Notes on the Oracle Big Data Appliance
Oracle announced its Big Data Appliance. Specs may be found in the Oracle Big Data Appliance press release. Beyond that:
- The most important software on the Oracle Big Data Appliance is a full set of Cloudera Enterprise code. Oracle will do Tier 1 Cloudera/Hadoop support, while Cloudera handles Tiers 2 and 3.
- The key spec ratios are 1 core/4 GB RAM/3 TB raw disk. That’s reasonably in line with Cloudera figures I published in June, 2010.
- This is really Oracle’s multi-structured big data appliance. Oracle’s relational big data appliance is Exadata, which has been out for years and has comparable capacity to Oracle’s new “Big Data Appliance.” (Chris Preimesberger made a similar point.)
- The Oracle Big Data Appliance list price is $450,000 for 18 12-core servers, plus $54,000/year maintenance.
- That’s around $25,000 per server (and associated storage).
- That’s also around $2,000/core.
- That’s also around $500/TB of spinning disk, before compression.
- None of those per-unit figures sounds ridiculous …
- … but because of Oracle’s appliance configuration there’s indeed a hefty minimum initial purchase.
Exasol update
I last wrote about Exasol in 2008. After talking with the team Friday, I’m fixing that now. 🙂 The general theme was as you’d expect: Since last we talked, Exasol has added some new management, put some effort into sales and marketing, got some customers, kept enhancing the product and so on.
Top-level points included:
- Exasol’s technical philosophy is substantially the same as before, albeit not with as extreme a focus on fitting everything in RAM.
- Exasol believes its flagship DBMS EXASolution has great performance on a load-and-go basis.
- Exasol has 25 EXASolution customers, all in Germany.*
- 5 of those are “cloud” customers, at hosting providers engaged by Exasol.
- EXASolution database sizes now range from the low 100s of gigabytes up to 30 terabytes.
- Pretty much the whole company is in Nuremberg.
Vertica Community Edition
The press release announcing Vertica’s Community Edition is a bit vague. And indeed, much of what I know about Vertica Community Edition is along the lines of “This is what I think will happen, but of course it could still change.” That said, I believe:
- Vertica Community Edition has all of regular Vertica’s features. However …
- … HP Vertica reserves the right to open a feature gap in future releases.
- The license restriction on Vertica Community Edition is that you’re limited to 1 terabyte of data, and 3 nodes. I imagine that’s for one production copy, and you’re perfectly free to also set up mirrors for test, development, disaster recovery, and so on. However …
- … HP Vertica would be annoyed if you stuck a free copy of Vertica on each of 50 nodes and managed the whole thing via, say, Hadapt.
- HP Vertica plans to be very generous with true academic researchers, suspending or waiving limits on database size and node count. Not coincidentally, Vertica Community Edition is being announced at XLDB, where Vertica is also a top-level sponsor. (I introduced Vertica and XLDB’s Jacek Becla to each other as soon as I heard about Vertica’s Community Edition plans.)
- The only support available for Vertica Community Edition is through forums. This could change.
I’m a big supporter of the Vertica Community Edition idea, for four reasons:
- It should now be easier to download and evaluate Vertica.
- Vertica Community Edition could be a big help to academic researchers.
- Vertica could now be more appealing to some of the “Omigod, we’re outgrowing Oracle Standard Edition and we don’t want to pay up for Oracle Enterprise Edition/Exadata” crowd.
- People are under the impression that what Vertica actually charges today resembles its long-ago list prices. This announcement may help puncture Vertica’s outdated pricing image.
| Categories: Pricing, Vertica Systems | 7 Comments |
salesforce.com, force.com, database.com, data.com, heroku.com — notes and context
As previously noted, I attended Dreamforce, the user conference for my clients at salesforce.com. When I work with them, I focus primarily on database.com and related businesses. I’ve had to struggle a bit, however, to sort out the various pieces, and specifically the differences among:
- salesforce.com. This is the parent company, and the runaway leader in the SaaS (Software as a Service) enterprise application market, especially in the area of CRM (Customer Relationship Management).
- force.com. This is salesforce.com’s application development stack split out for other SaaS vendors to use, both inside and outside the CRM segment. It can be referred to as a PaaS offering (Platform as a Service). force.com relies on a proprietary salesforce.com language called APEX, which has a strong stored procedure/ database trigger orientation.
- database.com. This is the database part of force.com, spun out separately in general availability as of Dreamforce two weeks ago.
- data.com. Also launched at Dreamforce (and based, if I understand correctly, on an acquisition), this is a provider of 3rd-party data you might use as inputs to your CRM systems.
- Heroku. Another salesforce.com acquisition, Heroku is in essence a PaaS competitor to force.com. Heroku is focused on Ruby and Java, and supports a number of DBMS, SQL and NoSQL alike.
- AppExchange. This is a marketplace for things designed to integrate with salesforce.com (and perhaps also apps built on force.com). The latest claim is that there are 1200+ AppExchange offerings.
- The complete set of SaaS apps built on force.com. A 2008 white paper refers to 47,000 organizations being “supported” by force.com. Recently I’ve heard a figure just under 100,000. I’m not clear as to what that metric measures — aggregate users of SaaS apps built via force.com? Clearly there are a lot of SaaS apps built on force.com, with actual customers, but I don’t know how big “a lot” is. (Perhaps a salesforce.com person could chime into the comment thread with some clarity.)
| Categories: Market share and customer counts, Pricing, salesforce.com, Software as a Service (SaaS) | 2 Comments |
Kaminario goes (mainly) flash
Kaminario, which used to be in the business of solid state storage via DRAM, now is emphasizing hybrid DRAM/flash storage appliances instead. The reason is evidently price. Per terabyte of primary storage (before mirroring onto disk and so on):
- A Kaminario K2 DRAM-only appliance costs $100K.
- A Kaminario K2 flash-only appliance costs $30K (but nobody buys that configuration).
- A typical Kaminario K2 hybrid DRAM/flash appliance might cost $35K (which tells us that there’s a lot more flash than DRAM).
Kaminario positions DRAM as where you focus your most write-intensive/ bottlenecking loads, such as logging or temp space, with the primary benefit being performance and a secondary benefit being slowing the wear on your flash.
| Categories: Kaminario, OLTP, Pricing, Solid-state memory | 6 Comments |
Eight kinds of analytic database (Part 1)
Analytic data management technology has blossomed, leading to many questions along the lines of “So which products should I use for which category of problem?” The old EDW/data mart dichotomy is hopelessly outdated for that purpose, and adding a third category for “big data” is little help.
Let’s try eight categories instead. While no categorization is ever perfect, these each have at least some degree of technical homogeneity. Figuring out which types of analytic database you have or need — and in most cases you’ll need several — is a great early step in your analytic technology planning. Read more
Observations on Oracle pricing
A couple of months ago, Oracle asked me to pull some observations on pricing until after the earnings call that just occurred, and I grudgingly acquiesced. In the interim, more information on Oracle pricing has emerged (including in the comment thread to that post). The original notes are:
Oracle disputes some common claims about its cost and pricing. In particular, Oracle software maintenance costs a fixed 22% of your annual license price, so if you get a discount on your licenses, it ripples through to your maintenance. This is true even if you have an all-you-can-eat ULA (Unlimited License Agreement).
- Based on that, Oracle contends that Exadata isn’t all that expensive if you have a suitable ULA. You have to buy the hardware and the storage software, but the database server software is effectively free. (Whether your use of additional licenses affect the price of your ULA when it comes up for renewal might, of course, be a different matter.)
- Nothing in that discussion obviates the point that if you’re just using Oracle Standard Edition, upgrading to Oracle Enterprise Edition, associated chargeable options, and/or Exadata can be seriously expensive.
Notes and links, June 15, 2011
Five things: Read more
Hardware for Hadoop
After suggesting that there’s little point to Hadoop appliances, it occurred to me to look into what kinds of hardware actually are used with Hadoop. So far as I can tell:
- Hadoop nodes today tend to run on fairly standard boxes.
- Hadoop nodes in the past have tended to run on boxes that were light with respect to RAM.
- The number of spindles per core on Hadoop node boxes is going up even as disks get bigger.
Slashdot venting thread about Oracle/Sun hardware
Slashdot has what amounts to a venting thread about Oracle/Sun hardware. The one consistent favorable theme is that Sun hardware is good stuff if you want to run Oracle. Otherwise, comments repeatedly say:
- Product discounts are down, effectively creating a price increase.
- Service prices are way up for some customers, because cheaper service options have been eliminated.
- Service quality is unsatisfactory.
- Oracle is difficult to do business with.
So far, I haven’t seen any comments to the effect “I don’t know what you guys are talking about; we’re perfectly happy with Sun”, but surely those will come too.
| Categories: Oracle, Pricing | 4 Comments |