Re: Oracle Linux/Virtualization Software

<shortcutter_at_googlemail.com> schreef in bericht news:25895977-106a-4a6e-914a-23e1a89cb456_at_l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 Nov., 14:53, hpuxrac <johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 9:01 pm, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> > I'm not counseling blind acceptance. I'm not advising anyone to take
>> > anything at face value. Isn't it Tom Kyte who has advised over and over
>> > again the importance of not accepting claims made by self-anointed
>> > experts?
>>
>> Well actually I think it starts back with the Greeks and Romans as far
>> as indo-european history goes.
>>
>>
>>
>> > What is at issue here is the difference between scepticism (healthy)
>> > and
>> > cynicism (attitude). I am not saying Oracle is correct and I'm not
>> > saying Oracle is incorrect. Because I haven't tested the claim in my
>> > lab
>> > and don't know of any reputable independent source that has.
>>
>> > What I object to is this cynical repudiation of a claim based solely
>> > on the person's attitude of unblemished negativity. There isn't one
>> > person here that has weighed in with a value judgment that any single
>> > data point, even a poorly created one, that supports their statement.
>>
>> You know this blind advocacy of anything oracle is getting pretty old
>> here in cdos from certain posters. As far as I know my original post
>> in this thread concerning VM said this ...
>>
>> "Oracle claims their VM is 3 times as fast as anything else. Sounds
>> pretty fishy to many of us."
>>
>> Maybe you should read a definition of "fishy"?
>>
>> All in all based on the hype from Larry and others in OOW 2007 without
>> any benchmarks provided, tangible testing results ... fishy seems to
>> be right on target to me. It might even be optimistic?
>
> Things become a bit clearer when looking at the FAQ:
>
> "How is Oracle VM three times more efficient than existing x86 server
> virtualization products?
> Oracle ran many performance benchmarks comparing Oracle products
> running with Oracle VM against the existing leading server
> virtualization product and also with Oracle products on non-
> virtualized operating systems on x86 and x86-64. Oracle consistently
> saw much better resource
> utilization with an average of three times less overhead using Oracle
> VM, and also saw significant
> scalability with virtual SMP. In many cases, the comparison with real
> hardware was approximately
> equal in performance."
>
> http://www.oracle.com/technologies/virtualization/docs/ovm-faq.pdf
>
> I interpret "three times more efficient" as meaning "the overhead of
> other VM products vs. real hardware was cut down to a quarter". So in
> cases of low overhead, the net gain is small and the claim sounds far
> less dramatic.
>
> The crucial questions here are of course: what is X? What hardware
> was it tested on? What applications were benchmarked?
>
> Kind regards
>
> robert

So to make a calculation (just as an example, no exact figures...)

If VMware has an overhead of 15 % (leaving 85% efficiency) Oracle claims about 4% overhead (96% efficiency), giving an net efficiency gain of about 11%.... which is different from 'three times as fast'.....

I think 'overhead' is relative, depending on how many vm's are running on 1 host. And does Oracle take into account the extra server needed for the manager?

Shakespeare Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 11:04:29 CST