This is a cute little kitty cat rant.

First of all I am aware that many factors determine whether or not to
virtualize a sql server and that isn't what this rant is really about.

So. I call up a software vendor today and they support the latest sql
server and I'm thinking 'spectacular' so I ask about virtualization.
First words out of their mouth... 'Microsoft doesn't recommend
virtualizing sql server'. WUUUTTTT????? Just a couple of weeks ago I
had been reading about Microsoft recommending people virtualize sql
server 2005 and 2008 (under certain circumstances obviously).

So I'm talking to the tech person and we are discussing this and they
tell me that they will support it, but they just don't recommend it.
Keep in mind I'm already running their databases on a virtual server
with sql server 2000 and performance is better than it was on the
physical box. So I inquire a little further and they tell me that sql
server databases over 10G have performance problems in virtualized
environments. Once again... WUUUTTTT??? I've read several place over
the last year were people are running sql server with 100+ GB database
in virtualized environments (albeit huge million dollar datacenters, but
hey, who care about details).

So now I'm thinking to myself. What gives. I have tech people for a
company telling me Microsoft doesn't recommend sql server in a virtual
environment and on the other hand I have this stuff, some of it from
Microsoft, recommending just the opposite.

Well, you know what I'm gonna do. Virtualize it anyway. If it goes to
slow I will migrate it over to physical hardware.

Personally though I'm beginning to think some developers just don't want
to take the time to actually test virtualization because the variables
are to great. Obviously a developer can't actually test for all virtual
scenarios, but why can't they just say that. At least this vendor will
support me in my virtual endeavors. :P

** Like I said... cute little kitty cat rant.