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

331–340 of 471 posts

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

#331

Post by kondro »

Havoc wrote: post #281
iRobbery wrote: post #241

"This team moved 40 TB of data with just one hour of downtime, and realized the same or better performance at half the cost, powered by Amazon Aurora." Would have loved to have read some technical details on how 40 Tbyte was transferred in an hour, even migrated.

>Would have loved to have read some technical details on how 40 Tbyte was transferred in an hour, even migrated. Perhaps I'm missing something but that doesn't seem hard considering: 1) It's only like 3x high end consumer level 16TB HDDs 2) This is Amazon...they have AWS - really fat pipes and endless horsepower on demand

Have you tried transferring 40TB from 3x spinning disk HDD… let alone an actively running DB infrastructure?

The maximum sustained transfer rate of a 16TB Seagate Exos X16 is 261MB/s. That would take 17 hours to transfer at full speed.

Not that the data storage would look like that, but even at 100Gbps networking operating at 80% (about what you'd achieve realistically) it would take 70 minutes to transfer 40TB at full wire speeds.

But we're not talking about full-wire speeds. We're talking about exporting from an Oracle DB and importing to an entirely different DB. The file transfer task isn't the hard bit, it's the actual data migration along the way. That's a massive undertaking and I'm surprised any of the migration tasks were able to complete with such a small amount of downtime.

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

#333

Post by scarejunba »

Scramblejams wrote: post #324
brightball wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aurora actively makes me want AWS to have my data. It's the only thing that AWS has that I miss on a daily basis.

Can you elaborate? I'm kicking tires at the moment.

Fully MySQL/PostgreSQL-compatible DBMS with automatic failover across AZs so you get upgrades all the time, fully managed, without ever having downtime. It's really good. Access management can be through IAM.

Like, Google Cloud SQL has 5 minutes of planned downtime every month by design, in comparison, or something.

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

#334

Post by brightball »

Scramblejams wrote: post #324
brightball wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aurora actively makes me want AWS to have my data. It's the only thing that AWS has that I miss on a daily basis.

Can you elaborate? I'm kicking tires at the moment.

Better price than RDS, better speed, never worrying about the disk size and needing to plan to scale up, built in data redundancy and restart times of under a minute in the event of a crash (faster than replica failover so you don’t need a replica unless you just really want one).

I miss it. Daily. Took the amount of time I spent on DB maintenance every month from about 5 hours to about 0 hours.

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

#336

Post by BubRoss »

philjohn wrote: post #237
Justsignedup wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next up: oracle sues Amazon for not using their product.

I wonder if their latency and performance claims in this blog post fall foul of Oracle's "No publishing benchmark results against our competitors".

Maybe now that their contract has expired it doesn't matter.

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

#337

Post by bob1029 »

mumblemumble wrote: post #12
jedieaston wrote: post #2

Is this not a case study that anyone can leave Oracle now, if an Amazon scale install can?

It is not. Amazon accomplished the task by building their own Oracle replacement. You have to be approximately as large as Amazon for that to be a realistic option. If you'd like to use the alternatives that Amazon built, you can, of course, migrate to Amazon Web Services. Though, if you dislike the vendor lock-in you're experiencing with Oracle, and are considering Amazon as a good place to flee to, you possibly hav…

I would protest the point that you have to be as large as Amazon to produce your own database-as-a-service solution, especially if you are only building it for yourself. Throwing some automated tooling around Postgres and any arbitrary linux VM hypervisor API should get you a lot of the same value.

It doesn't take a ton of magic to allow a developer to spin up a pg cluster with a few clicks via some custom web tool. Reporting and operations are trickier to handle, but if you don't need to satisfy the same customer base as Amazon does (i.e. you are your only customer), you could probably pull this off at nearly any scale.

That said, I will certainly grant you the cloud vendor lock-in angle. It truly is one of the biggest ploys of this decade. My organization takes great pride in only using the most fundamental of cloud resources (compute instances, block storage, DNS, VPN, routing). If we had to evacuate AWS to on-prem or some other provider, it would not be a huge ordeal. For those who wound up with their entire business stuck firmly inside vendor-specific things like Lambdas, you have my deepest sympathies.

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

#338

Post by nostrebored »

jrockway wrote: post #263
golergka wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't AWS much less prone to customer lock-in? May be I don't have experience with tweaking AWS under heavy high load, but 98% of code I write for backend that I host on Amazon isn't specific to AWS or it's services in any way.

Most people are not using generic services on AWS, preferring the Amazon-proprietary things like CloudFormation to open source things like Kubernetes.

This is a strange comparison. Cloud provider IaC offerings like Cloud Formation are obviously going to be specific to their service. AWS also has EKS for Kubernetes.

Things listed as lock in with AWS usually have easy migration paths. E.g. DynamoDB integrates with Database migration service and Lambda functions are easy enough to expose by shifting code to dedicated servers.

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

#339

Post by nostrebored »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #179
the_duke wrote: post #144

The video feels like a big middle finger to Oracle. "stop oracle", and the URL https://aws.amazon.com/products/databases/freedom . Not that I'm complaining, Oracle deserves all the hate they get for their business practices. But associating AWS with "breaking free" is extremely ironic. It's just as much of a source for vendor lock in as Oracle. If you are not extremely careful/dedicated with your system design, you a…

In the same vein of oracle trying the one-ring-to-bind them, RDS is amazing on many levels, but AWS is all in on database lockin with their customers. RDS probably affords enough flexibility to get your data out, but Dynamo... that's a different story.

How? There is literally a service dedicated to migrating databases into and off of AWS

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

#340

Post by nostrebored »

e12e wrote: post #307
LrnByTeach wrote: post #189

Here is the meat of the Report: >We migrated 75 petabytes of internal data stored in nearly 7,500 Oracle databases to multiple AWS database services including Amazon DynamoDB,Aurora, RDS, and Redshift. >We kept careful track of the costs and the performance, and realized the following results: >Cost Reduction – We reduced our database costs by over 60% on top of the heavily discounted rate we negotiated based on our…

> Cost Reduction – We reduced our database costs by over 60% on top of the heavily discounted rate we negotiated based on our scale. Customers regularly report cost savings of 90% by switching from Oracle to AWS. So Amazon saves 60%, when switching to paying "cost" for Amazon services - and they still claim customers paying cost+markup save 90%? I'm sure there's probably savings - but that math sounds optimistic. Or…

It's not "cost". Internal customers are billed the same amount as external customers.
Post reply on HN