Re: Oracle 10g on Microsoft's Virtual Server

Doug Jones wrote:
> Actually, yes, this is supposed to go production. This server was
> purchased and virtual server was installed for the sole purpose of
> moving all servers to VMs.

Don't we see this trend in the industry all the time....instead of multiple machines performing dedicated tasks, someone puts all tasks on one machine using some technology X and life is great. Some time down the road, life is no longer great and technology Y is introduced which means segregating the workload to multiple machines. But I guess it is this endless cycle which keeps me employed! :)

> I would like to say that this isn't at all my idea :). I am low (as low
> as you can get) on the pecking order.
>
> The server is a dual core 2.8ghz xeon, 5 gigs of RAM, and a network
> storage of 1TB.
>
> The only responsibility of this server (like how I say only?) will be a
> webserver, network installs, and Oracle 10g.

So a server has been procured which we hope will run Oracle, the web server, etc. And it will also run the VM. But why add the VM? What is the purpose? I go back to the question I asked earlier..."will adding X to my production environment give me more plusses than minuses"? What does adding VM bring to the table that you do not get without VM on this server? What is to be gained? Surely, multiple VM's on the same server will be consuming resources, so that right there is a loss. That's ok so long as you hope to gain something too. But what is that? I'll give up something to get something provided it makes sense to me.

>>From what I have read so far, I should expect about 66% of the
> performance of the host PC on the VM.

PC? Hopefully you won't be running Windows XP Home for this..... ;)

> What should be taken into consideration before this goes production?
> (In other words what technical information can I give the powers that
> be stop the forward movement of this plan?

Ask the same question I've asked. What will you be gaining by this? Is it worth the added layer of the VM on top of the OS? What do you hope to gain?

> I want to know what the IO performance is of MS's Vserver.
>
> We have the production DB on an old compaq server. We have migrated the
> database to a test VM. As of right now, the database on the VM is about
> 5 times faster.
>

This probably has nothing to do with the VM, but rather the new hardware. Run Oracle directly on the server without the VM, and you *may* see some additional improvement as well. You'll see the same improvement if not more without the VM. The VM does cost you some overhead that may be better served elsewhere...or it may not.

>
> Thank you for all the input. Since I am totally in the dark, don't be
> affraid to speak your mind. I am not biased at all in this topic. I
> just want to better understand.
>
> One other question. What size workload will oracle put on a PC? If it
> is a database accessed by 100 people. The size of one of the backups
> was 6 gbs.

PC again?

A 6GB database is not that large. 100 concurrent users can cause strain on your resources in a poorly architected environment, but you'll have those issues whether you are using a VM or not.

HTH,
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