Server virtualization is perhaps not as pervasive as many believe, and customers are not as locked into any particular hypervisor as many companies peddling this magic software layer might hope. This info comes from the latest V-Index survey from Veeam Software, a maker of add-on management tools for VMware's ESXi hypervisor, …
are they using dinky servers? I was getting more than 5 VMs/server back in 2008 with ESX 3.5.
My last VM deployments was a minimum of about 14 VM/s server (memory constrained 32-48GB/server), and about 20-22 VMs/server(memory constrained - 64GB). My new VM project am aiming for at least 30 VM/s server, though 50-60 wouldn't be far fetched either with 192GB/server.
It depends what kind of workloads you are talking about
What kind of servers are you running that you will be able to get 50-60 servers on 192 GB of Ram? It all depends on what the server workload. I know the average VM I have is requiring 8+ GB of ram and a lot are starting at 16 GB. Plus the CPUs can only handle so much too. But again it all depends on the load the vm puts on the machine. I usually find I can get maybe 10 VMs on a server before it gets to hairy. Of course it depends on the load, as some servers will also saturate the bandwidth of the HBAs
One of our system is running 10VMs per server with 10 physical servers in a processing heavy environment.
We have been limited to 10 per VM so that is a physical server does keel over we only lose 10% of our processing capacity.
We could easily have stuffed more in but thems the rules.
Isn't everyone still playing catch-up to z/vm? The closest seems to be PowerVM, but hat's off to VMware which has made the biggest dent in solving the proliferation of "cheap" intel boxes.
Citrix, Microsoft et al are not playing catchup to VMware in the cloud business, because what VMware claims to be clouds are not very cloudy.