4 ms·
1. Price if obvious reason of migration, and in their case (multiple datacenters and "-1 datacenter" policy) it was huge benefit. 2. The other concern was Orac
by postila 10y ago
1. Price if obvious reason of migration, and in their case (multiple datacenters and "-1 datacenter" policy) it was huge benefit.
2. The other concern was Oracle's slow bugfixing and reaction to feedback.
So, this is a good case showing how a company can stop wasting millions of $ for proprietary software, joining Open Source community, contributing to it and taking benefits from tech collaboration with core developers of the product.
- niftich 10y agoSo, they say 'shop.oracle.com' was their 'main reason' for switching but that reads as a half-joke, half-serious riff on Oracle's famous ability to extract money from people; the other salient points I can find are: - PL/SQL was harder to deploy than PL/pgSQL (as stated later) - Only synchronous interface in Oracle's OCCI - Problems with Oracle's development environments - Not very responsive support from Oracle. But the dev environment and support for Postgres are not talked about. Also I can't quite figure out if "3x more hardware" is supposed to be a good thing on their last slide. It's possible that it's a good thing (if it's, say, we can replicate to more servers), but to me it doesn't read like one.
- postila 10y agoDetails were in the talk itself, watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SS4R1sFH3c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SS4R1sFH3c. In particular, they mentioned how Tom Lane fixed a bug they found and did it just in 38 minutes.
- elmigranto 10y ago> I can't quite figure out if "3x more hardware" is supposed to be a good thing Initial architecture with 2 servers was set up that way to save money on Oracle per-core licensing. They wanted to add more, but that was too costly.