Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 471 posts

Re: Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

#91

Post by brixon »

vkaku wrote: post #83

Obviously, enough Amazon bots are giving me bad karma, but my point stands: No, Amazon is not a special snowflake because it did this. This was an expensive exercise in spite, took a long time and a lot of people - and everyone knows it. They could have done this far efficiently already if they wanted to scale out, but that company has too many conflicting internal priorities that they took a heck of a long time to m…

They did move to vendor built software. They moved to one that they could get better prices for, AWS. Everyone else will not likely get the deal that they received.

Re: Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

#92

Post by StreamBright »

mey wrote: post #33
danesparza wrote: post #22

The very fact that they are dogfooding DynamoDB (with core features of their business) makes me want to take it more seriously and use it more. I also love that they didn't just replace Oracle with but instead thoughtfully pieced together a strategy based on what the data was going to be used for. Well done!

Have used DynamoDB a couple times, most recently for data processing. It is extremely expensive, for data storage and performance. Queries are limited and cumbersome to write. If you are looking at it, put a reasonable amount of test data in and play with it too see what costs look like compared to the performance you need from it.

I have the exact opposite experience. These are just anecdotal experiences. Without providing insight into the workload and your approach it is pretty meaningless.

Re: Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

#93

Post by wmf »

wwarner wrote: post #76
CydeWeys wrote: post #18

Migrating everything to the same externally-available cloud infrastructure is exactly the thing that Google needs to do, but has been failing at for going on a decade now. Yes, I'm bitter about it.

The claim is that some of the data was migrated to publicly available systems. I'm guessing that quite a bit of it is stored in amazon specific systems, for two reasons. First, availability. If the amazon product catalog depends on Aurora, then when Aurora has an issue, so does Amazon retail. Second, custom solutions that were developed before modern alternatives existed have an insurmountable inertia in a big compan…

If the amazon product catalog depends on Aurora, then when Aurora has an issue, so does Amazon retail.

Because one-off internal IT never goes down? This isn't a good argument, especially since AWS wants to handle their other customers' availability.

Re: Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

#94

Post by kstrauser »

hanniabu wrote: post #14
godson_drafty wrote: post #8

The developer carrying it out still using 2015 MBP

My 2011 MBP is still my primary. This is the case for a lot of people because the newer versions just don't compare. On to of that you can't even upgrade the components in them since everything is integrated into the board.

I only just now replaced mine (with a Mac Mini + an iPad Pro) because my graphics card died for the last time.

Re: Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

#95

Post by stickfigure »

TheKarateKid wrote: post #69

As someone who has never used or worked with Oracle DBs, can someone explain why migrating to another technology is so difficult? With all the database engines available, is there really not another one that can match Oracle without massive customizations?

It really depends on how your applications were designed. If you "go deep" with Oracle - and if you've hired Oracle DBAs, you probably have - you probably have a lot of your business logic buried in a large body of stored procedures that aren't version controlled and rely on Oracle-specific behavior.

Re: Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

#96

Post by whoisjuan »

vkaku wrote: post #83

Obviously, enough Amazon bots are giving me bad karma, but my point stands: No, Amazon is not a special snowflake because it did this. This was an expensive exercise in spite, took a long time and a lot of people - and everyone knows it. They could have done this far efficiently already if they wanted to scale out, but that company has too many conflicting internal priorities that they took a heck of a long time to m…

"Amazon bots"... sure dude. Because all your opinions are popular by default. Otherwise is just "bots" downvoting you.

Why people can't admit that their opinions can be unpopular sometimes. That's not a bad thing. Not all the things you say need to be popular to have meaning to yourself and others. It sucks to be downvoted but that's part of having a healthy discourse in HN.

Re: Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

#97

Post by dastbe »

binarymax wrote: post #84
y4mi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Its an Open source implementation of the java vm which they don't own.

There are a couple ways they are trying to do this. They’re actively fighting the court battle vs Google for copyright of the Java api. They’re also adding more features to Java that are only supported in new versions, and they can/will attempt licensing lock in for those features. OpenJDK might survive as permanently stuck in version 8, or it might survive as a fork which will divide the community.

OpenJDK is not stuck on 8, and is where all language development goes.

Re: Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

#98

Post by StreamBright »

vkaku wrote: post #83

Obviously, enough Amazon bots are giving me bad karma, but my point stands: No, Amazon is not a special snowflake because it did this. This was an expensive exercise in spite, took a long time and a lot of people - and everyone knows it. They could have done this far efficiently already if they wanted to scale out, but that company has too many conflicting internal priorities that they took a heck of a long time to m…

It is hard to understand what you are saying. HN is not really an AWS loving place. Expensive in regard of what? If you end up saving 50% of your year over year cost across all the company than spending millions on this project and running it for 5 years is still worth the investment in the long run at their scale. Amazon is not looking for 1 month investments, their AWS endeavour is 13 years old[1]. They can spend a long time on something if they really up to it.

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/250520/forecast-of-amazo...

Re: Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

#99

Post by wwarner »

wmf wrote: post #93
wwarner wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim is that some of the data was migrated to publicly available systems. I'm guessing that quite a bit of it is stored in amazon specific systems, for two reasons. First, availability. If the amazon product catalog depends on Aurora, then when Aurora has an issue, so does Amazon retail. Second, custom solutions that were developed before modern alternatives existed have an insurmountable inertia in a big compan…

If the amazon product catalog depends on Aurora, then when Aurora has an issue, so does Amazon retail. Because one-off internal IT never goes down? This isn't a good argument, especially since AWS wants to handle their other customers' availability.

No, not at all, but it rarely goes down at the same time. I mean, I could be wrong, but that's my read of the announcement. Another issue with the managed services is that they don't provide total control over configuration, which is a complete show stopper for a large high performance data store.

Re: Amazon’s Consumer Business Turned Off Final Oracle Database

#100

Post by michannne »

irrational wrote: post #89

We've been working on migrating from Oracle to Postgres for a few years now. We are about 2 weeks from being finished. It is not for the faint of heart, but it is totally worth it. The documentation is much much better, performance is equivalent or better, the sql dialect is saner, etc. Other than moving the data itself (ora2pg was invaluable for this), rewriting the queries is what has taken the most amount of time.…

Using SQL Server exclusively has given me a Never-Oracle mindset. Some of these differences sound insane. and

> any functions in the order by clause must be moved to the select statement (e.g. order by lower(column_name))

I'd pull the hair outta my head

Post reply on HN