4 ms·

Whilst I can believe that Oracle probably does scale, when it costs $17.5k per CPU in licensing then it's not for everyone. It would seem that problems of a ba

by rythie 17y ago

Whilst I can believe that Oracle probably does scale, when it costs $17.5k per CPU in licensing then it's not for everyone. It would seem that problems of a bank with a large already established userbase and lucrative, stable business model is very different to a start-up with no tested business model, may never become popular enough to need to scale and may not survive.

nailer 17y ago
CPU core. Not CPU (which is generally taken to mean CPU die).
- rythie 17y ago
  Really? That's 4 times worse than I thought then
  - nailer 17y ago
    Yep. Oracle are famous for this - at my office we often talk about counting the molecules to work out Oracle licensing.
    - rythie 17y ago
      The thing is that this makes it even harder to scale because the cost of licensing additional nodes is now several times the hardware cost.
nettdata 17y ago
Uhmmm... duh? The original article mentions nothing about cost or the ability (or lack thereof) of any company to afford it. He made a flat out statement that said SQL DOESN'T SCALE, which is wrong. There are other methods for dealing with initial growth and the cost constraints... no need to blow your wad on Oracle out of the gate. But then I imagine a lot of non-Oracle types aren't even aware that Oracle can be very flexible with their licensing for startups. You can, for example, lease/rent your Oracle licenses on a monthly basis to help get the most out of your cash flow. I've been involved with a number of startups where we did our initial rollout on Postgres, but ensured that the application architecture allowed for us to fairly easily swap in a larger, more scalable solution if/when needed. For that matter, in my opinion, too many people and startups tend to over-engineer their initial product offerings, making them too complex and worrying more about nonexistent problems (like Google-sized scaling) rather than on solid features and business process. But that's fodder for another thread, I'm sure.

by rythie 17y ago

nailer 17y ago

CPU core. Not CPU (which is generally taken to mean CPU die).

rythie 17y ago
Really? That's 4 times worse than I thought then
- nailer 17y ago
  Yep. Oracle are famous for this - at my office we often talk about counting the molecules to work out Oracle licensing.
  - rythie 17y ago
    The thing is that this makes it even harder to scale because the cost of licensing additional nodes is now several times the hardware cost.

nettdata 17y ago

Uhmmm... duh? The original article mentions nothing about cost or the ability (or lack thereof) of any company to afford it. He made a flat out statement that said SQL DOESN'T SCALE, which is wrong. There are other methods for dealing with initial growth and the cost constraints... no need to blow your wad on Oracle out of the gate. But then I imagine a lot of non-Oracle types aren't even aware that Oracle can be very flexible with their licensing for startups. You can, for example, lease/rent your Oracle licenses on a monthly basis to help get the most out of your cash flow. I've been involved with a number of startups where we did our initial rollout on Postgres, but ensured that the application architecture allowed for us to fairly easily swap in a larger, more scalable solution if/when needed. For that matter, in my opinion, too many people and startups tend to over-engineer their initial product offerings, making them too complex and worrying more about nonexistent problems (like Google-sized scaling) rather than on solid features and business process. But that's fodder for another thread, I'm sure.