What is our primary use case?
Clients are typically running Linux on Oracle VM, and then they're running Oracle databases on top of that.
How has it helped my organization?
The solution helps manage a company's costs. I typically run into great resistance as most organizations already have an existing virtualization infrastructure or technology. If you're running someone else's virtualization, having a third party or a second virtualization technology tends not to be warmly received. Any place I've got VMware, I never get a large Oracle VM infrastructure. I get what's needed, however. It serves a purpose as it keeps the number of cores down. It works. It's reliable. It's stable. It does what it needs to do. I've got no technical complaints about it.
What is most valuable?
Due to the fact that it doesn't have as many, let's just say, bells and whistles, it's less distracting. It's not that difficult to master.
The documentation that the product has on offer is very good.
Once you get it set up, you tend to set it and forget it, and there's not a lot that you have to do.
The biggest reason for using Oracle VM is the CPU fencing or licensing of CPU cores. Oracle makes the claim that if you run on VMware, you're getting value from the processors in the cluster over and above the processes that are associated with your particular VM. Due to that stance, companies wind up licensing basically the entire cluster for VMware. If all you're doing is running Oracle's database, and it's got a particular purpose and it's very focused, you can put Oracle's VMware or Oracle's VM on the server, create your virtual machine, and set the number of CPU cores that is going to use. Oracle finds that acceptable for licensing. That will control your costs, due to the fact that suddenly you don't have to license 24 cores when in fact you're only consuming four or eight. It is used at that level as a licensing mechanism, quite frankly.
Oracle is probably the best database technology out there. Arguably, it is. I've never found anything as complete in terms of feature and functionality and sophistication. You could make arguments with niche or smaller venues. DB2 is certainly a viable alternative. So is the SQL server. Nothing scales and nothing handles complexity like Oracle.
That said, not everybody buys Oracle for the complexity. They buy it for a particular purpose, whether they're a state and local government, or whether they're in some particular industry vertical. I work with four or five different industries. I've seen it in very small companies, in which case it's almost part of the woodwork or the fabric, so to speak. You don't really pay attention to it. On the other hand, large organizations that use it have it as it's the only game in town for certain features.
What needs improvement?
I've found that using Oracle VM is like stepping back in time. It's not kept up with technology. The only reason anyone uses it is that they're afraid of Oracle's licensing. Oracle has a tremendously bad licensing approach.
VMware, in comparison, has got so many different features that you can use in ESXi for example. Oracle is a lot simpler with fewer features.
I find their VM backup features to be somewhat difficult. I wish it was a little easier to back up and clone.
It would be ideal if Oracle could grow to take on VMware directly, in order to foster more competition.
For how long have I used the solution?
I've used Oracle for many years. It's been a long time. It's probably been about ten years on and off, depending on what the client needs.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability is quite good. You set and forget. It's not a fussy solution. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's great.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I didn't find scalability to be an issue, however, the difficulty is with any hardware refreshes done today. You're going to get more cores due to the fact that that's all Intel can do. Intel can't crank the clock speed much past five gigahertz, not without heroic amounts of cooling. It's just the laws of physics. All Intel can do, all AMD can do, is give you more cores.
The problem is that Oracle's licensing model charges by the core. There's a formula to it and it depends on which features, etc., however, basically it's by the core that dictates the cost. At the end of the day, you're going to pay for the number of cores you're using.
Therefore, you've got to put it on a new machine without Oracle's virtualization technology to help you manage the licensing. You go from a basic 5,100 series Intel chip with four cores. to a new gold chip, or whatever it is, and it's got 18 cores. All of a sudden you owe Oracle a lot more money, as there are a lot more cores.
That's not the kind of surprise that most companies appreciate. Your costs went up simply due to a newer chip. That's a hard sell. By using Oracle's virtualization technology, you can manage those licenses, allocate virtual CPUs to the level that you have an existing license, and control your costs while essentially getting a little bit more oomph. At least you're on a new, more reliable hardware platform. That's where virtualization really comes in.
It helps manage the licensing. Oracle should just fully embrace VMware as a viable licensable technology. It would make life a whole lot easier for a lot of companies, however, they're not going to. They had the same stance when Sun Microsystems had its own virtualization technology. In that case, Oracle acquired it, and all of a sudden Sun's virtualization technology was acceptable. It's a marketing game, to be perfectly frank, and we all know that. That said, Oracle gets to set the rules.
How are customer service and technical support?
I've used their technical support in the past and they are very, very good. I'd rate them at an eight or nine out of ten in terms of the service they provide.
Like a lot of environments, if you had a system down, that's a priority one issue, and they handle it well. I would put everything I own on their tech support. They have multiple support centers around the world, and you can follow the sun - which I have done to fix issues. That's outstanding.
If you have small questions, odd issues, it can take a while to get through tech support. That's typical, as your problem is not the default. Your problem is some complicated issue with an interaction between multiple pieces of software or multiple configurations, whatever it might be. Those kinds of issues are difficult to dissect and resolve. You'll go into this loop of, "Well, try this. Well, try this. Well, give us more information about this." I understand, however. That's just simply debugging. There's nothing to be done. It can just take a while. However, if it's a priority, if it's a P1, they're fantastic. They really do a good job.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I've used VMware quite often, and it's an outstanding solution. It's got lots of different options, and of course, you can do things like VMotion, which allows you to move a VM in the cluster. The reason for deploying Oracle's VM is to manage the licensing, however, as we would have had to buy 10 times the number of cores if it was in a VMware cluster. That would drive up the costs.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup takes a little bit of thinking, and a little bit of reading, however, it's not particularly difficult. If you have the rest of your hardware and everything in place, it installs within a day or two. By that I mean you need a day to install it and then another day or so to adjust and tweak, and I haven't found it to be that difficult to install.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
On one hand, I like Oracle's licensing strategy in that they don't have license keys. You don't have to call and beg for another 30-day key and all the hassle that a lot of smaller companies do. Oracle does allow new users to understand what the value of their VM is for you.
I see using this solution primarily as a way of maintaining or managing my costs. Anybody who's got any experience in another virtualization technology will pick it up fairly rapidly. It's not difficult to understand. It's not difficult to use. However, if you've got a set of standards and practices in your existing IT, it's another one to learn. It's another one to maintain. And most companies try to streamline.
Their licensing is based on the number of cores. Companies need to be careful about costs as they can rise rapidly.
What other advice do I have?
We don't have a business relationship with Oracle. One of the things that's unusual about my company is we absolutely do not court or back any particular technology player as we're the trusted advisor helping companies understand and solve problems. How unbiased can I be if I'm getting marketing dollars from Oracle or from Microsoft or from somebody else? We stand on our own. That's not always easy, however, it's the right thing to do. When I make a recommendation, it is with 100% the customer's interests in mind.
I come in and work with companies that are in the process of migrating or updating off of older systems and into newer technologies, whether it be an on-prem hyper-converged type of infrastructure or into the cloud. I've got about 30 years' worth of experience with Oracle as an administrator and as a manager.
A lot of times the customers are not quite sure what they want to go with. VMware is the big player in the virtualization space. I'm involved with a customer right now doing a large virtualization project where they're moving from individual old servers to a virtualized Dell VxRail environment. Therefore, I don't work exclusively with Oracle.
Oracle has moved to KVM. Essentially they're trying to consolidate and trying to use KVM as it's slightly more popular and more robust virtualization technology. There are other ways of solving the problem, however, KVM has been around a while and Oracle's very tied to the Linux platform - although they do run on Windows and I've got clients running Oracle in Azure cloud. It really doesn't matter for virtualization.
In terms of the Oracle versions we would use, it was mostly the latest version that we could get our hands on. It's always best to go with the latest versions. Oracle has a support policy that they maintain the current version, one version back, and everything older than that tends to be somewhat difficult to get support on. Therefore, you don't want to linger. However, a lot of people use Oracle virtualization as what I'd call minimal infrastructure. We're running it due to the fact that we need to have virtualization based on Oracle licensing concerns. It works, however, it's not anywhere to the same level of sophistication or of tools that, say, a VMware would be. It's like stepping back about two or three generations of VMware.
I would advise others to understand what the value of this particular layer of the stack is going to provide for you. Oracle has a very good policy in terms of letting you download the software. There's really no license keys. You can play with it and try to understand it and make sure that it's going to work for you. You don't want to run this longer than necessary. Oracle's not going to let you use it for six months. However, you certainly can pull it down, install it, understand what it can and can't do for you, and then use it appropriately.
On a scale from one to ten, I would say it's a solid seven. It lacks some of the newer features that VMware and Microsoft virtualization technology have, however, that's not necessarily a showstopper for what it's used for. If you want all the flashiness, then you tend to rate it lower, yet it's quite functional and does the job.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
There is a great comparison of Vmware vs physical vs OVM by flashdba. Remember that he used all flash storage hence real world values will have smaller variance as disk itself will introduce latencies that are similar for all.. having said that the difference between OVM and Vmware is not very high 1133 mbps vs 1052 mbps where as physical was 1519 mbps. given that the realworld values would be affected by the type of storage array and storage connectivity I think if you are choosing virtualization you have already compromised on your I/O. flashdba.com