Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

We are upgrading our ERP application to run on SQL Server 2008 R2. It currently runs as a file-based system in it's own Server 2008 virtual machine. SQL Server will be installed into that VM.

We have a separate virtual machine (on the same physical host) that runs SQL Server for other data. Is there a reason (performance or otherwise) to go through the trouble of replicating data from the ERP SQL server to another VM? My original plan was to replicate for reporting purposes and reduce the load on the ERP SQL server, but if both SQL servers are on the same physical host, I can't see a performance benefit to doing so.

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

If your reports could be run in such a way as to block your application, then this is a no-brainer for me.

share|improve this answer
this is an excellent reason to replicate. thank you. – John Galt Jan 12 '12 at 17:08

Depends what you nuderstand under "same physical host". YOu could:

  • Run into VM limits (Hyper-V: 4 virtual processors per VM at the moment, which may max out)
  • Run into IO limits and have different discs for the second VM.

Otherwise you are right. Can only be a small installation anyway.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.