Live data from Hacker News

Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

computerworld.com

131–140 of 166 posts

Re: Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

#131
post #3

> Ellison showed off a new Oracle Dense Cloud IO bare metal cloud server offering that will provide developers with 36 CPU cores, 512GB of D-RAM, and 28.8TB of SSD storage. AWS isn't merely about the compute. EC2 is just part of a larger ecosystem of infrastructure services that has been built out by amazon over the past 10 years. If Oracle thinks they can beat that, then more power to them but I'm not quite convince…

> EC2 is just part of a larger ecosystem... Exactly. The idea that Oracle can catch up based on pricing & machine specs ("36 CPU cores, 512GB of D-RAM") is really naive. My current position on this is that IaaS is pretty much over. Aliyun & AWS seem like they're going to dominate. Microsoft & Google & others fight for the rest. Maybe, just maybe, Oracle will catch up with the 'small' players, but I doubt Microsoft++…

Who's Aliyun?

Re: Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a trade-off being made by picking proprietary software vs. open source and it's entirely about control, strange as it might sound. A good CTO/CIO has some measure of power over their vendors and can boss them around a bit like they're an employee. If the primary account manager is golf buddies with him, endangering the relationship with arm-twisting on either part isn't just business it's personal and can be…

I don't think this is a really an open vs closed source question. If anything, long term you might be better off on a closed source solution if you don't mind paying for it. To many open source projects die because something cooler comes along and the maintainers lose interest. Then you end up being the maintainer of some piece of dead open source history. Really if your worried about becoming attached to a particula…

This sounds like you're talking about abstracting and decoupling components. Building systems to accommodate heterogeneous environments early is akin to starting a project with microservices instead of a monolith - it's overscoping probably. Furthermore, it's fallacious to say that all software should fit some new standards of environments when there's no scenario for it all (the COBOL code that's for accounting doesn't have anything to do with the products your company sells probably).

This then raises issues of compatibility with your customer's environments. The configuration matrix that you'd need to test is tedious (read: costly) in traditional software releases compared to SaaS where you're free to make a lot of decisions independent of your customer and not everything can be automated (anyone that's deployed automated tests against TN3270 terminals with a lukewarm IQ QA department is right to challenge this). Then there's longevity. What happens when your biggest paying customer wants you to stay on IE 8 until 2025 (not an exaggeration)? Want to create yet another customer-specific branch? Eventually you wind up needing a test environment that matches exactly what that customer has and paying contractors to maintain that dead-end tech stack and doing that for every customer. That is quite common and also quite costly but not needing much talent, so the washed up maintenance engineers go here at less than mediocre compensation to cut costs. That's zombie software for you - the soul and spirit of engineers are gone and its corpse is animated by money by a cruel master that cares little for its past life.

Re: Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

#133
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beating AWS on price is trivial, though. If you can't beat AWS on price, you have no business starting a cloud service. So it's a question whether they think they need to beat AWS on price or not. AWS pricing certainly makes it very clear that Amazon have no interest or need to compete on price - a lot of the cloud market is extremely price insensitive. It's a curious effect that seems to be largely down to businesse…

If beating AWS on price is trivial, why is nobody doing that to beat them? The only place I have a gripe on AWS pricing is bandwidth. I keep waiting for the announcement that bandwidth is being cut in half next month and it hasn't happened. I've done the datacenter thing many times and there are so many pieces to the costs of running your own that most people don't include. The biggest one is just plain agility. Pred…

What do you mean why is nobody doing that? Lots of providers are doing that. Almost the only providers in the same price league as AWS are Google Cloud, Azure and Rackspace. All of them appear to assume (rightly so, judging by peoples reaction) that they can keep their margins high on the basis of brand name recognition and specialist features, and none of them seem interested in rocking the boat.

They will drop their publicly listed prices once smaller customers gets comfortable enough with cloud services to start seriously shopping around, not before. Larger customers will already negotiate (e.g. I know of one AWS customer with ~75% discount over the listed prices)

> The only place I have a gripe on AWS pricing is bandwidth. I keep waiting for the announcement that bandwidth is being cut in half next month and it hasn't happened.

AWS bandwidth pricing is 5x-50x higher than the providers I usually use. E.g. for the cost of 1TB of transfer at AWS you can rent a server for a month + multiple TB of transfer elsewhere. Cutting it in half would still leave them ridiculously expensive for bandwidth.

> I've done the datacenter thing many times and there are so many pieces to the costs of running your own that most people don't include. The biggest one is just plain agility. Predictable workloads can benefit from self-hosted, but then again you can get much better prices at AWS when your loads are predictable as well if you're willing to commit.

I do the datacenter thing every day, and I also do AWS and other cloud providers every day, and when I move customers to dedicated hosting they typically cut their total infrastructure costs to 1/2 or 1/3 vs AWS costs after considering reserved instances and maintenance costs. For many of them, if they were large enough to get serious attention from Amazon they might have been able to negotiate deals that'd make it cost effective to stay, but I've also had more extreme examples, like a customer that cut their hosting cost to 1/10th.

The agility argument doesn't fly with me - I manage multiple systems that are hybrid mixes of dedicated predictable loads on self-owned or leased hardware, coupled with cloud resources that are "tied in" via VPNs as needed.

With well designed systems, the very availability of cloud makes dedicated hosting cheaper even if you never or rarely use it: Where we before often had to plan for 50% to 100% overcapacity on dedicated hardware to handle spikes (and might still have to just accept that some spikes would slow things down), we can now plan on almost no overcapacity and spin up on-demand instances to take spikes (we need only sufficient overcapacity to react and for additional capacity to come online), or even to shave off the top peaks of daily traffic.

Re: Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If beating AWS on price is trivial, why is nobody doing that to beat them? The only place I have a gripe on AWS pricing is bandwidth. I keep waiting for the announcement that bandwidth is being cut in half next month and it hasn't happened. I've done the datacenter thing many times and there are so many pieces to the costs of running your own that most people don't include. The biggest one is just plain agility. Pred…

> If beating AWS on price is trivial, why is nobody doing that to beat them? They have a huge suite of offerings, good reputation, huge amount of third party tooling, and the services themselves are somewhat sticky. By that I mean, I could probably switch over to your cheaper cloud service. It would mean having my engineers go through and build stuff to fill in the gaps or transition away from things that are very AW…

I agree that this makes sense for a lot of people. E.g. I have clients that I recommend use AWS simply because hosting is a small cost item for them and it isn't worth their effort to optimise it for cost (at least not until they grow huge) vs. spending effort elsewhere.

Moving to cheaper services quickly becomes a big deal for people with low margins and high infrastructure costs, though, where moving to cheaper infrastructure can make the difference between being able to match competitors on price or not.

The key is to understand your hosting needs well enough to know whether or not you can afford to build a dependency on AWS specific services.

Re: Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

#135
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and here is how that is going to play out. We're a large public sector customer. As part of our last ELA renewal (which was an effing effing nightmare over vmware licensing) we got this crapload of Oracle cloud products that we didn't really want or need, database cloud, process cloud, integration cloud, on and on. I think there must have been a mandate from Mark Hurd to the effect that "There will be cloud produc…

In regards to VMware licensing, allow me to expound upon a situation faced by a recent customer. Oracle allows licensing on VMware on a hypervisor level. When VMware allowed you to vMotion between hosts in a vSphere HA cluster, Oracle would require that you license all the hosts in the cluster because the Oracle VMs might land on any of those hosts in a failover situation. When cross-cluster vMotion came with 5.1, th…

You should have had them mention Mars v. Oracle to the salespeople!

http://houseofbrick.com/mars-vs-oracle/

Re: Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EC2 is just part of a larger ecosystem... Exactly. The idea that Oracle can catch up based on pricing & machine specs ("36 CPU cores, 512GB of D-RAM") is really naive. My current position on this is that IaaS is pretty much over. Aliyun & AWS seem like they're going to dominate. Microsoft & Google & others fight for the rest. Maybe, just maybe, Oracle will catch up with the 'small' players, but I doubt Microsoft++…

Who's Aliyun?

Alibaba Web Services

Re: Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I needed an intro to this guy of yours? (simone dot brunozzi @ gmail)

Don't know him very well, we were only on the same team for a couple months and didn't really keep in touch or anything.

What range do you mean when you say "boat load of money"?

Re: Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

#138
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. AWS has bet on cloud-means-public-cloud. Azure and Oracle are betting on hybrid: they'll sell you a private cloud that sits in your own DC that can interoperate seamlessly with their public cloud. AWS is a no-brainer if you're a greenfield, but the jury's still out on brownfield.

Which also makes it more viable for government contracts. This is like looking at any other marketshare debate. Amazon/Google may win the majority of users, but MS and Oracle are going to get the ones with deep pockets. They don't need me and my piddly weekend project, or most startups. They'll make a mint off a handful of lucrative government contracts, and contracts with the defense contractors that go Oracle becau…

Microsoft have the head start on enterprise and SME sales, AWS have the head start on total customers.

But Google are quick studies, have a vast amount of already-paid-for infrastructure and software, and as much cash as the others.

Re: Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

#139
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2.) Amazon is internally use to being frugal, and so pricing wars are not going to hurt them. Oracle is use to charging a arm and a leg for their products. They may be used to being frugal, but that is not at all reflected in AWS pricing, which is ridiculously high across the board.

Did you consider AWS have to keep prices high to constrain demand?

It's an interesting question. In my experience people often have this idea that AWS can scale infinitely, and get shocked when they are faced with the AWS limits ("but I thought we could just spin up 200 instances, what do you mean we have to ask them to increase limits?"), and I've actually had errors from the EC2 api telling us there were no instances of a given instance type available (one of the larger/more unusual instance types, in one of the smaller regions).

But their margins should be large enough, and have been for so many years, that they should have been able to take that into account and adjust expansion accordingly.

I'm more inclined to think that they have simply decided to milk it while they can. I rarely meet people who have any clue what their infrastructure choices actually cost them and what they would pay elsewhere, and I regularly have conversations about how much people believe they'd save by moving to/from provider X where it transpires that said person hasn't even tried costing it out but are certain they'll save money. I also regularly talk to IT departments that have no kind of budget or forecasting in place for their hosting requirements. The state of budgeting for server infrastructure is simply shocking. In that kind of environment, if you price based on actual cost, rather than based on whether or not people believe you're expensive, you're leaving money on the table.

Re: Oracle is gunning for AWS with new infrastructure offering

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AWS isn't merely about the compute. Sure, but having a compelling story about compute and having a massive advantage in knowledge of how to sell to the exact kinds of enterprises that haven't already made their big transition to the cloud yet isn't a bad combination to have if you want to establish a nice firm place in cloud. from which you can expand and develop what you need to bite off other parts of the market.…

No, I think Oracle is targeting a different market because to them it is a low hanging fruit. AWS got a lot of startups and tech savvy companies (like Netflix). If I were Oracle I would target existing customers, who generally are not the tech savvy darlings (think Procter & Gamble, health companies, food companies, banks...) who can now tell their board their on-site Oracle licences have been moved to the cloud. It'…

This is what IBM is doing with BlueMix. I don't see it working particularly well so far.
Post reply on HN