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

321–330 of 471 posts

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

#321

Post by CydeWeys »

kenforthewin wrote: post #55
mattlondon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not the case that it is actually the opposite? That GCP is running on the internally-available cloud infrastructure at Google? How would they turn that inside out? What would GCP actually run on if they ran GCP on GCP? Or do you mean run search/gmail/youtube on GCP? Isn't their internal infra basically kubernetes in all but name?

I've heard that Google is bad at dog fooding their own cloud infrastructure and even that Borg is still dominant over Kubernetes in their internal infra but don't have any insider knowledge. If true this is one thing that Amazon is vastly superior than Google at.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.

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

#322

Post by snuxoll »

WorldMaker wrote: post #311
snuxoll wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MERGE statement is less functional and has a LOT of hidden gotchas, I won’t argue that I can be useful but I don’t disagree when them not providing the footgun.

I won't argue that debugging MERGE statements is easy, and that there aren't pitfalls, but it's a very declarative relational model reduce pattern so calling it "less functional" doesn't seem accurate to me, if you mean functional as in functional programming. (If you mean functional as in the raw number of features supported, I also heavily disagree because I know from past experience there are reductions you can do…

I should have clarified for it’s intended purpose MERGE is a useful statement, but for the use case handled by INSERT .. ON CONFLICT the ANSI MERGE statement falls flat, as it does not have the same concurrency and atomicity guarantees. It’s routinely a pain point when people try to use it to implement upsert’s in MSSQL.

For other cases there is work being done by 2nd Quadrant to add MERGE into PostgreSQL, but I’m glad the other functionality was added first to avoid a common and faulty use case of MERGE.

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

#323

Post by thenewnewguy »

toyg wrote: post #182
chrisseaton wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My company for technical reasons can't switch to OpenJVM The OpenJDK (not 'OpenJVM', that's not a thing) is literally 100% the same build as Oracle JDK now. There can't be any technical reason.

It might be the magic "support" word - random openjdk builds don't bring any commercial guarantees. This said, the likes of RedHat, Amazon and Azul are pretty happy to offer those guarantees, and I bet their prices are lower than Big Red O.

Yes, but that wouldn't be a 'technical' reason, would it?

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

#324

Post by Scramblejams »

brightball wrote: post #207
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#325

Post by rayiner »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #172

Amazon is a slightly annoying company that I rarely root for, but Oracle is a predatory company whose customer relations strategy seems to actively involve litigating them as a default assumption. Amazon is considered a paragon of IT, so their expulsion of Oracle is a useful tool at the CIO/CTO level of "nobody ever got fired for IBM" level of reasoning. Unfortunately, AWS is becoming the new IBM in that reasoning. G…

I don’t think most people would view the companies that way. Amazon is taking on mom & pops, warehouse employees, etc. Oracle might be super aggressive, but their targets are generally larger businesses and often huge corporations that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.

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

#326

Post by freehunter »

whack wrote: post #282
gopalv wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon is a slightly annoying company that I rarely root for, but Oracle is a predatory company Amazon and Oracle couldn't be more different in this point of view. Amazon's predatory instincts are pointed inwards and downwards, towards employees and vendors, while being mostly great towards the customer. Everything from their warehouse workers with timers, the crying software engineers and all other things I hear a…

> Amazon's predatory instincts are pointed inwards and downwards, towards employees and vendors... the crying software engineers and all other things I hear about them are about running an internally facing extraction economy... The squeeze is being put on those who draw a paycheck (or at least, a profit) from Amazon I know 10+ software engineers at Amazon, including people in their early 30s making close to half-a-m…

It's the same way with my company. In the rare situation I see my employer mentioned on HN, I can't even bother reading the comment. It's all so overwhelmingly negative. Not just on the management, but on the employees as well. HN's perception of the company who signs my paychecks is so wildly different from my own perspective as an employee there that I have a hard time believing anyone on HN who talks about a negative work experience at Company X or Company Y.

If the consensus for my company is so wrong, the consensus on every company is highly suspect.

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

#327

Post by kondro »

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…

Oracle Enterprise (RRP) is $47,500 per unit. Software updates are $10,500 per unit per year.

An Intel core is 0.5 units.

Running Oracle on single, 4 core CPU (or VM, because you can't partially license cores and you'd be lucky to find a 4 core server CPU) is $40,000 per year in licensing alone (amortised over 5 years)… for a single machine.

Want an active/passive replication set… double that cost.

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

#328

Post by freehunter »

deanCommie wrote: post #289
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…

This is a popular opinion but it simply fails to resonate to me. "This company's software is so useful you can't help but use it because it saves you so much time, effort, and money" is NOT lock in. You can absolutely choose to develop on AWS In a way that avoids lock-in (Containers, managed DB engines, other cloud storage providers have s3-compatible apis). People don't because it's more CONVENIENT not to - nobody i…

Exactly. I currently host my side project on Digital Ocean, but before that I was on AWS and before that I was on Heroku. I'm considering a move to Azure in the future. And switching between these services costs me basically nothing in time and almost zero code.

I started on Heroku, switched to AWS Elastic Beanstalk. Didn't much care for it so I switched to AWS EC2, running Dokku to replicate the Heroku experience. Simple database backup and restore with Postgres I manage myself. Switched to DO with the same setup with zero downtime. I expect Azure will be the same.

You create your own lock-in to save time and/or money. Those are business decisions like any other business decision. But in no way are any cloud providers forcing lock-in.

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

#329

Post by wolco »

throwaway981211 wrote: post #291
gopalv wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon is a slightly annoying company that I rarely root for, but Oracle is a predatory company Amazon and Oracle couldn't be more different in this point of view. Amazon's predatory instincts are pointed inwards and downwards, towards employees and vendors, while being mostly great towards the customer. Everything from their warehouse workers with timers, the crying software engineers and all other things I hear a…

I’m an engineer now at Amazon. I’ve been here 7 years. 5 years ago, our culture was far more toxic. More recently, some orgs are horrible places to work and others are much better. I don’t think we’re much worse than other companies. Our pay for engineers is less than Google and Facebook, as far as I know, but we beat other companies such as MSFT. Amazon naturally attracts people who want to accomplish big things. It…

Most places are not like this. Imagine getting respect and $200k?

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

#330

Post by wolco »

sokoloff wrote: post #316
senderista wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great for the customer? Not so much these days. I would happily trade my 2-day shipping for a no-counterfeit/safety guarantee.

I have gotten two counterfeit items from Amazon (that I know of, of course). In both cases, A2Z took care of the problem without fuss on my end. (One with a full refund-don't even send it back; the other with "send it back on us or keep it at half price".) Would I prefer a genuine article assurance? In general, yes. Would I prefer that over a wide selection of products and range of delivery services? Probably not.

That you know of.
Post reply on HN