Forum Stats

  • 3,872,498 Users
  • 2,266,434 Discussions


Is Hyper converged Infrastructure the recommended architecture for on-premise builds ?

Max Member Posts: 339 Bronze Badge
edited May 4, 2021 6:03PM in Real Application Clusters

DB version: 19c

OS : Oracle Linux 8.3 

In my shop, I have a requirement to build around 20 databases with total storage of about 70TB in our Datacentre (not cloud). 

Two of these databases will be 3-node RAC and remaining 17 will be 2-node RACs.

My shop received quotes from HP, Lenovo, Oracle, Dell/EMC for Servers and SAN storage.

Then we also received quotes from Hyper Converged Infrastructure (HCI) Architecture vendors like Nutanix, HP and Dell for.

The Hyper Converged Infrastructure guys say that SAN boxes are old architecture. But, is it really true or just sales talk ?

From an Oracle Database perspective, which is better ? The 'traditional' Server + SAN or HCI ? Is it really RAC friendly ? Nutanix guy says RACs can be built on their HCI. Not sure, if it just a sales talk



  • User_F2AU6
    User_F2AU6 Member Posts: 1 Green Ribbon

    Just came across your post while searching for the same topic. I would like to highlight the following facts as I don't have a clear answer as well:

    • Oracle does not consider VMware or AHV (Nutanix Hypervisors) as hardware partitioning, only Oracle KVM is accepted from licensing point of view
    • Red Hat (shares same kernel with Oracle) has announced that Gluster based HCI is not for enterprise production environment
    • SAN is not dead, it is becoming less popular as SDS is eating the market share yet most of the enterprise companies still depends on then for their core workloads.

    The key question would be if Oracle HCI based on Gluster is considered by Oracle as enterprise architecture