Slashdot Mirror
Database Business Problems at Oracle?
abb_road writes "Wall Street responded to yesterday's report of a 42% rise in profits by pushing Oracle's stock down. Despite a 77% increase in applications business, investors are worried that Oracle's core database business remains comparatively stagnant. Though Ellison claims that the DB business will grow in double digits over the next few years, it seems that more companies are switching to open source rather than paying Oracle $40,000 a processor."
PostgreSQL is certainly working fine as a Ruby on Rails and Jabber backend for us... maybe I'll worry about it once we get up over a few terabytes, but for now, it's more than capable of handling everything we throw at it.
And good books keep coming out for it, too, which is reassuring.
The Army reading list
As databases such as MySQL, MS SQL and PostgreSQL and others keep adding features and performance the RDBMS are becoming more and more of a commodity market. To be expected.
But my company is looking closely at SqlServer right now. We just went through an Oracle license Inquisition and like the article said, it's about $40k a license or just under $1000 per named user. OTOH we can buy a SqlServer license for around $5k and have as many users as we want. T-Sql is a poor replacement for PL/SQL, but money talks.
Before you go all Slashbot on me, realize that my company is very conservative with respect to technology, so Open Source is unfortunately not an option here...
Well, you could switch to an open source database, and then hire all kinds of brainpower to understand how it works, keep updated on the development, institute updates constantly, search high and low to find someone who can solve the problem that apparently only your company is having... ...or, you could do the exact same thing with Oracle, plus forty large per processor.
This decision isn't that hard to make.
---don't make me break out my red pen.
On the other hand, Oracle has been very generous in allowing developer downloads of their DBMS; I was able to take their Linux port, install it on an old box running Red Hat, and port a Microsoft SQL Server-based back end over to Oracle in a couple of days just as an experiment. Obviously, to actually use the product would cost some bucks but this kind of flexibility is what helps keep Oracle's tentacles in so many businesses.
The other thing that the analysts ignored is that the database and enterprise software business isn't so much about having innovative technology, contrary to what was asserted in the Business Week article but rather having an effective sales organization. DBMS and enterprise management software is sales driven, not innovation driven. Executives don't watch commercials about sexy features in the latest rev of Oracle or Sql Server, then order a few copies from Amazon. It's the inside sales teams that patiently build relationships over the years. IBM knows this, Oracle knows this, and MS knows it too. Sybase tried but their hubris and arrogance brought them down. (direct personal experience with that!)
No doubt, while Larry crows about upcoming tech innovations, he's internally yelling at the sales teams to get more aggressive, offer more discounts, and steal more customers from Bill and from the SAP people. He'll eke out a few more percentage points of market share, and the investors will be satisfied for a couple more quarters. That's how the business works.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
I've heard a lot of debate about Postgresql vs. MySql that doesn't need to be re-hashed for the 1000'th time. On the other hand, I haven't heard much on Oracle vs. Postgresql. I have used Postgresql quite a bit, and think it's wonderful.
What is Postgresql missing that Oracle has? What does Oracle have that Postgres is missing? When do these features matter?
Let the flaming begin...
Do we have to stoop to this to make our point?
You can get Oracle server for as cheap as $150 per named user, with a three user minimum last I checked. This is perfect for many small business applications. And there are pricing schemes that gradually go up from there depending on the situation.
There are many great open source databases ( I use SQLite extensively ), but the commercial vendors still bring a lot to the table, and sometimes are even the best choice all things considered ( gasp! )
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
This is one of the areas where I think that Open Source can really shine, and it's interesting to see how the mindshare of Open Source database software is growing.
When you look at software purchasing patterns, it seems that most software purchases are driven by four things: cost, features, familiarity, and "safety." Open Source software usually competes strongly on the first, moderately well on the second, and not so well on the third and fourth. Asking DBAs to use something they're not familiar with means that they're going to be working slower and harder--not the choice that most people make. In addition, the "nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" syndrome sometimes prevents Open Source choices from getting a fair shake. But it appears that Open Source tools are starting to compete on those last two fronts as well.
A lot of geeks like to fiddle around with software on their own, and the "free" part of Open Source plays right to this. After all, are you going to pay for a Microsoft Sequel Server license, or try out MySQL when you're doing something for your own satisfaction? I'm a good example of something similar: I wanted some dynamic Web pages, but I didn't want to pay for ASP support through my ISP. So instead I started looking into PHP and eventually wound up using PHP to handle the dynamic content.
Once people involved in making decisions (not perhaps the decision-makers themselves, but people with input) start using Open Source for themselves, a lot of the "I don't know it so it's harder and slower" goes right out the window. Sure your average CRM developer might not be making the decision, but if they're asked about DB support and they know PostgreSQL because that's what they used to build their roll-your-own blog, they may offer that as an option.
As Open Source comes into use in the market, that helps alleviate the "safety" factor, too. When you can point to a large organization that's successfully running enterprise-grade applications on Open Source, it's easier for the decision makers to rationalize choosing an Open Source solution.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
And if you're negotiating with Oracle directly, something I do not recommend, then all you have to do is mention mySQL or PostgreSQL, and Oracle will drop their prices.
"Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
Sure, Oracle Enterprise has a $40k per CPU listing price, but let's be realistic. NOBODY pays $40k a CPU and maintenance and services. Not that I'm defending Oracle or their draconian pricing model, but in the end, Oracle can provide close to turn-key solutions when it comes to providing the product, escalating problems to engineering, custom solutions, consulting, deployment, implementation, long-term support. Combine that with Oracle's impressive feature list and the fact that most of the money that a company will spend on their database IT will NOT be DBMS licensing fees and you can see why upper management will spend thousands of dollars on a feature set that might very well be served by an open-source solution.
I am sure that there are many consulting firms that can mimick this kind of turn-key solution using PostgreSQL, but I'm not sure that they are as established--that is, give the CEO of XYZ company the warm & fuzzy that they require when they're about to undertake a multi-million dollar project whose backbone has to be a rock-solid DBMS.
It would be fabulous if Vault 10 IT consulting firms could provide this level of service using open source but that's just not the case Right Now(tm).
The main use for ultra scalable, ultra high-performance databases is for the core transactional DB of a large-scale app. Most apps that serve the other 80% of the DB needs don't need to be Oracle-grade. MS Sql Server or PostrgessSQL are a perfect fit. In fact, for the vast majority of companies, even their main transactional DB doesn't need to be Oracle-grade.
Basically a database is only used to keep data. Sometimes the data is vital to the business other times it is not. Databases move toward becoming more and more a commodity, just like everything else. It's a market where it's difficult to difference yourself.
Oracle is a very good database, no doubt about that, but what is the need of the business? As hardware becomes less and less expensive the performance and stability of the database becomes less of a differentiator.
It is true the market for databases is growing, but it is not the high-end database market. Especially now that the definition of high-end is moved up by the availability of less expensive hardware. It is better to spend money on good hardware, backup and storage, rather than on the database license.
So why by an oracle database? Only if you need the really high end performance of your database, that outranks the affordable hardware, you'll need to look at products like oracle.
-:) Oh no - not again.
www.rednebula.com
Yes.
MySQL will fall flat on its face far sooner than Oracle will. If your DB is tens to hundreds of terabytes, with gig and larger entries (think VLSI design here) then MySQL will not hold up (well). That said there are other OSS db's that will hold up better, though they are slower.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
WE recently have asked a vendor to see if they can change their product from SQL2000 to postgreSQL or MySQL as the $12,000.00 per processor license we pay for SQL2000Enterprise is more than it would be to hire a OSS DB admin that only takes care of the Database server and then still save 30% after paying someone full time plus benefits.
Many companies are done with the high ticket low support even on low end hardware such as a 4 processor 16 gigabyte SQL server. we are forced to Enterprise if we want to use the >4Gig ram which makes a huge difference. so Either we stare at $48,000 in SQL license fees per server or find something else. Hell at that price we can probably get our application completely rewritten to our specs and own it by outsourcing to india.
So Oracle is losing business to open source alternatives because one part of one company is switching to EnterpriseDB and because of an anecdotal quote?
Wow. Spare me the spin.
Isn't it also possible that the far cheaper closed source alternatives are getting a little business as well?
Oracle has always been pricey, but for a long time their DB features were hard to beat. Competitors, both closed and open, and finally getting to the point where they are on all levels with Oracle.
$40k per processor is "list price". In reality, there are other options, such as Kunta Kinte points out.
Further, the kinds of companies that have huge investments in data centers (Oracle's primary target) negotiate volume contracts with Oracle. These contracts push that $40k sticker price way way way down. (Previous employer paid under $20k for a typical Oracle server license, unlimited users, no time limits.)
Considering that these companies really need their data, and have hundreds of applications (not all of them even cataloged) already written to use Oracle, this money is just basic business expense.
Look - I'm as much an open source fan as anyone, but the fact is that the $40,000 figure is misleading. Oracle's so-called Standard Edition One is basically the full thing - it just can't do clustering, and can't do more than two processors.
I'm sure someone will point out another nitpick that it can't do, but the practical fact is that you can buy Standard Edition One for $5000/processor and get a fully functional database.
For the price-aware, you can even buy a 1, 2, or 3 year license for something like $2-3K.
And, no, Oracle isn't paying me to shill for them. I just work for a company that uses Oracle, and I hate to see the "Oracle costs $40,000" meme repeated here.
You OSS zealots continue to sound ignorant and uninformed by claiming this or that open source product is free. Yeah, yeah, one smart guy can work miracles with freely downloaded stuff in a small setting. In the context of a large enterprise, where lots of people need to support very large databases, nothing is free. The initial cost of the software product is microsocpic when compared to the real TCO. And by the way, 40K is bullshit. I'm at a Fortune 100 and we pay far less than that. The Silver support is what is damned expensive, if you want to take issue over cost.
Oracle's strong points over PG:
:) (probably including support) ;) (easier migration)
- speed
- mutli-way replication
- multi-node clusters
- advanced SQL (cubes, trees, etc)
- finer details of physical data layout (cluster tables, partitioned tables, etc)
- stability (unless you use the bleeding edge, which is brittle, alas)
PG's strong points Oracle:
- price
- relative simplicity and lower resource consumption
- easier administration
- good compatibility with Oracle's SQL
- source availability
Also, PG is perceived as less stable than Oracle, and even less than MySQL. It will take time to dispel this (if untrue).
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
Don't shout about 40k per proc - that's for the enterprise licenses... and ONLY on large boxen.
The "free" edition is that - free with a machine size/data volume limit.
The "Standard Edition One" is prolly the most compelling - $5k per proc LIST. Can only run on Dual proc boxen and can't cluster. Has ALL the features of enterprise besides that.
There is another edition in between that allows bigger boxen and clustering but misses out on some of the uber fancy stuff in enterprise (which, while cool - isn't stuff you use day-to-day).
The standard Edition One came out ~2yrs ago - they're trying to work in the shops/price range where SQLServer usually lives. And seriously, you can push a lot of data through a big dually with enough ram. Not going to support 50 million users - but both SQLServer and Oracle will do an awful lot on a properly configured Dual proc server.
That said - the previous poster was right - if you're paying retail you're nuts, and couldn't negotiate your way out of a paper sack.
I use MySQL, SQLServer, and Oracle on a fairly regular basis in different places, and for vanilla stuff A RDMS is a commodity service.
Until you're using your ERP to generate 4+MB sql statements (a supported feature in the latest DB2 version), or are doing some really ornery stuff, the DB is just a place to dump data. They all let you do backups etc, provide reasonable management tools etc. (Oracle does have some REALLY cool features from a DBA's standpoint that are missing in MySQL et al.)
Dev styles are different in different shops - if you're an "All CRUD/LOGIC in stored procs" shop then the lang in the DB (TSQL vrs PL/SQL) might be important to your devs... but if you are working on relative DB independence or working on portable COTS software, a DB is just another service.
No I don't work for Oracle.
I think it was a Playboy interview with Ellison in which he mentioned that he was all for a national ID system. I couldn't help but think then that he was for it because a) he is uber-rich so privacy concerns don't bother him, and b) it would create HUGE gov't contracts for high end database firms... like his. Now, there are plans to create a nationwide database system for tracking IDs, and Ellison is saying their business is going to expand in the next few years... maybe I'm just grasping at straws here, but the coincidences frightening.
Oracle has a couple initiatives going on... RAC and ASM. Here's about how it works (these are BROAD numbers, mind you).
.com crash, your average back-end IT infrastructure had a few main pieces:
6 years ago, before the
Cisco networking gear. Sun servers. EMC disks. Oracle database.
So you paid a few mil for the network. A few mil for the servers. A few mil for the EMC disks. And a mil or two for Oracle at $10K/cpu (list)
NOW, Oracle says "we have 10g RAC, use us to replicate across CPUs. Don't pay $3M + $1M/year for Sun support... buy a rack of Linux servers (or blades) and hardware costs $250K versus $3M... support is nearly free because if a machine fails, just pull it from the rack, throw it in the trash, and swap a new one in there.'
And lo, they promoted "Linux is unbreakable" and charged an extra $10K/cpu for this service. Total end cost to customer is LESS than the old solution, and it's way FASTER.
Then, they have another initiative... use ASM and the low-cost storage initiative... use the database to span multiple disks, and handle all the replication/redundancy. Don't pay EMC $3M + $1M/year for Symmetrix support. Put it on lower cost gear (Clariion, Nexsan ATAboy, or *gasp* Apple Xserve RAID even). Spindle speeds are slower, so you buy 2x as many spindles and get the same IOPS. Hey, you save a couple million and pay more per CPU (say $40K/cpu list) for the whole shootin' match.
So your cost goes from (again, broad numbers)
$2M Cisco + $3M Sun + $3M EMC + $2M Oracle = $10M + maintenance
to:
$2M Cisco + $500K Dell + $500K Dell or Apple + $4M Oracle = $7M + maintenance
You save $3M a year! Of course Oracle gets a bigger cut. But it's "win-win."
Of course, there is the one subtlety here -- you are now using Oracle's RAC and ASM so you can use cheap hardware and storage. This stuff is totally proprietary, so if Oracle comes back come renewal time and doubles your per-CPU cost for the software, it's a helluva lot harder to rip it out than just porting stored-procedure code.
I see a lot of comments here debating the relative merits and costs of Oracle's DBs versus PostGreSQL, MySQL and MS SQL Server. I don't believe those toys are Oracle's main competitors; they aren't in the same ballpark. In my experience, IBM's DB2 most certainly is in Oracle's league, if not ahead in some respects, but I see almost no mention of it here.
Does anyone have any experiences to share comparing Oracle's DB with a proper DB like DB2, rather than those other toys?