SQL Server Virtualization: Why do it?

[d7a7z7e7d]

I'm trying to figure out the benefit of putting a production SQL Server setup inside of a virtual machine such as hyper-v or vmware. So far one nice thing would be that I could easily backup the vm image and restore the entire sql server database to a certain date should a hotfix or other database operation have unwanted results. But other than that, I don't understand the benefit of it yet so many people seem to be praising the idea. Why?

I'm planning on creating a new server, probably quad core, 16gb ram... will have a separate physical disk available just for sql server... but should I install it on the host OS (which will probably be server 2008)... or should I put it on a copy of server 2008 inside of hyper-v?

 

[requiemnoise]

Recovery, migration, redundancy, clean installation, and easier support. These days, having a dedicated OS per server performance application makes the management easier. The best part is your migration is a snap if you have a fast NAS or SAN network.

 

[Nenu]

The above and in larger environments - the ability to run multiple VMs thus saving Server purchase cost, floor space, maintenance and electricity.

 

[Eva_Unit_0]

As others have said, there's no intrinsic benefit to the application by using the virtual machine, it's just that it allows you to easily consolidate servers. If you're working in a large environment (university, large corporation, etc.) then you have literally dozens and dozens of servers to cover all of your services. Being able to combine maybe 3 or 4 servers into 1 by means of virtualization is a big deal.

My brother in law is a bigwig in a university's IT department and he told me that they were recently able to cut their total number of servers practically by 3/4 by virtualizing all of their services.