Re: just a question (virtual machines)

From: Shakespeare <>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:52:54 +0200
Message-ID: <4a0ac2ab$0$185$>

gs schreef:
> My workplace is seriously considering going to virtual machines for most
> of the servers, including database servers. We are a windows shop and
> have several VMware servers running test env's now. I am not in favour
> of running production db's on vm's, but I don't have the final say here.
> Having said that, I have had many test db's on vms for over two years
> now and they have been trouble free.. I'm recommending that we take a
> good look at Oracle's VM if we go this route, but I know I'll hit
> resistance here too.
> I haven't had a chance to download and play with Oracles vm yet, so I
> don't know a lot about it.
> If you were told you were going to all vm's for database servers, would
> you be comfortable with VMware or would you fight tooth & nail to go
> with Oracle's?

A big consideration is a licensing issue: suppose you have an ESX server with, let's say 8 cores, and you run Oracle DB on 2 cores. Oracle will charge you licenses for the full 8 cores. This is because they see VMware as a method of SOFT partitioning, where e.g. partitioning on AIX (lpar) is HARD partitioning, with licenses paid per used partition\cores.

Things get worse if you load balance against a second ESX server, or use VMotion. You'll pay licenses for BOTH servers (all CPU's)

Second, running Oracle on VMWare is not supported, and if support notices you are running on VMWare, they don't solve your problem until you prove it exists on 'real iron' as well.

Shakespeare Received on Wed May 13 2009 - 07:52:54 CDT

Original text of this message