sure it's supported, I just dumped a template to the VM host, and with a few clicks I was off to the races.

There's also redundancy. With a physical server if you lose the hardware, you are down until the hardware can be replaced. With a proper VM farm you just fail over to one of the other hosts with minimal downtime.

n0b0dykn0ws

One of the biggest advantages is backup is so much more efficient. Whe we do upgrades we do a snapshot that takes less then 5 minutes. We install the upgrade and it there are problems we can just restore the snapshot and quickly we are back to condtions becaise we made the change. Cost is the other benefit as you can install multiple servers on the same hardware and only have to pay for the OS license. Another advantage is the administrator can allocate more resources to a specific server without have to purchase more hardware although administraotrs tend to be more conservative with resources.