4 ms·

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 op

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.
    - nikanj 7y ago
      MS licensing is somewhat expensive, but easy to understand and relatively benign. Oracle licensing chokes you like the Drakh keepers from Babylon 5.
    - briffle 7y ago
      Have you worked on MSSQL licensing in the age of Virtualization and per-core licensing? It's gotten VERY complex according to some of my friends that still run it. It seems they have changed their pricing strategy: Oracle: What is your IT budget? We'll take it. (all of it) Microsoft: Hey, at least we're not as bad as Oracle.
    - kirbypineapple 7y ago
      I'm not sure I follow this logic. Wouldn't both databases require the same amount of care and feeding? Are you suggesting that you need less DBA's per MSSQL database than for a PostgreSQL or Maria database?
      - mumblemumble 7y ago
        Yep. Because the tooling is stronger. The developer ergonomics are better. The performance is better, meaning you'll be able to do more with fewer servers. MSSQL has a boatload of useful features that PostgreSQL lacks. (Clustered indexes and table-valued parameters are the ones I like to fixate on.) And so on. I can only personally speak to the developer story, but my experience has been that the productivity difference is huge. There's a night and day difference in the information you can get out of an EXPLAIN on each of them, for example, and I would get detailed emails warning me if a MSSQL query plan unexpectedly changed in production. With PostgreSQL you're more likely to need to build your own tooling for that sort of stuff, or just wait for a user to complain. On the DBA side, I'm hazier on the details, but I've seen PostgreSQL DBA's sinking hours' or sometimes even days' worth of effort into grinding through tasks tasks that an MSSQL DBA can bang out by spending a couple minutes clicking through a wizard dialog. If you're a tiny startup, the differences won't amount to all that much, and it will be hard to justify MSSQL's price tag, which is fine, because, yeah, you can't afford it, anyway. If you're an enterprise or otherwise have large database needs, the differences can very quickly become apparent, and easily worth the money.
- jabl 7y ago
  Wouldn't surprise me if a large fraction of those installs could be replaced with sqlite..
ebiester 7y ago
That said, if you restrict yourself to the PostgreSQL subset of Aurora, you will be able to move to any Postgres implementation down the line. Yes, they charge you a fee to move your data off. However, that is not the limiting factor for people moving off of Oracle. (And if it is, they're probably not looking at AWS in the first place.)
abledon 7y ago
can you give an eli5 of postgresql's offering vs oracle db? Why isn't there an open source equivalent right now? What 'extra stuff' did Amazon have to build to make it 'more' than the open source stuff available right now.
zentiggr 7y ago
Thank you for mentioning the departure fee... That just took AWS off the table for me unless I'm pushed into it by other (paying) parties.
- mypalmike 7y ago
  I believe the parent is referring to the price of the bandwidth that would be required for transferring data from AWS to somewhere else.
- didibus 7y ago
  It's not really a fee. It's just the price they charge you for data transfer to external systems. This is known as Data Egress charges and all cloud providers I know off has it. The cost of egress will depend on which service you are using. Some services have lower data transfer out costs, some have higher, etc..
- jeffbarr 7y ago
  There is no departure fee. As others have pointed out, this is simply data transfer.
ravedave5 7y ago
There are plenty of alternatives that don't lock you to Amazon. One of my teams just migrated from oracle to MariaDB and saw big performance gains. We happen to be using AWS for hosting, but it's Maria, we can go anywhere.
didibus 7y ago
They don't really charge you a fee. The only thing you are charged is data transfer out cost of whatever amount of data you transfer out. And that price is the same whether you are transferring data out for backup, for use by your internal systems, etc. Or for leaving to another vendor. Also, as far as I know, all cloud providers charge for data transfer out.
bob1029 7y ago
I would protest the point that you have to be as large as Amazon to produce your own database-as-a-service solution, especially if you are only building it for yourself. Throwing some automated tooling around Postgres and any arbitrary linux VM hypervisor API should get you a lot of the same value. It doesn't take a ton of magic to allow a developer to spin up a pg cluster with a few clicks via some custom web tool. Reporting and operations are trickier to handle, but if you don't need to satisfy the same customer base as Amazon does (i.e. you are your only customer), you could probably pull this off at nearly any scale. That said, I will certainly grant you the cloud vendor lock-in angle. It truly is one of the biggest ploys of this decade. My organization takes great pride in only using the most fundamental of cloud resources (compute instances, block storage, DNS, VPN, routing). If we had to evacuate AWS to on-prem or some other provider, it would not be a huge ordeal. For those who wound up with their entire business stuck firmly inside vendor-specific things like Lambdas, you have my deepest sympathies.

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.
  - nikanj 7y ago
    MS licensing is somewhat expensive, but easy to understand and relatively benign. Oracle licensing chokes you like the Drakh keepers from Babylon 5.
  - briffle 7y ago
    Have you worked on MSSQL licensing in the age of Virtualization and per-core licensing? It's gotten VERY complex according to some of my friends that still run it. It seems they have changed their pricing strategy: Oracle: What is your IT budget? We'll take it. (all of it) Microsoft: Hey, at least we're not as bad as Oracle.
  - kirbypineapple 7y ago
    I'm not sure I follow this logic. Wouldn't both databases require the same amount of care and feeding? Are you suggesting that you need less DBA's per MSSQL database than for a PostgreSQL or Maria database?
    - mumblemumble 7y ago
      Yep. Because the tooling is stronger. The developer ergonomics are better. The performance is better, meaning you'll be able to do more with fewer servers. MSSQL has a boatload of useful features that PostgreSQL lacks. (Clustered indexes and table-valued parameters are the ones I like to fixate on.) And so on. I can only personally speak to the developer story, but my experience has been that the productivity difference is huge. There's a night and day difference in the information you can get out of an EXPLAIN on each of them, for example, and I would get detailed emails warning me if a MSSQL query plan unexpectedly changed in production. With PostgreSQL you're more likely to need to build your own tooling for that sort of stuff, or just wait for a user to complain. On the DBA side, I'm hazier on the details, but I've seen PostgreSQL DBA's sinking hours' or sometimes even days' worth of effort into grinding through tasks tasks that an MSSQL DBA can bang out by spending a couple minutes clicking through a wizard dialog. If you're a tiny startup, the differences won't amount to all that much, and it will be hard to justify MSSQL's price tag, which is fine, because, yeah, you can't afford it, anyway. If you're an enterprise or otherwise have large database needs, the differences can very quickly become apparent, and easily worth the money.
jabl 7y ago
Wouldn't surprise me if a large fraction of those installs could be replaced with sqlite..

ebiester 7y ago

That said, if you restrict yourself to the PostgreSQL subset of Aurora, you will be able to move to any Postgres implementation down the line. Yes, they charge you a fee to move your data off. However, that is not the limiting factor for people moving off of Oracle. (And if it is, they're probably not looking at AWS in the first place.)

abledon 7y ago

can you give an eli5 of postgresql's offering vs oracle db? Why isn't there an open source equivalent right now? What 'extra stuff' did Amazon have to build to make it 'more' than the open source stuff available right now.

zentiggr 7y ago

Thank you for mentioning the departure fee... That just took AWS off the table for me unless I'm pushed into it by other (paying) parties.

mypalmike 7y ago
I believe the parent is referring to the price of the bandwidth that would be required for transferring data from AWS to somewhere else.
didibus 7y ago
It's not really a fee. It's just the price they charge you for data transfer to external systems. This is known as Data Egress charges and all cloud providers I know off has it. The cost of egress will depend on which service you are using. Some services have lower data transfer out costs, some have higher, etc..
jeffbarr 7y ago
There is no departure fee. As others have pointed out, this is simply data transfer.

ravedave5 7y ago

There are plenty of alternatives that don't lock you to Amazon. One of my teams just migrated from oracle to MariaDB and saw big performance gains. We happen to be using AWS for hosting, but it's Maria, we can go anywhere.

didibus 7y ago

They don't really charge you a fee. The only thing you are charged is data transfer out cost of whatever amount of data you transfer out. And that price is the same whether you are transferring data out for backup, for use by your internal systems, etc. Or for leaving to another vendor. Also, as far as I know, all cloud providers charge for data transfer out.

bob1029 7y ago

I would protest the point that you have to be as large as Amazon to produce your own database-as-a-service solution, especially if you are only building it for yourself. Throwing some automated tooling around Postgres and any arbitrary linux VM hypervisor API should get you a lot of the same value. It doesn't take a ton of magic to allow a developer to spin up a pg cluster with a few clicks via some custom web tool. Reporting and operations are trickier to handle, but if you don't need to satisfy the same customer base as Amazon does (i.e. you are your only customer), you could probably pull this off at nearly any scale. That said, I will certainly grant you the cloud vendor lock-in angle. It truly is one of the biggest ploys of this decade. My organization takes great pride in only using the most fundamental of cloud resources (compute instances, block storage, DNS, VPN, routing). If we had to evacuate AWS to on-prem or some other provider, it would not be a huge ordeal. For those who wound up with their entire business stuck firmly inside vendor-specific things like Lambdas, you have my deepest sympathies.