Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#121

Post by idunno246 » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:24 AM UTC

Scarbutt wrote: post #109

ahachete wrote: post #50

My bet is that it is built on top of Aurora PostgreSQL. By looking at the "Limits" section ( https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide... ), identifiers are limited to 63 characters and the same characters that PostgreSQL limits identifiers to; and a collection size limit of 32TB, coincidentally maximum PostgreSQL table size. Edit: I can confirm: does not allow the UTF-8 null character in strings:…

Aurora Postgres isn't really Postgres(only compatible), or is it?

The storage engine is different, but the frontend is actual Postgres

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#122

Post by spydum » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:25 AM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #90

ma2rten wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to be really aimed at businesses which want to get off of MongoDB desperately.

Not really at all. It's targeted at enterprises like mine who currently use MongoDB on premise and are looking for a managed solution. The advantage of AWS over Atlas is you can use the same security and governance approaches e.g. IAM policies, ADFS/SAML integration, Cloudwatch/Cloudtrail etc.

Exactly- atlas kills me without any type of SSO options for the control plane.

Also I feel that they HAD to offer this to counter Azure CosmoDB

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#123

Post by manigandham » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:26 AM UTC

moltar wrote: post #120

ahachete wrote: post #50

My bet is that it is built on top of Aurora PostgreSQL. By looking at the "Limits" section ( https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide... ), identifiers are limited to 63 characters and the same characters that PostgreSQL limits identifiers to; and a collection size limit of 32TB, coincidentally maximum PostgreSQL table size. Edit: I can confirm: does not allow the UTF-8 null character in strings:…

Wasn’t latest Mongo built on Postgres backend too?

No, MongoDB has its own storage engines, it's not built on top of anything else.

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#124

Post by miaklesp » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:31 AM UTC

Of all possible names they managed to choose already obsolete name for a similar product from Azure?

Azure in 2017: forget DocumentDB, Cosmos DB is the new thing now!

AWS in 2019: We just released DocumentDB!

Are they so geniuses or so idiots?

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#125

Post by sbr464 » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:32 AM UTC

moltar wrote: post #120

ahachete wrote: post #50

My bet is that it is built on top of Aurora PostgreSQL. By looking at the "Limits" section ( https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide... ), identifiers are limited to 63 characters and the same characters that PostgreSQL limits identifiers to; and a collection size limit of 32TB, coincidentally maximum PostgreSQL table size. Edit: I can confirm: does not allow the UTF-8 null character in strings:…

Wasn’t latest Mongo built on Postgres backend too?

I think your thinking of the BI Connector for analytics/SQL compatibility.

From the docs:

Changed in version 2.0: Version 2.0 of the MongoDB Connector for BI introduces a new architecture that replaces the previous PostgreSQL foreign data wrapper with the new mongosqld.

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#126

Post by talawahtech » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:33 AM UTC

ahachete wrote: post #50

My bet is that it is built on top of Aurora PostgreSQL. By looking at the "Limits" section ( https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide... ), identifiers are limited to 63 characters and the same characters that PostgreSQL limits identifiers to; and a collection size limit of 32TB, coincidentally maximum PostgreSQL table size. Edit: I can confirm: does not allow the UTF-8 null character in strings:…

It sounds like it is built on top of the Aurora storage subsystem that is used by both Aurora MySQl and Aurora Postgres[1].

I kinda expected them to build it on top of DynamoDb's backend and provide the same kind of "Serverless" on demand experience, but I guess the architecture didn't fit, or maybe this was just faster.

1. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide...

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#127

Post by Lazare » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:34 AM UTC

dman wrote: post #79

abrookewood wrote: post #70

I was reading a post [0] by Brian Cantrill that predicted this would be the result of licences like the SSPL. I instinctively disagreed with him, but it turns out he was right: "The cloud services providers are currently reproprietarizing all of computing — they are making their own CPUs for crying out loud! — reimplementing the bits of your software that they need in the name of the service that their customers want…

What is the way out? Would love to hear from people.

Ultimately, Cantrill put it well:

> ...for those open source companies that still harbor magical beliefs, let me put this to you as directly as possible: cloud services providers are emphatically not going to license your proprietary software. I mean, you knew that, right?

MongoDB Inc cannot make Amazon pay commercial license fees. That is not a thing that will happen. They have a lever in front of them with two positions, one of which is "large cloud companies might use your software for free", and the other is "large cloud companies will not use your software at all". They didn't like the first option, so they gave the lever a yank, but they're not going to like the second option, and there is no third option.

The way out is not to try and build a business on the assumption that people who have no interest, requirement or reason to give you large amounts of money will inexplicably do so anyhow. :)

This thread already has people eyeing up DocumentDB's pricing and comparing it favourably to MongoDB's competing Atlas service, and it's almost unthinkable to suggest that Atlas can compete on price with Amazon. The way to win this game is not to play; the rules are not in your favour.

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#128

Post by manigandham » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:38 AM UTC

dman wrote: post #79

abrookewood wrote: post #70

I was reading a post [0] by Brian Cantrill that predicted this would be the result of licences like the SSPL. I instinctively disagreed with him, but it turns out he was right: "The cloud services providers are currently reproprietarizing all of computing — they are making their own CPUs for crying out loud! — reimplementing the bits of your software that they need in the name of the service that their customers want…

What is the way out? Would love to hear from people.

The problem is VC backed companies expecting ridiculous multiples.

There are thousands of very successful and profitable software companies that make proprietary products and offer managed services, training, support, etc. It's a great business, but it's not going to offer 100x wild startup growth.

These companies would all do fine if they bootstrapped or took a small seed/loan instead of taking on 100s of millions.

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#129

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:40 AM UTC

outworlder wrote: post #98

chrisseaton wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is linking to documentation illegal?

The 'legal' department doesn't only vet things that are obviously illegal, they are there for other things too, like EULAs, contracts and intellectual property in general. In any case, they are implementing the competitor's APIs and the documentation is already licensed as Creative Commons. Can't they at least host their own copy?

[deleted]

Re: Amazon DocumentDB, with MongoDB compatibility

#130

Post by cortesoft » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC

dman wrote: post #79

abrookewood wrote: post #70

I was reading a post [0] by Brian Cantrill that predicted this would be the result of licences like the SSPL. I instinctively disagreed with him, but it turns out he was right: "The cloud services providers are currently reproprietarizing all of computing — they are making their own CPUs for crying out loud! — reimplementing the bits of your software that they need in the name of the service that their customers want…

What is the way out? Would love to hear from people.

The linked blog sorts of hints at it, but the way out is to not try to build business models around people paying directly for some sort of license.

Successful open source does not require someone making money off developing it. It is successful when it is something that helps a profitable company but is not core to their business; then, they benefit from making it open source and having everyone contribute to its development and maintenance.

Or, you make money off support and consulting.

The key take away is, you aren't going to make money off selling licenses for open source. Which is good, I think.