3 ms·

Enterprise companies also care about OPEX.. i.e. if they have an internal SLA that can be met with a 100 node C* cluster or with 10 Scylla nodes, that will matt

by hendzen 10y ago

Enterprise companies also care about OPEX.. i.e. if they have an internal SLA that can be met with a 100 node C* cluster or with 10 Scylla nodes, that will matter quite a bit.

threeseed 10y ago
Enterprise companies spend millions on database projects and majority of the cost comes from Professional Services and Consultancies engaged in data migration etc. So cost of the product itself is never the driving factor especially when the cost will be so substantially less already than Teradata or Oracle. And the most important part of a database is confidence. You need to be able to trust that when you have a Production outage IT is able to talk to someone to fix it. DataStax has proven capable of meeting that task. It's very difficult for a second tier player to do the same especially with Cassandra being such a niche product.
- true_religion 10y ago
  Doing more with the same budget is a big thing within any department. It's a way to show 'efficiency' thus garner points for promotion. Overall company budget for a technology group is besides the point---individual departments are budget constrained and being able to say I saved 30% last quarter, and whilst handing 200% more operations is something any manager would love.
- hendzen 10y ago
  I used to work for a database company and have been involved in the purchasing side of database support contracts. Professional Services/Consulting is a small revenue line (and TCO component) relative to support licensing. It also has considerably lower margins. Scylla is an upstart... but I would not call them a second tier player. DataStax is already trying and failing [0, 1] to incorporate ideas from Scylla in to their product. Yes, support and SLAs matter. And this round of funding will go a long way toward helping Scylla build out those parts of their business. [0] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10989 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10989 [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8520 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8520

by hendzen 10y ago

Enterprise companies also care about OPEX.. i.e. if they have an internal SLA that can be met with a 100 node C* cluster or with 10 Scylla nodes, that will matter quite a bit.

threeseed 10y ago

Enterprise companies spend millions on database projects and majority of the cost comes from Professional Services and Consultancies engaged in data migration etc. So cost of the product itself is never the driving factor especially when the cost will be so substantially less already than Teradata or Oracle. And the most important part of a database is confidence. You need to be able to trust that when you have a Production outage IT is able to talk to someone to fix it. DataStax has proven capable of meeting that task. It's very difficult for a second tier player to do the same especially with Cassandra being such a niche product.

true_religion 10y ago
Doing more with the same budget is a big thing within any department. It's a way to show 'efficiency' thus garner points for promotion. Overall company budget for a technology group is besides the point---individual departments are budget constrained and being able to say I saved 30% last quarter, and whilst handing 200% more operations is something any manager would love.
hendzen 10y ago
I used to work for a database company and have been involved in the purchasing side of database support contracts. Professional Services/Consulting is a small revenue line (and TCO component) relative to support licensing. It also has considerably lower margins. Scylla is an upstart... but I would not call them a second tier player. DataStax is already trying and failing [0, 1] to incorporate ideas from Scylla in to their product. Yes, support and SLAs matter. And this round of funding will go a long way toward helping Scylla build out those parts of their business. [0] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10989 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10989 [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8520 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8520