Just know that there is not-a-problem in running multiple instances on the same host, then all you have to do is to evaluate the performance factor. In your case I would not introduce the overhead of the VMs, but take advantage of this to learn how to manage multiple instances on the same host that is always useful.
You can have a look at Giuseppe Maxia's MySQL Sandbox<http://mysqlsandbox.net/> Or if you wish I can share my technique I use since 3.23. Cheers Claudio 2011/3/3 Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> > 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 it > up > > along the same lines as production (where there's redundant pools of > mysql > > servers by application class). > > > > my basic question is whether it's better to run multiple instances on the > > same host or run single instances on multiple VMs on the same physical > > server. I can see slight advantages/disadvantages to each but no obvious > > upside nor downside to either. > > > > 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, > etc). > > 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 > host. > > > > any compelling argument for either approach? > > -- Claudio
