6 ms·

Is this not a case study that anyone can leave Oracle now, if an Amazon scale install can?

vkaku 7y ago
It shows that a big company like Amazon, hiring thousands of SDEs still needed other vendors software than their own, because of all that time they spent in hiring and firing people and obsessing over their customers needs. sarcasm
- vkaku 7y ago
  Also, MySQL is technically, an Oracle database (after Sun got bought out). Now they should write some migrations to turn all of that off. sarcasm intensifies
  - deweller 7y ago
    I expect the internal teams use Amazon Aurora instead of MySQL. Aurora is compatible with MySQL but is not owned by Oracle.
    - vkaku 7y ago
      Yeah but the client interfaces are all MySQL. Oracle should buy off PostgreSQL too. And then it should start charging only Amazon for using these interfaces. moar sarcasm.
  - gerdesj 7y ago
    MariaDB - https://mariadb.org/about/ https://mariadb.org/about/
    - vkaku 7y ago
      There was also MaxDB, and a few other that Monty built. There's also Percona, WebscaleSQL and a few other forks. Amazon have been using MySQL even before all these forks happened. And not only that, if Oracle decided to pursue a lawsuit, or if MariaDB, Percona, Elasticsearch or EnterpriseDB did, Amazon will have to cough up. This is not really a thing that Amazon should be bragging about, because it makes no real sense! They still run a lot of software they did not write.
      - jhall1468 7y ago
        Note: Amazon employee, but opinions are mine. Amazon did not replace Oracle with MySQL. You seems to talk a lot given your knowledge of how Amazon operates internally and how licensing works is... blatantly false. All of those DB's that could "pursue" a lawsuit are built on open source licenses which Amazon is not violating. But the most important point here: The idea that you have to write a database to be happy to be off Oracle is insane. Amazon moved to an alternative that doesn't have a deep license designed to financially screw their clients as much as possible. That's a win.
        vkaku 7y ago
        1. When did I say that Amazon replaced Oracle with MySQL? I just said that MySQL is an Oracle database. 2. Open Source licenses that Amazon is not violating - a 3rdparty lawyer would be able to ascertain better about the extent of legality on Amazon's changes and its contribution back to open source software than you and I do. 3. Ex-Amazon employee here. My comments are purely based on my observation - and purely my opinions. Why can't I talk a lot?
        jhall1468 7y ago
        1. I assumed it was implied. Why else bring it up? 2. If there was a means to sue Amazon for hosting databases, Oracle would have already done it a LONG time ago with MySQL. The burden is on you to prove your claim. 3. You are free to talk as much as you want, just expect push back when you aren't right, a lot. ;)
        vkaku 7y ago
        1. and 2. Amazon does use a lot of MySQL, and the fact that they still do. Oracle can determine when and how it wants to bill Amazon. You and I can't change any of that. 3. Except when the other person isn't. You just lost me on the last comment.
      - cthalupa 7y ago
        >Amazon have been using MySQL even before all these forks happened. And not only that, if Oracle decided to pursue a lawsuit, or if MariaDB, Percona, Elasticsearch or EnterpriseDB did, Amazon will have to cough up. Pursue a lawsuit over... what, exactly?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- StreamBright 7y ago
  No, it means that Amazon reached the point of considering other solutions than Oracle (I bet partially because of cost) at the time when this project started to move their database workloads that at the time were residing on Oracle to something else. Amazon uses many software vendors, they by no mean suffer from the NIH (not invented here) plague.
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
Or is it a case study that you need the resources of Amazon to pull off migrating from Oracle?
mmsimanga 7y ago
> some third-party applications are tightly bound to Oracle and were not migrated Oracle's strategy of buying companies like PeopleSoft is paying off.
AshwinDurairaj 7y ago
SAP and Salesforce would love to, but haven't achieved Oracle-free status to the joy of Larry.
- notzuck 7y ago
  S4 doesn't use Oracle, Commerce doesn't use Oracle. Some of the acquisitions still do because nobody wanted to free up cash.
mumblemumble 7y ago
It is not. Amazon accomplished the task by building their own Oracle replacement. You have to be approximately as large as Amazon for that to be a realistic option. If you'd like to use the alternatives that Amazon built, you can, of course, migrate to Amazon Web Services. Though, if you dislike the vendor lock-in you're experiencing with Oracle, and are considering Amazon as a good place to flee to, you possibly haven't been paying attention. With Oracle, you're just renting the software. With Amazon, you're renting both the software and the hardware, and renting the hardware is a precondition of being able to continue using the software, AND they charge you a fee to move your data off of their hardware. It's one of the most well-engineered enterprise vendor lock-in traps the industry has ever seen.
- cwyers 7y ago
  Most places likely aren't using Oracle at Amazon's scale, either. I suspect that one of MySQL, Postgres or Microsoft SQL Server can fill in for Oracle if you have access to the source code and can make changes yourself. (If you've bought software that is Oracle-only, then it's not an option -- but it wasn't an option for Amazon, either). I suspect that in a lot of cases, this will pay for itself, but it might take 10 years to do so.
  - sovnade 7y ago
    Depending on the size of your install, there are companies that are very good at converting over something like Oracle to Postgres for probably much less than you'd expect. With the price of oracle licensing, your break-even could be in a year or two.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    >Microsoft SQL Server Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
    - mumblemumble 7y ago
      MSSQL's really not too bad. Yes, it's a commercial offering, but there's nothing inherently evil about charging money for software, and you do get what you pay for. I've worked in both MSSQL shops and PostgreSQL shops, and, while I wasn't in charge of the budget, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that, once you factor paying your programmers and DBAs for their time into the equation, the MSSQL shop ended up having lower overall costs associated with its choice of DBMS.
ceejayoz 7y ago
Just because Bill Gates has the resources to buy a fleet of 747s doesn't mean I can.
StreamBright 7y ago
I think the approach can be applied to many companies. I have seen some companies turning every single data storing problem into an Oracle problem. Amazon turned many of the problems into ones that are easier to solve. Using 6 different technologies[1]. I am sure not all applies to all departments but it is a better approach to do this at the scale they got. For small companies this really does not matter. If your hot data fits a single node disk cache you obviously won't benefit from using a horizontally scalable database but Oracle's customers are often in the higher end of the scale spectrum. The question is how can Amazon compete with Oracle where the relationship is there for decades between a customer and Oracle. Good example of this is banks. They managed to get some of the financial companies to move some workloads to AWS but to move Oracle workloads to something else is a whole different game. 1. https://media.amazonwebservices.com/blog/2019/bye_bye_oracle_1.png https://media.amazonwebservices.com/blog/2019/bye_bye_oracle...
tanilama 7y ago
It is. The effort is not really as other comments put out to build a Oracle competitors. Arguably for most companies, the open source alternatives are enough for them to be happy with. What Amazon shown here is the transition at scale is possible.

It shows that a big company like Amazon, hiring thousands of SDEs still needed other vendors software than their own, because of all that time they spent in hiring and firing people and obsessing over their customers needs. sarcasm

vkaku 7y ago
Also, MySQL is technically, an Oracle database (after Sun got bought out). Now they should write some migrations to turn all of that off. sarcasm intensifies
- deweller 7y ago
  I expect the internal teams use Amazon Aurora instead of MySQL. Aurora is compatible with MySQL but is not owned by Oracle.
  - vkaku 7y ago
    Yeah but the client interfaces are all MySQL. Oracle should buy off PostgreSQL too. And then it should start charging only Amazon for using these interfaces. moar sarcasm.
- gerdesj 7y ago
  MariaDB - https://mariadb.org/about/ https://mariadb.org/about/
  - vkaku 7y ago
    There was also MaxDB, and a few other that Monty built. There's also Percona, WebscaleSQL and a few other forks. Amazon have been using MySQL even before all these forks happened. And not only that, if Oracle decided to pursue a lawsuit, or if MariaDB, Percona, Elasticsearch or EnterpriseDB did, Amazon will have to cough up. This is not really a thing that Amazon should be bragging about, because it makes no real sense! They still run a lot of software they did not write.
    - jhall1468 7y ago
      Note: Amazon employee, but opinions are mine. Amazon did not replace Oracle with MySQL. You seems to talk a lot given your knowledge of how Amazon operates internally and how licensing works is... blatantly false. All of those DB's that could "pursue" a lawsuit are built on open source licenses which Amazon is not violating. But the most important point here: The idea that you have to write a database to be happy to be off Oracle is insane. Amazon moved to an alternative that doesn't have a deep license designed to financially screw their clients as much as possible. That's a win.
      - vkaku 7y ago
        1. When did I say that Amazon replaced Oracle with MySQL? I just said that MySQL is an Oracle database. 2. Open Source licenses that Amazon is not violating - a 3rdparty lawyer would be able to ascertain better about the extent of legality on Amazon's changes and its contribution back to open source software than you and I do. 3. Ex-Amazon employee here. My comments are purely based on my observation - and purely my opinions. Why can't I talk a lot?
        jhall1468 7y ago
        1. I assumed it was implied. Why else bring it up? 2. If there was a means to sue Amazon for hosting databases, Oracle would have already done it a LONG time ago with MySQL. The burden is on you to prove your claim. 3. You are free to talk as much as you want, just expect push back when you aren't right, a lot. ;)
        vkaku 7y ago
        1. and 2. Amazon does use a lot of MySQL, and the fact that they still do. Oracle can determine when and how it wants to bill Amazon. You and I can't change any of that. 3. Except when the other person isn't. You just lost me on the last comment.
    - cthalupa 7y ago
      >Amazon have been using MySQL even before all these forks happened. And not only that, if Oracle decided to pursue a lawsuit, or if MariaDB, Percona, Elasticsearch or EnterpriseDB did, Amazon will have to cough up. Pursue a lawsuit over... what, exactly?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
StreamBright 7y ago
No, it means that Amazon reached the point of considering other solutions than Oracle (I bet partially because of cost) at the time when this project started to move their database workloads that at the time were residing on Oracle to something else. Amazon uses many software vendors, they by no mean suffer from the NIH (not invented here) plague.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago

Or is it a case study that you need the resources of Amazon to pull off migrating from Oracle?

mmsimanga 7y ago

> some third-party applications are tightly bound to Oracle and were not migrated Oracle's strategy of buying companies like PeopleSoft is paying off.

AshwinDurairaj 7y ago

SAP and Salesforce would love to, but haven't achieved Oracle-free status to the joy of Larry.

notzuck 7y ago
S4 doesn't use Oracle, Commerce doesn't use Oracle. Some of the acquisitions still do because nobody wanted to free up cash.

mumblemumble 7y ago

It is not. Amazon accomplished the task by building their own Oracle replacement. You have to be approximately as large as Amazon for that to be a realistic option. If you'd like to use the alternatives that Amazon built, you can, of course, migrate to Amazon Web Services. Though, if you dislike the vendor lock-in you're experiencing with Oracle, and are considering Amazon as a good place to flee to, you possibly haven't been paying attention. With Oracle, you're just renting the software. With Amazon, you're renting both the software and the hardware, and renting the hardware is a precondition of being able to continue using the software, AND they charge you a fee to move your data off of their hardware. It's one of the most well-engineered enterprise vendor lock-in traps the industry has ever seen.

cwyers 7y ago
Most places likely aren't using Oracle at Amazon's scale, either. I suspect that one of MySQL, Postgres or Microsoft SQL Server can fill in for Oracle if you have access to the source code and can make changes yourself. (If you've bought software that is Oracle-only, then it's not an option -- but it wasn't an option for Amazon, either). I suspect that in a lot of cases, this will pay for itself, but it might take 10 years to do so.
- sovnade 7y ago
  Depending on the size of your install, there are companies that are very good at converting over something like Oracle to Postgres for probably much less than you'd expect. With the price of oracle licensing, your break-even could be in a year or two.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >Microsoft SQL Server Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
  - mumblemumble 7y ago
    MSSQL's really not too bad. Yes, it's a commercial offering, but there's nothing inherently evil about charging money for software, and you do get what you pay for. I've worked in both MSSQL shops and PostgreSQL shops, and, while I wasn't in charge of the budget, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that, once you factor paying your programmers and DBAs for their time into the equation, the MSSQL shop ended up having lower overall costs associated with its choice of DBMS.

ceejayoz 7y ago

Just because Bill Gates has the resources to buy a fleet of 747s doesn't mean I can.

StreamBright 7y ago

I think the approach can be applied to many companies. I have seen some companies turning every single data storing problem into an Oracle problem. Amazon turned many of the problems into ones that are easier to solve. Using 6 different technologies[1]. I am sure not all applies to all departments but it is a better approach to do this at the scale they got. For small companies this really does not matter. If your hot data fits a single node disk cache you obviously won't benefit from using a horizontally scalable database but Oracle's customers are often in the higher end of the scale spectrum. The question is how can Amazon compete with Oracle where the relationship is there for decades between a customer and Oracle. Good example of this is banks. They managed to get some of the financial companies to move some workloads to AWS but to move Oracle workloads to something else is a whole different game. 1. https://media.amazonwebservices.com/blog/2019/bye_bye_oracle_1.png https://media.amazonwebservices.com/blog/2019/bye_bye_oracle...

tanilama 7y ago

It is. The effort is not really as other comments put out to build a Oracle competitors. Arguably for most companies, the open source alternatives are enough for them to be happy with. What Amazon shown here is the transition at scale is possible.