4 ms·

My understanding is that whatever database AWS supports it will let you scale up as much as required. Assuming this is the case unless you are and oracle guru o

by boyter 16y ago

My understanding is that whatever database AWS supports it will let you scale up as much as required. Assuming this is the case unless you are and oracle guru or moving legacy applications i cant see this being useful for anyone other then large organisations who usually prefer to run their own hardware. Why pay for an oracle license if you dont have to. Especially when there are quite a few good oracle alturnatives these days. I must be missing something here.

Yrlec 16y ago
I think the main reason Amazon chose Oracle over databases like PostgreSQL is that it also makes it easier for a lot of people to convince their boss to move to AWS.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- bad_user 16y ago
  I think the main reason Amazon chose Oracle was a deal between them.
  - jpitz 16y ago
    I think parent and GP both have an element of truth, but that the ultimate situation is more nuanced than either suggests. Customer demand is likely the biggest factor, but I'd be surprised if Oracle managed an exclusivity deal on RDS. Of the major RDBMS players, Oracle, for all their weirdness, all their proprietary functionality, all the damn-the-relational-model-here's-your-physical-row-identifiers, is a pretty logical choice as the first commercial offering.
jeffbarr 16y ago
> I must be missing something here. Perhaps -- you will be able to run Oracle on RDS and pay for it by the hour. I think that's a pretty big deal.
- soci 16y ago
  But you will have to pay for the license fee no ?
  - jeffbarr 16y ago
    No. The hourly cost (which is still TBD) gives you access to a licensed copy of Oracle. You will be able to acquire an hour of database use if that's all you need.
ibejoeb 16y ago
> Assuming this is the case unless you are and oracle guru or moving legacy applications i cant see this being useful for anyone other then large organisations... I hear this so often, but it's just not the whole story. Believe it or not, Oracle makes a really good product. There are a lot of features in Oracle Database that you can't find elsewhere. I'm not running a huge operation, but I have two good reasons to use Oracle: 1. Aside from providing a really good RDBMS, there are some neat features like VPD, Data Masking, and TDE that are compelling. If you work under SOX, HIPAA, PCI, etc., these things go a long way toward compliance. 2. I sell to huge operations, and they know and use Oracle. Nobody ever got fired for buying Oracle. I do a ton of work with other systems (particularly Postgres), but when I put my audit or sales hats on, they're embroidered with Oracle logos.
- tom_b 16y ago
  I have a lot of experience with DB2 distributed, a few years of MS SQL Server, and the last 4 or so have been mostly hacking SQL (and PL/SQL) in Oracle-land. #2 above just feels so true to me. I would modify it to also say, "Nobody ever lost a SQL hacking gig because they came from an Oracle background." I would NOT make the same claim for either DB2 or MS SQL Server.
jbellis 16y ago
bq. My understanding is that whatever database AWS supports it will let you scale up as much as required If by "as much as required" you mean "to larger single EC2 instances," yes. If you mean backing it with a SAN or transparently partitioning your data across multiple instance, no. http://aws.amazon.com/rds/faqs/#22 http://aws.amazon.com/rds/faqs/#22

by boyter 16y ago

Yrlec 16y ago

I think the main reason Amazon chose Oracle over databases like PostgreSQL is that it also makes it easier for a lot of people to convince their boss to move to AWS.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
bad_user 16y ago
I think the main reason Amazon chose Oracle was a deal between them.
- jpitz 16y ago
  I think parent and GP both have an element of truth, but that the ultimate situation is more nuanced than either suggests. Customer demand is likely the biggest factor, but I'd be surprised if Oracle managed an exclusivity deal on RDS. Of the major RDBMS players, Oracle, for all their weirdness, all their proprietary functionality, all the damn-the-relational-model-here's-your-physical-row-identifiers, is a pretty logical choice as the first commercial offering.

jeffbarr 16y ago

> I must be missing something here. Perhaps -- you will be able to run Oracle on RDS and pay for it by the hour. I think that's a pretty big deal.

soci 16y ago
But you will have to pay for the license fee no ?
- jeffbarr 16y ago
  No. The hourly cost (which is still TBD) gives you access to a licensed copy of Oracle. You will be able to acquire an hour of database use if that's all you need.

ibejoeb 16y ago

> Assuming this is the case unless you are and oracle guru or moving legacy applications i cant see this being useful for anyone other then large organisations... I hear this so often, but it's just not the whole story. Believe it or not, Oracle makes a really good product. There are a lot of features in Oracle Database that you can't find elsewhere. I'm not running a huge operation, but I have two good reasons to use Oracle: 1. Aside from providing a really good RDBMS, there are some neat features like VPD, Data Masking, and TDE that are compelling. If you work under SOX, HIPAA, PCI, etc., these things go a long way toward compliance. 2. I sell to huge operations, and they know and use Oracle. Nobody ever got fired for buying Oracle. I do a ton of work with other systems (particularly Postgres), but when I put my audit or sales hats on, they're embroidered with Oracle logos.

tom_b 16y ago
I have a lot of experience with DB2 distributed, a few years of MS SQL Server, and the last 4 or so have been mostly hacking SQL (and PL/SQL) in Oracle-land. #2 above just feels so true to me. I would modify it to also say, "Nobody ever lost a SQL hacking gig because they came from an Oracle background." I would NOT make the same claim for either DB2 or MS SQL Server.

jbellis 16y ago

bq. My understanding is that whatever database AWS supports it will let you scale up as much as required If by "as much as required" you mean "to larger single EC2 instances," yes. If you mean backing it with a SAN or transparently partitioning your data across multiple instance, no. http://aws.amazon.com/rds/faqs/#22 http://aws.amazon.com/rds/faqs/#22