asked on

The cost virtualizing resource intensive servers

Hi All,

we have been having a discussion at my office about if there a point when it is cheaper for a machine to be physical rather than virtual?. Because if it requires a large number of CPU cores and/or a large amount of memory, it works to reduce the maximum number of machines that the host can support potentially destroying the overall cost effectiveness.

Is there a "sweet spot" for CPU or RAM requirements that dictate a machine should be physical not virtual. What is it? How is it derived?

Is there a design rule or method, based on worked and priced out examples that enable us to figure out if we should choose to have a Physical Machine instead of a Virtual Machine?

thanks

SOLUTION

Duncan Meyers

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

bluey80

ASKER

Thanks that's helpful. Is there a ratio of how many guests per host it takes to become cost effective?. E.g. If I have 2 servers that require 64Gb RAM and 4 x CPU's each and a host can only accomodate 2 servers based on those requirements, is it still cost effective to go virtual?

SOLUTION

Duncan Meyers

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION

Andrew Hancock (VMware vExpert PRO / EE Fellow/British Beekeeper)

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial