5 ms·

Amazon RDS to support Oracle as well as MySQL

17 points by mmelin 16y ago

bad_user 16y ago
Why not PostgreSQL?
- omarqureshi 16y ago
  probably a steaks and strippers thing
  - buro9 16y ago
    Had to look... but the steaks and strippers thing is from Zed Shaw, Example 2 in this: http://zedshaw.com/essays/control_and_responsibility.html http://zedshaw.com/essays/control_and_responsibility.html I too think PostgreSQL should be in there... and I can't see why it isn't given that Amazon have the EBS already and are probably putting Oracle on that already. The same technique could easily take PostgreSQL. Note: EBS = Elastic Block Storage which is Amazon's low level raw block storage solution: http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/ http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/
- beaumartinez 16y ago
  I assume this is part of an Oracle deal (hence why you can now use both Oracle DB and MySQL); regardless, wouldn't it make more sense for Amazon to roll-out support of MSSQL before PostgreSQL as (I'm guessing) it's more widely used?
  - bad_user 16y ago
    MSSQL being more widely used than PostgreSQL makes no sense to me; but regardless, it would have made more sense to pick PostgreSQL over MySql in the first place.
kennu 16y ago
Does somebody actually see use cases for using Oracle RDS with new applications? Or is this mainly to support migrating existing apps to the AWS platform.
- buro9 16y ago
  Migrating. There's a lot of companies with licenses and who have been scaling vertically and are approaching their max. The traditional ROI race means that they did their planning to minimise their licensing costs whilst maximising their hardware usage... basically companies plan for just what they need and barely leave themselves 10% for growth. What then happens is that when they look like they're going to exceed their 10% spare capacity, they're faced with disproportionally high costs to continue to scale vertically by adding RAM or CPU when the box may already be maxed or not be able to meet demands. Where this helps, is that Amazon can extend your LAN over a VPN to include an Oracle instance hosted by them. They can take away your capex and turn it into an opex in which you weren't paying for unused spare capacity. They can also liberate you from that expensive capex cycle. It's a good thing, but I doubt anyone is going to be building new software this way, especially amongst the HN crowd (unless this really is 1998/1999 again).
  - cafard 16y ago
    Oracle's list price for enterprise edition is $47.5K/cpu. These days it is not so easy to find a hardware upgrade that competes with that in price...
    - buro9 16y ago
      No-one pays the list price. At least, no-one I ever worked with paid the list price and I've worked with a lot of companies that use Oracle.
samuel1604 16y ago
There is nothing about the pricing in there I wonder how different is that going compared to MySQL

17 points by mmelin 16y ago

bad_user 16y ago

Why not PostgreSQL?

omarqureshi 16y ago
probably a steaks and strippers thing
- buro9 16y ago
  Had to look... but the steaks and strippers thing is from Zed Shaw, Example 2 in this: http://zedshaw.com/essays/control_and_responsibility.html http://zedshaw.com/essays/control_and_responsibility.html I too think PostgreSQL should be in there... and I can't see why it isn't given that Amazon have the EBS already and are probably putting Oracle on that already. The same technique could easily take PostgreSQL. Note: EBS = Elastic Block Storage which is Amazon's low level raw block storage solution: http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/ http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/
beaumartinez 16y ago
I assume this is part of an Oracle deal (hence why you can now use both Oracle DB and MySQL); regardless, wouldn't it make more sense for Amazon to roll-out support of MSSQL before PostgreSQL as (I'm guessing) it's more widely used?
- bad_user 16y ago
  MSSQL being more widely used than PostgreSQL makes no sense to me; but regardless, it would have made more sense to pick PostgreSQL over MySql in the first place.

kennu 16y ago

Does somebody actually see use cases for using Oracle RDS with new applications? Or is this mainly to support migrating existing apps to the AWS platform.

buro9 16y ago
Migrating. There's a lot of companies with licenses and who have been scaling vertically and are approaching their max. The traditional ROI race means that they did their planning to minimise their licensing costs whilst maximising their hardware usage... basically companies plan for just what they need and barely leave themselves 10% for growth. What then happens is that when they look like they're going to exceed their 10% spare capacity, they're faced with disproportionally high costs to continue to scale vertically by adding RAM or CPU when the box may already be maxed or not be able to meet demands. Where this helps, is that Amazon can extend your LAN over a VPN to include an Oracle instance hosted by them. They can take away your capex and turn it into an opex in which you weren't paying for unused spare capacity. They can also liberate you from that expensive capex cycle. It's a good thing, but I doubt anyone is going to be building new software this way, especially amongst the HN crowd (unless this really is 1998/1999 again).
- cafard 16y ago
  Oracle's list price for enterprise edition is $47.5K/cpu. These days it is not so easy to find a hardware upgrade that competes with that in price...
  - buro9 16y ago
    No-one pays the list price. At least, no-one I ever worked with paid the list price and I've worked with a lot of companies that use Oracle.

samuel1604 16y ago

There is nothing about the pricing in there I wonder how different is that going compared to MySQL