Re: Oracle 10g on Microsoft's Virtual Server

From: Brian Peasland <dba_at_nospam.peasland.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:34:16 GMT
Message-ID: <J5soLD.27G@igsrsparc2.er.usgs.gov>

Glen wrote:
> Brian Peasland wrote:

>> Doug Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I am looking for information pertaining to an Oracle install on Virtual
>>> Server. Most of what I find is referring to VMware. Currently we have
>>> 10g running on virtual server and I just have a few questions. Is this
>>> a good place to ask? Can someone point me to some info on performance,
>>> maintenance, etc?
>>>
>>> Thank you very much,
>>>
>>> Doug Jones
>>>
>>
>> I have installed both Oracle 9i and 10g on Windows 2003's Virtual 
>> Server. It works quite nicely for testing. You do not need any 
>> additional documentation, because for all intents and purposes, you 
>> are just installing Oracle on Windows. It does not make a difference 
>> that it is a VM.
>>
>> You will need sufficient resources for the VM. But this is no 
>> different than installing Oracle on a server. Your VM needs sufficient 
>> memory and disk and CPU. Not having sufficient resources can lead to 
>> poor performance.
>>
>> Additionally, I would never recommend a VM for Oracle in production. I 
>> have only used this for a test platform and I would recommend the 
>> same. I wouldn't even use this for development, only for test.
>>
>>
>>
>> HTH,
>> Brian
>>

>
> Interesting
>
> I am getting pressured from our network/server admins to move some of
> the smaller Oracle DB's on to virtual machines. I have so far refused
> but did capitulate somewhat and have my OID (using for names
> resolution)running on a VM. We are using VMware running on Linux with
> Windows 2003 server as virtual machines. I do have test and dev
> instances on VM's, and Oracle's reply to me when asked about support for
> production databases on virtual machines is that they will support it,
> with tha caveat that any problems must be reproduceable on non VM
> machines(fair enough)
>
> Our network/server admins are going the VM route as much as they can,
> trying to leave only the hardest used servers on their own hardware.
> This is also prodding the "lets switch to SQL Server then" mentality, as
> it (supposedly) is supported on VM platforms.
>
>

What is the benefit of moving your production databases to VM's?

To me, there are more downsides to this configuration (be it Oracle or SQL Server). One, you have added more complexity to your production environment. Two, you require many more resources to run multiple VM's on the same server when compared to just the OS of the server itself. Three,

The upsides include: One, software running in one VM won't interact with software in another VM. Two, software running in a VM is insulated from the server's OS.

Personally, with Oracle, I don't see a reason to implement the upsides. And the downsides concern me enough to not use the VM for production. The question I ask myself is "will adding X to my production environment give me more plusses than minuses"? In the case of VM, I would say No. Maybe that's just my opinion.

Cheers,
Brian

-- 
===================================================================

Brian Peasland
dba_at_nospam.peasland.net
http://www.peasland.net

Remove the "nospam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good.
Now pick two out of the three" - Unknown

Received on Mon Sep 18 2006 - 10:34:16 CDT