vCenter Database Server Physical vs. Virtual?

[MLow75GW]

I have a virtualized vCenter server that uses a physical SQL server to host the vCenter database. This physical SQL server also hosts our SRM, vCenter Update Manager, and View databases. I am trying to figure out why the previous admin set it up this way - as opposed to making both the vCenter and Database servers VMs - and cannot come up with a compelling reason. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[vmroyale]

Hello and welcome to the communities.

The previous admin might have been concerned about the startup order or the virtual infrastructure, or perhaps there were other databases that also tied into the decision. There could be a variety of reasons, but it all comes down to knowing and understanding the dependencies of the environment when making these decisions. There is likely no technical reason that these DBs couldn't be in VMs though.

[MLow75GW]

Thanks for your reply, much appreciated!

[chriswahl]

Some people just don't like virtual SQL. :smileyhappy:  Originally, SQL was a bit more a beast to virtualize than it is now (such as with older configuration maximums). No reason you can't do it these days, however.

Sometimes I utilize a vApp to create a container for vCenter and the DB - then set a specific startup / shutdown order. This ensures that the DB is online and available before vCenter tries to power on. You may also want to set a "keep together" DRS rule so that the VMs are on the same host (reducing network usage / latency) if that host has enough horsepower for it.