Re: Smoke and mirrors...

InDeep wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> InDeep wrote: >>> DA Morgan wrote: >>>> InDeep wrote: >>>>> IDS has some really great features, and Daniel, with all fairness to >>>>> IDS vs >>>>> Oracle, at least you can run IDS in a VM, something Oracle does NOT >>>>> support. >>>> Where did you hear that? The reason I ask is that it is not true. >>> Say it ain't so Joe! But we were told point blank that not only would we >>> NOT be supported on VMWare, we would not be supported on Oracles' own >>> VM >> True with VMWare ... not true with Oracle's VM or IBM's VM. >> http://blogs.oracle.com/wim/2008/09/oracle_vm_212.html > > This article was just released on September 25, 2008. I have been > speaking from this past year, and certainly, Oracles' VM, while cool, is > still a risky venture for Oracle database servers. > > The article didn't say a word about Oracle Applications running on their > own VM, or their app-server, and/or when they would be supported. Like > I said, without support even the most ardent Oracle nut will have to wait. A blog entry is not an official statement it was just the first thing on Oracle's public website I knew everyone could read. If you want to see the details, like a customer, log onto metalink and look at the support matrix. I know plenty of fully supported, virtualized, environments running e-Business Suite. My point though is not to say supported virtualization has existed for a decade, it has not, but rather to point out that your statement was incorrect which is the case. Lets not quibble about the details. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > > A blog entry is not an official statement it was just the first thing > on Oracle's public website I knew everyone could read. If you want to > see the details, like a customer, log onto metalink and look at the > support matrix. I know plenty of fully supported, virtualized, > environments running e-Business Suite. > I don't need to login to Metalink when I can talk to our Oracle rep and the Applications team, and hear what they have said. This was not a trivial decision, as I indicated earlier in this thread. It actually was a war, the app team did not want VMs of any kind, instead preferring to stand up more and more hardware. We had already ripped through close to 500 TB of EMC DMX storage in a month, most of it I personally provisioned myself, and management said enough is enough, we're not going to stand up more server hardware if we can put the apps and cm tier on VMs. It had nothing to do with me either, I had serious reservations about VMware being able to withstand the apps load when we were polled on what we thought we should do. But there was an underlying feeling that spending was out of control on this one and VMs were being seriouslly looked at to offset cost. BTW management had already taken some rather shady advice on buying HP Integrity Servers, so they felt like this was going to be something else that may warrant some cost savings. So we put the VMs on HP blades, all maxed out on memory and CPUs. Very sweet little blade servers. We looked at Oracles' VM too, but it was too risky. Just not mature enough to risk production on--at least not yet. In the final deployment VMware barely handled the app and cm tier, but this is also due toa lot of Oracle people doing things on these VMs that we had no control over. It was actually a lot of fun to watch ESX redline on these apps, rather comical, yet it underscores something important about Informix: You _can_ _today_ run Informix database servers in a VM, without having to use Oracles' VM or even VMware for that matter. I would even say IDS probably fairs better in a VM than even DB2. I'm going to see how IDS works on VirtualBox or Parallels, it might be a nice alternative to MySQL, even using the Developer Edition as a production instance since it seems to work so well with so little resources. > My point though is not to say supported virtualization has existed for > a decade, it has not, but rather to point out that your statement was > incorrect which is the case. Lets not quibble about the details. Yes, thanks teach. You're wrong on this one, but it's ok to be wrong once in a while. *<8o)

On Oct 11, 6:58 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > Yes, thanks teach.  You're wrong on this one, but it's ok to be wrong once > in a while. > > *<8o) To your point. Yes IDS will perform much better that either Oracle or DB2 in a VM environment. That's why its one of the "greenest" databases on the market. Too bad no one from IBM's "marketing" department has caught on. And funny that you mention it, but when you talk about VCPUs (virtual CPUs), what release of IDS had them? One would say IDS was "virtualized" many moons before it was fashionable. ;-)

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > To your point. Yes IDS will perform much better that either Oracle or > DB2 in a VM environment. Let's not make sweeping statements without facts. I have been happy with IDS so far on VMware Fusion on my Macbook Pro, but I have not had a history of experience with it under any appreciable load. I have been impressed so far using Perl with it, it is *very* responsive, but this is purely my opinion, my subjective, biased opinion, it in no way proves that IDS is scalable on a VM. Having said that, I have been advised AGAINST running Oracle 10g in a VM of _any_ kind, this came from Oracle, nowhere else. I doubt that Oracle database would perform well as I've indicated in my previous post. We _were_ able to get Oracle Apps to function on ESX, but it was a risky proposition, one I would not recommend for the faint of heart, and certainly not something you do without ESX expertise. Don't think you're just going to slap apps on ESX and expect it to scale, it requires some baby sitting and tweaking, and it's a high risk venture, YMMV. > That's why its one of the "greenest" databases on the market. > > Too bad no one from IBM's "marketing" department has caught on. > Now _that_ appears to be true. > And funny that you mention it, but when you talk about VCPUs (virtual > CPUs), what release of IDS had them? > One would say IDS was "virtualized" many moons before it was > fashionable. ;-) Virtual processors in IDS are distinctly different than an operating system VM, I'm not sure where you make the connection. We need to be careful mixing things up about VMs. It is the same problem when talking about clustering, whether it's compute-clustering, shared-nothing, etc etc. Let's be factual and focused so that we can maintain some credibility. -ID- -- Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. Terry Pratchett

InDeep wrote: > I don't need to login to Metalink when I can talk to our Oracle rep and > the Applications team, and hear what they have said. The number of times they've been wrong .... > This was not a > trivial decision, as I indicated earlier in this thread. It actually > was a war, the app team did not want VMs of any kind, instead preferring > to stand up more and more hardware. I agree with your apps team. I would never use a VM, except zVM unless it was forced on me for financial reasons and there was no recourse. -- Daniel A. Morgan Oracle Ace Director & Instructor University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org