|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Oracle RAC vs VM WARE
Hi All, I'm not real familiar with either of the two technologies I am posting
about, but, we are setting up 2 new servers to run 5 database
instances.
Currently we have 5 older machines, and they are about to go. We are
trying to decide if it would be better to run VM WARE and have 5
virtual machines between the 2 new machines, with the databases
replicating themselves on the other for failover.
OR
Run Oracle RAC.
>From what I understand, RAC will make better use of resources should
one instance need it. But I think we're talking about multiple Oracle Homes on the same box right? Can anyone offer some feedback maybe on some of their experiences??
Thanks!
On May 11, 5:17 pm, "ame @iwc.net" <ame @iwc.net> wrote:
> Hi All, > I'm not real familiar with either of the two technologies I am posting
> about, but, we are setting up 2 new servers to run 5 database
> instances.
> Currently we have 5 older machines, and they are about to go. We are
> trying to decide if it would be better to run VM WARE and have 5
> virtual machines between the 2 new machines, with the databases
> replicating themselves on the other for failover.
> OR
> Run Oracle RAC.
> >From what I understand, RAC will make better use of resources should
> one instance need it. But I think we're talking about multiple Oracle
> Homes on the same box right?
> Can anyone offer some feedback maybe on some of their experiences??
> Thanks!
For once, please do some homework prior to posting For instance http://www.orafaq.com/faq/rac Other than that vmware is to RAC as is apples to pears.
They are two completely different concepts.
--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA
-----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
On May 11, 10:24 am, sybrandb <sybra @gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 5:17 pm, "ame @iwc.net" <ame @iwc.net> wrote: > > Hi All,
> > I'm not real familiar with either of the two technologies I am posting
> > about, but, we are setting up 2 new servers to run 5 database
> > instances.
> > Currently we have 5 older machines, and they are about to go. We are
> > trying to decide if it would be better to run VM WARE and have 5
> > virtual machines between the 2 new machines, with the databases
> > replicating themselves on the other for failover.
> > OR
> > Run Oracle RAC.
> > >From what I understand, RAC will make better use of resources should
> > one instance need it. But I think we're talking about multiple Oracle
> > Homes on the same box right?
> > Can anyone offer some feedback maybe on some of their experiences??
> > Thanks!
> For once, please do some homework prior to posting
> For instancehttp://www.orafaq.com/faq/rac
> Other than that vmware is to RAC as is apples to pears.
> They are two completely different concepts.
> --
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA- Hide quoted text -
>
I was thinking more like bagels and lox; they aren't the same but they can go together. David Fitzjarrell
-----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
On May 11, 11:42 am, "fitzjarr @cox.net" <fitzjarr @cox.net> wrote:
> On May 11, 10:24 am, sybrandb <sybra @gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 11, 5:17 pm, "ame@iwc.net" <ame@iwc.net> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > I'm not real familiar with either of the two technologies I am posting
> > > about, but, we are setting up 2 new servers to run 5 database
> > > instances.
> > > Currently we have 5 older machines, and they are about to go. We are
> > > trying to decide if it would be better to run VM WARE and have 5
> > > virtual machines between the 2 new machines, with the databases
> > > replicating themselves on the other for failover.
> > > OR
> > > Run Oracle RAC.
> > > >From what I understand, RAC will make better use of resources should
> > > one instance need it. But I think we're talking about multiple Oracle
> > > Homes on the same box right?
> > > Can anyone offer some feedback maybe on some of their experiences??
> > > Thanks!
> > For once, please do some homework prior to posting
> > For instancehttp://www.orafaq.com/faq/rac
> > Other than that vmware is to RAC as is apples to pears.
> > They are two completely different concepts.
> > --
> > Sybrand Bakker
> > Senior Oracle DBA- Hide quoted text -
> >
> I was thinking more like bagels and lox; they aren't the same but they
> can go together.
> David Fitzjarrell- Hide quoted text -
>
Only by running 2/3 instances on a single box you pay a substantial penalty in terms of CPU, memory and I/O bandwith. Adding a vritual machine to the mix will only make the whole thing slower. Can you not consolidate the 5 into 1 and then either replicate to the other machine or rac them together? -----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
On May 11, 11:47 am, Valentin Minzatu <valentinminz @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 11:42 am, "fitzjarr @cox.net" <fitzjarr @cox.net> > wrote: > > On May 11, 10:24 am, sybrandb <sybra@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 11, 5:17 pm, "ame@iwc.net" <ame@iwc.net> wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > > I'm not real familiar with either of the two technologies I am posting
> > > > about, but, we are setting up 2 new servers to run 5 database
> > > > instances.
> > > > Currently we have 5 older machines, and they are about to go. We are
> > > > trying to decide if it would be better to run VM WARE and have 5
> > > > virtual machines between the 2 new machines, with the databases
> > > > replicating themselves on the other for failover.
> > > > OR
> > > > Run Oracle RAC.
> > > > >From what I understand, RAC will make better use of resources should
> > > > one instance need it. But I think we're talking about multiple Oracle
> > > > Homes on the same box right?
> > > > Can anyone offer some feedback maybe on some of their experiences??
> > > > Thanks!
> > > For once, please do some homework prior to posting
> > > For instancehttp://www.orafaq.com/faq/rac
> > > Other than that vmware is to RAC as is apples to pears.
> > > They are two completely different concepts.
> > > --
> > > Sybrand Bakker
> > > Senior Oracle DBA- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > I was thinking more like bagels and lox; they aren't the same but they
> > can go together.
> > David Fitzjarrell- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Only by running 2/3 instances on a single box you pay a substantial
> penalty in terms of CPU, memory and I/O bandwith. Adding a vritual
> machine to the mix will only make the whole thing slower. Can you not
> consolidate the 5 into 1 and then either replicate to the other
> machine or rac them together?
I have no problems running multiple instances or vm on the same machines. In fact, some vm images run faster than native. It all depends on how you set it up. If you have to ask, then stay away from RAC.
-----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
On May 11, 11:17 am, "ame @iwc.net" <ame @iwc.net> wrote:
> Hi All, > I'm not real familiar with either of the two technologies I am posting
> about, but, we are setting up 2 new servers to run 5 database
> instances.
> Currently we have 5 older machines, and they are about to go. We are
> trying to decide if it would be better to run VM WARE and have 5
> virtual machines between the 2 new machines, with the databases
> replicating themselves on the other for failover.
> OR
> Run Oracle RAC.
> >From what I understand, RAC will make better use of resources should
> one instance need it. But I think we're talking about multiple Oracle
> Homes on the same box right?
> Can anyone offer some feedback maybe on some of their experiences??
> Thanks!
>From what you've posted, it has nothing to do with multiple home, it
has to do with multiple instances running from one or more databases. VM is great if you have 1 Windows box and need to run 9i OEM, 10g
grid, and other point versions on the same machine. This is requires
multiple homes to house the specific binary point versions. The VM
environments make this easy, otherwise you are monkeying with path
settings trying to get things to work right. Again, multiple legacy
version home management on Windows is a pain, so VM eliminates this.
The other nice thing is that legacy can be plugged in when necessary
from an image, rather than a soup-to-nuts install. Set it up once in
VM, keep it running, or put it away until needed. All that is
required is to boot up the image and away you go.
For your case I'd go with the VM Ware and failover option for legacy
database. RAC experience is good to have, but is it worth the
learning curve. I can say from experience that setting up well
performing RAC has quite a few more moving parts than does a simple
replication solution using VM.
http://www.miracleas.dk/WritingsFromMogens/YouProbablyDontNeedRACUSVe...
-----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
On May 11, 11:17 am, "ame @iwc.net" <ame @iwc.net> wrote:
> Hi All, > I'm not real familiar with either of the two technologies I am posting
> about, but, we are setting up 2 new servers to run 5 database
> instances.
> Currently we have 5 older machines, and they are about to go. We are
> trying to decide if it would be better to run VM WARE and have 5
> virtual machines between the 2 new machines, with the databases
> replicating themselves on the other for failover.
> OR
> Run Oracle RAC.
> >From what I understand, RAC will make better use of resources should
> one instance need it. But I think we're talking about multiple Oracle
> Homes on the same box right?
> Can anyone offer some feedback maybe on some of their experiences??
> Thanks!
You should probably read what moans nogood has to say about rac and high availability. Unless your organization is staffed, trained, and continually test
themselves most efforts to setup high availability cause less
availability.
-----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
> You should probably read what moans nogood has to say about rac and
> high availability.
moans nogood - does he have a URL? -----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
On 13 May 2007 03:32:10 -0700, ErikYkema <erik.yk @gmail.com> wrote: >> You should probably read what moans nogood has to say about rac and
>> high availability.
>moans nogood - does he have a URL?
Moans Nogood isn't called Moans Nogood as hpuxrac isn't hpuxrac. His real name is Mogens Norgaard, he is one of the founders of the Oaktable Network, and he has his own company in Denmark called MiracleAs. --
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA
-----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
On May 13, 6:32 am, ErikYkema <erik.yk @gmail.com> wrote: > > You should probably read what moans nogood has to say about rac and > > high availability. > moans nogood - does he have a URL?
Do people really ask questions like this on cdos before trying a google search on "moans nogood"? I guess the answer is yes ... pretty scary to me when these people are
"doing things" related to oracle.
By the way ... you can do the google search with or without the
quotation marks.
See if you can find his paper on why you probably don't need rac.
Read his recent posting on high availability or lack thereof.
Yikes.
-----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
On May 11, 11:11 pm, EscVector <J @webthere.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 11:47 am, Valentin Minzatu <valentinminz @yahoo.com> > wrote: > > On May 11, 11:42 am, "fitzjarr@cox.net" <fitzjarr@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On May 11, 10:24 am, sybrandb <sybra@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 11, 5:17 pm, "ame@iwc.net" <ame@iwc.net> wrote:
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > I'm not real familiar with either of the two technologies I am posting
> > > > > about, but, we are setting up 2 new servers to run 5 database
> > > > > instances.
> > > > > Currently we have 5 older machines, and they are about to go. We are
> > > > > trying to decide if it would be better to run VM WARE and have 5
> > > > > virtual machines between the 2 new machines, with the databases
> > > > > replicating themselves on the other for failover.
> > > > > OR
> > > > > Run Oracle RAC.
> > > > > >From what I understand, RAC will make better use of resources should
> > > > > one instance need it. But I think we're talking about multiple Oracle
> > > > > Homes on the same box right?
> > > > > Can anyone offer some feedback maybe on some of their experiences??
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > For once, please do some homework prior to posting
> > > > For instancehttp://www.orafaq.com/faq/rac
> > > > Other than that vmware is to RAC as is apples to pears.
> > > > They are two completely different concepts.
> > > > --
> > > > Sybrand Bakker
> > > > Senior Oracle DBA- Hide quoted text -
> > > >
> > > I was thinking more like bagels and lox; they aren't the same but they
> > > can go together.
> > > David Fitzjarrell- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > Only by running 2/3 instances on a single box you pay a substantial
> > penalty in terms of CPU, memory and I/O bandwith. Adding a vritual
> > machine to the mix will only make the whole thing slower. Can you not
> > consolidate the 5 into 1 and then either replicate to the other
> > machine or rac them together?
> I have no problems running multiple instances or vm on the same
> machines. In fact, some vm images run faster than native. It all
> depends on how you set it up.
> If you have to ask, then stay away from RAC.- Hide quoted text -
>
EscVector, I am arguing on the fact that VMs can be tuned to run faster than the native O/S although I would have to see it (not intention to flame anybody here). I doubt though that 3 VMs, each with an Oracle instance running
inside, will perform better than single Oracle instance on the same
hardware.
On the other hand, RAC may or may not be the right choice depending on
the business requirements: RAC gives some flexibility in terms of HA,
but not at the same level with replication (two distinct sites/
databases). Each of the two has pros and cons and making a call one
versus the other without knowing the exact business case is a bit of a
stretch.
Valentin
Valentin
-----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
On 13 mai, 23:14, Valentin Minzatu <valentinminz @yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 11, 11:11 pm, EscVector <J @webthere.com> wrote: > > I have no problems running multiple instances or vm on the same > > machines. In fact, some vm images run faster than native. It all > > depends on how you set it up. > > If you have to ask, then stay away from RAC
> EscVector, I am arguing on the fact that VMs can be tuned to run
> faster than the native O/S although I would have to see it (not
> intention to flame anybody here).
> I doubt though that 3 VMs, each with an Oracle instance running
> inside, will perform better than single Oracle instance on the same
> hardware.
We have so far three customer running Oracle in a W2003 vm under WMWare ESQ on Sun/SAN... We observed that the VM is twice slower than the physical
machine (despite CPU guarantee)
I realize that this is anecdotical data. However, the undisputable
fact is that so far the customers using Oracle under VMWare
on production systems call us a lot for performance problems :-)
--- Raoul
-----------------------------------------------Reply-----------------------------------------------
On 14 mai, 08:46, hasta @hotmail.com wrote:
> On 13 mai, 23:14, Valentin Minzatu <valentinminz @yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 11, 11:11 pm, EscVector <J@webthere.com> wrote:
> > > I have no problems running multiple instances orvmon the same
> > > machines. In fact, somevmimages run faster than native. It all
> > > depends on how you set it up.
> > > If you have to ask, then stay away fromRAC
> > EscVector, I am arguing on the fact that VMs can be tuned to run
> > faster than the native O/S although I would have to see it (not
> > intention to flame anybody here).
> > I doubt though that 3 VMs, each with an Oraclei nstance running
> > inside, will perform better than single Oracle instance on the same
> > hardware.
> We have so far three customer runningOraclein a W2003vm
> under WMWare ESQ on Sun/SAN...
VMWare ESX... Not yet awaked :-)
> We observed that the VM is twice slower than the physical
> machine (despite CPU guarantee)
> I realize that this is anecdotical data. However, the undisputable
> fact is that so far the customers usingOracleunder VMWare
> on production systems call us a lot for performance problems :-)
> --- Raoul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 sybra@hccnet.nl schreef:
> On 13 May 2007 03:32:10 -0700, ErikYkema <erik.yk @gmail.com> wrote: >>> You should probably read what moans nogood has to say about rac and
>>> high availability.
>> moans nogood - does he have a URL?
> Moans Nogood isn't called Moans Nogood as hpuxrac isn't hpuxrac.
> His real name is Mogens Norgaard, he is one of the founders of the
> Oaktable Network, and he has his own company in Denmark called
> MiracleAs.
And a brewery! - --
Regards,
Frank van Bortel
Top-posting is one way to shut me up...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFGSKL1Lw8L4IAs830RAgacAJ4ivg1w8CZD+FiPk+mwvXSmNG4ZegCfWEF0
E/Wu8FmBwFkQbjzc3mKjJyk=
=tEE+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Add to del.icio.us |
Digg this |
Stumble it |
Powered by Megasolutions Inc