From: Reindl Harald
Date: March 3 2011 10:01pm
Subject: Re: best practice: mysql_multi, VMs w/single instance per or doesn't
 matter?
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/224562
Message-Id: <4D700FA1.1010004@thelounge.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="------------enigEF6F65331D3B57828E7FD2EB"

--------------enigEF6F65331D3B57828E7FD2EB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

i would use virtual machines because port/socket/configuration

after running our whole infrastructure on vmware i can not understand
how i could live without machine-snapshots and auto-failover :-)

on hardware with virtualization support performance is also
not a problem and ESXi is free without support on hardware
matching the HCL

Am 03.03.2011 22:52, schrieb Sid Lane:
> I've always had a single physical server that is the qc mysql database =
for
> all our applications but it's now up to 85 schemas so I want to break i=
t up
> along the same lines as production (where there's redundant pools of my=
sql
> servers by application class).
>=20
> my basic question is whether it's better to run multiple instances on t=
he
> same host or run single instances on multiple VMs on the same physical
> server.  I can see slight advantages/disadvantages to each but no obvio=
us
> upside nor downside to either.
>=20
> remember, this is dev/qc, not prod, so I'm leaning toward VMs so I don'=
t
> have to manage port #s in configs or expect developers to remember that=

> (also, I don't have to modify scripts for multiple instances, paths, et=
c).
> not big reasons for sure but all else equal I'll go the less work route=
 and
> the only upside to multi I see is not having to reload the box as VM ho=
st.
>=20
> any compelling argument for either approach?


--------------enigEF6F65331D3B57828E7FD2EB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEUEARECAAYFAk1wD6EACgkQhmBjz394AnmICwCWK4MtC3wEd0MiI49MUSJfYf7n
vQCfTGmDIXe9W93aI2ecMvQw9jur/Q0=
=mkZ8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigEF6F65331D3B57828E7FD2EB--