3 ms·

Most of those oracle databases are moving off to Aurora, which is pretty much traditional.

repolfx 8y ago
Traditional yes, and not even necessarily better. Amazon had a big outage in recent times that their own post-mortem linked to trying to move off Oracle to Aurora. Interestingly it was posted here to HN and repeatedly and immediately flagged off the page - it appears that some HN readers are very keen on suppressing anything that paints Oracle in a good light. It makes you wonder what other stories might be going missing that would alter people's impressions of this company.
- grumpydba 8y ago
  This article was essentially Oracle PR. Andy Pavlo, database professor at CMU, has debunked it and gave details on the journalist's dishonesty. Also, anything is better than oracle. If not for technical reasons, price wise it makes a lot of sense.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    That sounds completely delusional I'm afraid. The article(s) were summaries of an internal post-mortem written by one of Oracle's competitors - the exact opposite of Oracle PR. And how exactly is some random professor going to debunk the conclusions of Amazon's own staff about their own infrastructure? Your last sentence appears to be typical of the problem I'm describing.
    - grumpydba 8y ago
      First: Andy Pavlo was contacted by the author of the article. He's all but random, he's one of the references in the field. The outage was quite minor, not user visible and cost something around 100k. I've seen such outages after an Oracle version upgrade so it's all but major. For your information I've been managing critical databases for more than a decade so I know that it might look unusual to you, but it's quite clear to anyone barely knowledgeable about database management that the article really overblown the issue. It was also mocked by Amazon's CTO. So please, manage databases for a few years. Then I might hear your opinion and maybe consider it.

Traditional yes, and not even necessarily better. Amazon had a big outage in recent times that their own post-mortem linked to trying to move off Oracle to Aurora. Interestingly it was posted here to HN and repeatedly and immediately flagged off the page - it appears that some HN readers are very keen on suppressing anything that paints Oracle in a good light. It makes you wonder what other stories might be going missing that would alter people's impressions of this company.

grumpydba 8y ago
This article was essentially Oracle PR. Andy Pavlo, database professor at CMU, has debunked it and gave details on the journalist's dishonesty. Also, anything is better than oracle. If not for technical reasons, price wise it makes a lot of sense.
- repolfx 8y ago
  That sounds completely delusional I'm afraid. The article(s) were summaries of an internal post-mortem written by one of Oracle's competitors - the exact opposite of Oracle PR. And how exactly is some random professor going to debunk the conclusions of Amazon's own staff about their own infrastructure? Your last sentence appears to be typical of the problem I'm describing.
  - grumpydba 8y ago
    First: Andy Pavlo was contacted by the author of the article. He's all but random, he's one of the references in the field. The outage was quite minor, not user visible and cost something around 100k. I've seen such outages after an Oracle version upgrade so it's all but major. For your information I've been managing critical databases for more than a decade so I know that it might look unusual to you, but it's quite clear to anyone barely knowledgeable about database management that the article really overblown the issue. It was also mocked by Amazon's CTO. So please, manage databases for a few years. Then I might hear your opinion and maybe consider it.