Re: consolidation
- From: Jeremy Schneider <jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:32:05 -0400
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Q: Why isn't the hosting team and vendor proposing a VM cluster to run VMs
on a template of one database instance and listener per VM instead?
A: Because then you wouldn't need as much hardware, and it would be too
easy to manage, and it would be more highly available, all of which results
in lower M2V (a.k.a. money to vendor) and M2H (a.k.a. money to host).
Definitely a good architecture, but there is still a case to be made
for other modes of consolidation!
1) i do think VM-based consolidation makes a strong manageability argument
2) every VM needs an IPs, and in some cases that might be a limited resource
3) if you have lots of small databases with small SGAs, then VM-based
consolidation might be very memory-inefficient. in that case you may
need *more* hardware to do VM-based consolidation that you'd need for
instance-level consolidation.
4) some apps support schema/tablespace-level consolidation which
probably beats everything else for efficiency. also 12c containers may
give these same efficiencies around RAM/SGA.
i had a blog post about this a few years ago...
http://ardentperf.com/2013/12/02/osp-2c-build-a-standard-platform-from-the-bottom-up/
but i've hijacked woody's thread now! changing the subject line...
--
http://about.me/jeremy_schneider
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
