Oracle 10g on Microsoft's Virtual Server
Doug Jones
Server. Most of what I find is referring to VMware. Currently we have
10g running on virtual server and I just have a few questions. Is this
a good place to ask? Can someone point me to some info on performance,
maintenance, etc?
Thank you very much,
Doug Jones
Brian Peasland
I have installed both Oracle 9i and 10g on Windows 2003's Virtual
Server. It works quite nicely for testing. You do not need any
additional documentation, because for all intents and purposes, you are
just installing Oracle on Windows. It does not make a difference that it
is a VM.
You will need sufficient resources for the VM. But this is no different
than installing Oracle on a server. Your VM needs sufficient memory and
disk and CPU. Not having sufficient resources can lead to poor performance.
Additionally, I would never recommend a VM for Oracle in production. I
have only used this for a test platform and I would recommend the same.
I wouldn't even use this for development, only for test.
HTH,
Brian
--
===================================================================
Brian Peasland
d...@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
Glen
> Doug Jones wrote:
>
>> I am looking for information pertaining to an Oracle install on Virtual
>> Server. Most of what I find is referring to VMware. Currently we have
>> 10g running on virtual server and I just have a few questions. Is this
>> a good place to ask? Can someone point me to some info on performance,
>> maintenance, etc?
>>
>> Thank you very much,
>>
>> Doug Jones
>>
>
> I have installed both Oracle 9i and 10g on Windows 2003's Virtual
> Server. It works quite nicely for testing. You do not need any
> additional documentation, because for all intents and purposes, you are
> just installing Oracle on Windows. It does not make a difference that it
> is a VM.
>
> You will need sufficient resources for the VM. But this is no different
> than installing Oracle on a server. Your VM needs sufficient memory and
> disk and CPU. Not having sufficient resources can lead to poor performance.
>
> Additionally, I would never recommend a VM for Oracle in production. I
> have only used this for a test platform and I would recommend the same.
> I wouldn't even use this for development, only for test.
>
>
>
> HTH,
> Brian
>
Interesting
I am getting pressured from our network/server admins to move some of
the smaller Oracle DB's on to virtual machines. I have so far refused
but did capitulate somewhat and have my OID (using for names
resolution)running on a VM. We are using VMware running on Linux with
Windows 2003 server as virtual machines. I do have test and dev
instances on VM's, and Oracle's reply to me when asked about support for
production databases on virtual machines is that they will support it,
with tha caveat that any problems must be reproduceable on non VM
machines(fair enough)
Our network/server admins are going the VM route as much as they can,
trying to leave only the hardest used servers on their own hardware.
This is also prodding the "lets switch to SQL Server then" mentality, as
it (supposedly) is supported on VM platforms.
Brian Peasland
What is the benefit of moving your production databases to VM's?
To me, there are more downsides to this configuration (be it Oracle or
SQL Server). One, you have added more complexity to your production
environment. Two, you require many more resources to run multiple VM's
on the same server when compared to just the OS of the server itself.
Three,
The upsides include: One, software running in one VM won't interact with
software in another VM. Two, software running in a VM is insulated from
the server's OS.
Personally, with Oracle, I don't see a reason to implement the upsides.
And the downsides concern me enough to not use the VM for production.
The question I ask myself is "will adding X to my production environment
give me more plusses than minuses"? In the case of VM, I would say No.
Maybe that's just my opinion.
Cheers,
Robert Klemme
> The upsides include: One, software running in one VM won't interact with
> software in another VM. Two, software running in a VM is insulated from
> the server's OS.
Three, you can get failover and high availability. VMWare offers a
product which lets you cluster servers and if one of the machines goes
down other machines can take over the VM's of the crashed instance.
Probably doesn't make much sense with Oracle's own clustering though.
Kind regards
robert
Sybrand Bakker
<short...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Three, you can get failover and high availability. VMWare offers a
>product which lets you cluster servers and if one of the machines goes
>down other machines can take over the VM's of the crashed instance.
>Probably doesn't make much sense with Oracle's own clustering though.
>
>Kind regards
>
> robert
Four, Oracle requests you reproduce a problem perceived in a Vmware
environment in a *non* Vmware environment.
--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
DA Morgan
Hopefully you are not considering this for production. If you are I
would suggest starting with metalink and seeing if your configuration
is supported.
--
Daniel Morgan
University of Washington
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
Robert Klemme
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:49:02 +0200, Robert Klemme
> <short...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Three, you can get failover and high availability. VMWare offers a
>> product which lets you cluster servers and if one of the machines goes
>> down other machines can take over the VM's of the crashed instance.
>> Probably doesn't make much sense with Oracle's own clustering though.
> Four, Oracle requests you reproduce a problem perceived in a Vmware
> environment in a *non* Vmware environment.
You mean like in "Oh my gosh, I have this single CPU machine with 5 VMs
and Oracle is just /so/ slow!"? :-)
Cheers
robert
Doug Jones
purchased and virtual server was installed for the sole purpose of
moving all servers to VMs.
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.
>From what I have read so far, I should expect about 66% of the
performance of the host PC on the VM.
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?
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.
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.
Thanks again.
Doug Jones
DA Morgan
> 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.
Personally I wouldn't touch it without an explicit statement from
Oracle that when things go terribly wrong, and they will, that you
will be supported. My guess is that their first response will be to
tell you to go to a supported environment.
Brian Peasland
> 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,
Doug Jones
was in a hurry and didn't want to type out Server ;)
Why VM? Well, I think the theory is ease of disaster recovery. In
theory if the VHDs (virtual hard drives) are backed up, you could just
dump C and D on a VM and BOOM you are up and running. I like that idea,
but it is all theory. Of course I am working this theory into reality.
I am a hardware/software guy for 11 years, but Oracle is new.
Here is what I have accomplished:
Setup virtual server -
- Setup windows 2003 on the VM
- Installed Oracle on drive D on the VM (another virtual
database)
-Exported real data and imported data into test (VM)
machine.
-Connected to the database with the client
software. Fully tested the
software and found no problems
- Created a second VM with a raw install of
Oracle (again on drive D)
-Killed the first server (VM)
- Copied the VHD from the now
damaged VMserver to the
now working VMserver (I am
referring to drive D where
ORACLE is located)
- Booted the hodge-podge
VMserver and Oracle functions
with no errors and all is
well.
In theory this would remove the lengthy restore process from tape or
other media. Install or flashing an IMAGE back on the server and
installing oracle (or even using an image with oracle on it) and then
importing your data would take X amount of time. This scenario takes
about 15 minutes. Nightly backups of the VHDs is all that is required.
It is all still theory, but it does work with no side effects. (that we
have found so far)
So, why go VM - everything breaks eventually (well not really :) ) so
they want to get back up as fast as possible with minimum loss of
data...... I think they are more worried of hardware failure then
simple problems. ---- Really unsure on this part....
As for me...... I am yet to decide if I like the whole idea or not. I
like the job though ;)
Doug
Brian Peasland
> theory if the VHDs (virtual hard drives) are backed up, you could just
> dump C and D on a VM and BOOM you are up and running. I like that idea,
> but it is all theory. Of course I am working this theory into reality.
> I am a hardware/software guy for 11 years, but Oracle is new.
How is this different than taking a snapshot of your server's disk
system? Your storage vendor will be more than happy to discuss how disk
snapshots make backups a very quick operation. Oracle 9i introduced the
facility to halt db I/O (suspend it) while the snapshot is being taken.
(snip)
> In theory this would remove the lengthy restore process from tape or
> other media. Install or flashing an IMAGE back on the server and
> installing oracle (or even using an image with oracle on it) and then
> importing your data would take X amount of time. This scenario takes
> about 15 minutes. Nightly backups of the VHDs is all that is required.
How do you handle your transactions since the last nightly backup was
taken?
> It is all still theory, but it does work with no side effects. (that we
> have found so far)
Lost transactions is a side effect that I can think of....
> So, why go VM - everything breaks eventually (well not really :) ) so
> they want to get back up as fast as possible with minimum loss of
> data...... I think they are more worried of hardware failure then
> simple problems. ---- Really unsure on this part....
I think we're getting down to an actual requirement..."get back up as
fast as possible with minimum loss of data". For this requirement,
Oracle has an option called Data Guard which can be configured for zero
data loss, or minimal data loss. The Data Guard configuration has pros
and cons, but you do have options here.
In your scenario, how do you achieve minimal data loss if you lose the
VM and restore it from its backup? If you take the backup at midnight
and lose the VM at 6pm, how do you get back 18 hours of transactions?
Cheers,
DA Morgan
> Error on my part.... replace the word server wherever you read PC. I
> was in a hurry and didn't want to type out Server ;)
>
>
> Why VM? Well, I think the theory is ease of disaster recovery.
If you are not fully supported by Oracle with your configuration I
would rather strongly disagree. Seems to me you are painting a target
on your backside.
Glen
Could you not just restore the VM from last backup (which is very quick)
, then startup mount the db, recover with backupcontrolfile and apply
all the redo like you would any other database? This is assuming you
have duplexed the redo to another drive or VM..
The time saving here is the time it takes to restore a VM as opposed to
building a new server with OS, install and patch Oracle, then restore
backed up datafiles..
Glen
> Doug Jones wrote:
>
>> Error on my part.... replace the word server wherever you read PC. I
>> was in a hurry and didn't want to type out Server ;)
>>
>>
>> Why VM? Well, I think the theory is ease of disaster recovery.
>
>
> If you are not fully supported by Oracle with your configuration I
> would rather strongly disagree. Seems to me you are painting a target
> on your backside.
Note:249212.1
PURPOSE
-------
Customer Direction for our Support of VMWare by Oracle Support Services
SCOPE & APPLICATION
-------------------
For Customers running Oracle on VMWare. No limitation on use or
distribution.
Support Status for VMWare
-----------------------------
Oracle provides support of the Oracle Stack when running on a VMware
virtual
machine in the following manner. If a problem arises and it is a known
Oracle
issue, Oracle support will recommend the appropriate solution. If that
solution
does not work, the issue will be referred back to VMware for support. If
the
problem is determined to be an unknown Oracle issue when running on a
VMware
virtual machine, and the issue cannot be reproduced on a physical system by
Oracle support, the issue will be referred back to VMware for support.
Oracle
and VMware have in place a joint customer support agreement to enable
customer
support issues to be transferred between the two partners. In addition, all
versions of RAC are not supported on VMWare by Oracle.
Brian Peasland
> , then startup mount the db, recover with backupcontrolfile and apply
> all the redo like you would any other database? This is assuming you
> have duplexed the redo to another drive or VM..
You would have to also have another copy of the archived redo logs. The
online redo logs would not be enough.
> The time saving here is the time it takes to restore a VM as opposed to
> building a new server with OS, install and patch Oracle, then restore
> backed up datafiles..
A good backup strategy would also backup the OS, so it would not have to
be re-installed, re-configured, and re-patched.
Doug Jones
there may infact be better practices that could be put into production.
However, being that I can't change how things are, I would be more
interested in what impact running Oracle on a Mircosoft Virtual server
would have. What is the average "workload" of an Oracle server for say
100 users and a database about 11.9gig (backup file size). I really
appreciate such a great response to my question. I haven't seen this
much support since my days in the Linux forums.
Doug Jones.
Brian Peasland
> Sadly I am not in the position to change things here. I understand that
> there may infact be better practices that could be put into production.
> However, being that I can't change how things are, I would be more
> interested in what impact running Oracle on a Mircosoft Virtual server
> would have. What is the average "workload" of an Oracle server for say
> 100 users and a database about 11.9gig (backup file size). I really
> appreciate such a great response to my question. I haven't seen this
> much support since my days in the Linux forums.
There is no such thing as an "average" workload. My 100 users may, and
most likely *will* have a completely different workload on my database
when compared with your users and your database. We are talking
different data, different users, different access patterns, different
applications. There is no magic formula similar to the following:
workload = (#users*db_size*magic_factor)
The best you can do is to implement the system and monitor the workload
and its impact on your resources.
HTH,
DA Morgan
> Sadly I am not in the position to change things here. I understand that
> there may infact be better practices that could be put into production.
> However, being that I can't change how things are, I would be more
> interested in what impact running Oracle on a Mircosoft Virtual server
> would have. What is the average "workload" of an Oracle server for say
> 100 users and a database about 11.9gig (backup file size). I really
> appreciate such a great response to my question. I haven't seen this
> much support since my days in the Linux forums.
>
> Doug Jones.
Is management aware of the implications of the decision made by others?
Do they realize that they are essentially unsupported if something goes
terribly wrong?
My guess is that no one has told them.
I understand that my advice entails career risks but I think you have
a responsibility to make sure that someone communicates the risks and
make sure that upper management is willing to accept the responsibility.
Doug Jones
fairly "fresh" meat in the office, the recommendations of this group
have "put a stop" to the theory for the time being of Oracle on a
virtual server. I will be doing more work with the proposed setup in
Virtual Server. If it does go into production, I will post updates to
this thread as to how it is (or isn't) working. Nothing like a good "I
told you so" ;)
Thanks again,
Doug
Any other books / sources you would recommend for my library? Remember,
I am all new to this Oracle scene.
Thanks again.
klabu
Doug Jones wrote:
> Any other books / sources you would recommend for my library? Remember,
> I am all new to this Oracle scene.
hit the doc library
Doug Jones
????
What exactly is a sufficiently old backup?
DA Morgan
It means you didn't include platform and operating system.
It means you didn't include the version number and edition.
It means you didn't include the full text of the actual error message.
It means you didn't describe what you are doing or why.
The result being that while I could make a reasonably accurate guess
I will not as it might lead you to do something inappropriate if the
guess is incorrect.