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

451–460 of 471 posts

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

#451

Post by AtlasBarfed »

throwaway981211 wrote: post #443
deegles wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the AMZN 401k match still garbage? I remember it was a max of 2% paid out in stock with a 2 year vest.

401K match is garbage but salaries are decent. I’d say we’ve gotten far more competitive in pay, and that’s not even counting the crazy stock appreciation over the past several years. In terms of overall benefits, we aren’t competitive - which makes sense considering Amazon isn’t a cash printing machine like FB or Google. We genuinely don’t have the money to spend unless Bezos was to deliberately sell $1 billion each…

I though salaries were capped at 150k or something. Which is good, don't get me wrong... but a lot of the other FAANGs beat that easily?

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

#452

Post by zkomp »

Pxtl wrote: post #270
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.…

A lot of this sounds similar to MS SQL Server - the MERGE one sticks out, does Postgres not have MERGE?

Not yet, merge is broken though and postgres has an alternative that actually do handle races.

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

#453

Post by tvontheradio99 »

zapita wrote: post #395
whack wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Do you know many Amazon warehouse workers?

Looks like about 125,000: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+amazon+warehouse+wo...

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

#454

Post by grumpydba »

GetOutOfBed wrote: post #449
grumpydba wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, maybe there will be built in automatic fail over in a few years so you don't have to hack it together using a bunch of scripts. thanks microsoft !! https://github.com/citusdata/pg_auto_failover

> curl https://install.citusdata.com/community/rpm.sh | sudo bash Yeahh I guess not. Let me know when I don't have to hack it together with a bunch of scripts and the PG team takes availability seriously.

It's on yum.postgresql.org, the official repo. Come on!

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

#455

Post by ducktape »

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.…

@irrational, you have my sympathy. But next time you hear of anybody wanting to torture themselves with such an endeavor you might want to save their soul by asking them to look at CompilerWorks.com. Full disclosure, I work at/for CompilerWorks and will be biased since they pay the bills. But as an ultimate compliment for the kind of work we do, one of our customers brought xz0r's comment about us to our attention.

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

#456

Post by throwaway981211 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #448
throwaway981211 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your problem domain? You shouldn’t be locked into AWS. No offense, but sounds like bad design or more generally, you or your engineers don’t know what they’re doing.

As a percentage of offerings, how much of the AWS portfolio is portable between clouds? 5%? 1%? Of course we could re-write on a different cloud, just like Amazon can move off Oracle, but it would take time and we would put up with a lot of abuse before it happened, just like Amazon no doubt did with Oracle. Which is what you were just bragging about: your numbers show that your customers are locked in enough that yo…

You didn’t answer my question and deflected, only responding with personal attacks. Nice.

I still think that your notion of intentional vendor lock in is misinformed at best and poor design and architecting from your side (at worst). I do happen to work at Amazon but my post history will show you how critical I am of the company.

But nothing you’re saying is valid, and I don’t see any parallel here with the migration from Oracle. If you’ve used Oracle DB or have familiarity with its one off special “features”, there’s no parallel between that and using something like RDS or Dynamo. RDS is replaceable. Dynamo is a key value store first and foremost.

There are also enough third party abstractions that let provide you their own configuration and syntax for spinning up resources on AWS, Azure, GCP, etc or mix and match.

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

#457

Post by throwaway981211 »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #451
throwaway981211 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

401K match is garbage but salaries are decent. I’d say we’ve gotten far more competitive in pay, and that’s not even counting the crazy stock appreciation over the past several years. In terms of overall benefits, we aren’t competitive - which makes sense considering Amazon isn’t a cash printing machine like FB or Google. We genuinely don’t have the money to spend unless Bezos was to deliberately sell $1 billion each…

I though salaries were capped at 150k or something. Which is good, don't get me wrong... but a lot of the other FAANGs beat that easily?

Salaries are capped at $160 but salaries are a part of your total comp. Most of my compensation comes from stock not salary, and my salary is maxed.

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

#458

Post by AtlasBarfed »

throwaway981211 wrote: post #456
jjoonathan wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a percentage of offerings, how much of the AWS portfolio is portable between clouds? 5%? 1%? Of course we could re-write on a different cloud, just like Amazon can move off Oracle, but it would take time and we would put up with a lot of abuse before it happened, just like Amazon no doubt did with Oracle. Which is what you were just bragging about: your numbers show that your customers are locked in enough that yo…

You didn’t answer my question and deflected, only responding with personal attacks. Nice. I still think that your notion of intentional vendor lock in is misinformed at best and poor design and architecting from your side (at worst). I do happen to work at Amazon but my post history will show you how critical I am of the company. But nothing you’re saying is valid, and I don’t see any parallel here with the migration…

That was a personal attack? Um, no.

DynamoDB is not directly portable, Cassandra is closest, and it's a bear to roll your own. Are you an Amazon employee outright telling people to not use the fundamental datastore of AWS?

S3 also is fairly proprietary, are you, an Amazon employee, outright telling people to not use the fundamental file storage of AWS?

I could go on, obviously.

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

#459

Post by AtlasBarfed »

throwaway981211 wrote: post #442
zer00eyz wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You answered the questions on exactly what is wrong with the console...

How so? Op is correct - you shouldn’t be using the console to actively manage your infrastructure. The consoles primary purpose is to let you quickly spin up resources while you explore. If you have a real business use case, all your infrastructure should be defined in configuration and deployed out to AWS. That way, you always know what you need to spin up and it’s exact, specific configuration, all stored in source…

"The consoles primary purpose is to let you quickly spin up resources while you explore."

And it's pretty bad at this.

I'm not saying the interfaces are the worst ever invented, just that they are a step above internal enterprise software, and despite the fact that AWS makes almost 8 BILLION DOLLARS there appears to be less that 1/1000th of that revenue invested in improving it.

Post reply on HN