X

The Latest Technology Stack News Directly from EBS Development

Assessing E-Business Suite Performance on Oracle VM

Steven Chan
Senior Director

Guest Author: Ivo Dujmovic

For those of you with travel budgets, this might be a repeat of an item mentioned in my OpenWorld presentation this year, but I think it worth while sharing with our readers here.  The results of our first benchmarking efforts of E-Business Suite on Oracle VM indicate that the virtualization overhead peaks are around 2-3%. In other words, most of the time the virtualization overhead is not measurable, and at peak overhead times, it is negligible.  

Line graph showing Oracle VM overhead for E-Business Suite instances OVMOverhead.jpg
How were these benchmarks measured? This performance measurements were done with IBM hardware, and included batch and OLTP load from the E-Business Suite Benchmarking Suite. The 12.1.2-based workload included Payroll batch load and assorted online transactions from AR, INV, FA, GL. The E-Business Suite performance team is working on further benchmarks, and more detailed whitepapers might arrive at a later date.  If they're published externally, we'll post links here. Related Articles
 

Join the discussion

Comments ( 1 )
  • Jay Weinshenker Thursday, November 18, 2010

    One has to ask... you wrote 12.1.2.. what's the version of the DB, CPUs and RAM specs, Oracle VM configuration, the DB platform (OEL ? 5.X ), what kernel, if RAC is involved, etc...

    I haven't looked, but with some free time over American Thanksgiving coming up, I was wondering if the EBS Benchmarking Suite and the testing methodology you all used is available to customers like myself so I can test out different configurations for my own internal use.

    As always, thanks for publishing this - I know almost every EBS customer system I've seen could easily give up the 2-3% overhead in return for the benefits of virtualization


Please enter your name.Please provide a valid email address.Please enter a comment.CAPTCHA challenge response provided was incorrect. Please try again.

Recent Content