5 ms·
"NoSQL databases are not free to operate. Each NoSQL Databases come with the cost of hardware, administration of the hardware, and support of the software." He
by praptak 15y ago
"NoSQL databases are not free to operate. Each NoSQL Databases come with the cost of hardware, administration of the hardware, and support of the software."
Hey Oracle, if you want to bring this point up, please at least pretend to compare the above costs between NoSQL and your own solution. Otherwise it is just pure FUD: "NoSQL databases eat your CPU cycles, disk and network badndwith! Booooo!"
- antirez 15y agoSame argument that was used against Linux, that is also system software. Too old, they should retry with something more interesting.
- praptak 15y agoWell yes but AFAIR MS at least provided some data that could be critically analyzed (whether it stood up to the analysis is a different matter.) I am all for using TCO as an argument in tech advocacy, just as long as it has some backup in verifiable data.
- bad_user 15y agoas long as it has some backup in verifiable data A discussion on TCO is very dependent on the context in which the analysis was made, such as application type, volume of data stored, volume of data indexed, type of data (e.g. is it a tree? is it a graph?), queries per second/hour, number of concurrent connections, analysis on further scaling possible (vertical / horizontal), analysis on the requirements for real-time ad-hoc queries, entry-level costs, and so on and so forth ... Basically, the variables are so many and so complex that any TCO analysis (regardless of validity) won't apply to your case. That said - I rarely feel the need for NoSQL, simply because I can fine-tune PostgreSQL to whatever needs I want. But I'm not running neither Facebook, nor Twitter.
- mgkimsal 15y agoAlso include the skills of the people operating everything. A MCSE trying to administer various Linux boxes will have terrible TCO, and a RHCE trying to optimize an NT box will have similarly bad TCO.
- rdtsc 15y agoI guess sometimes the best marketing is your competitors' stupid marketing.
- mitchty 15y agoAs someone dealing with Oracle's "support of the software.", let me be blunt: Oracles own flagship software's support is... severely lacking when you are hitting bugs.
- dlitz 15y agoI want to know the TCO of just Oracle's ridiculous empty-string-is-almost-but-not-quite-equivalent-to-NULL VARCHAR2 behaviour.
- sliverstorm 15y agoMaybe the people who make corporate purchasing decisions need to be reminded?
- hapless 15y agoI believe their point is that deploying, for example, four types of NoSQL database creates four, separate sets of hardware etc. i.e. it is not that NoSQL systems are inefficient individually, it's that it is not efficient to maintain four separate resource pools. (This is still possibly FUD nonsense: Oracle has to exist as an independent resource pool only because their virtualization licensing requires all potential CPUs to be licensed. Are any/all of the commercial NoSQL implementations licensed this way?)
- Daishiman 15y agoIt takes less time to configure an HBase cluster than a single Oracle server under Linux, and even then you can just create a single HBase image to deploy in hundreds of servers.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- artsrc 15y agoThis is weakest part of the Oracle database story. You can get someone else (Google, Amazon etc.) to provide the hardware, administration and support of your database if you choose something else. And you get more for less that you would with Oracle.