Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Plans To Move Completely Off Oracle Software By Early 2020 (cnbc.com)
Amazon plans to be completely off Oracle's proprietary database software by the first quarter of 2020, reports CNBC. The plans come after the company moved most of its infrastructure internally to Amazon Web Services. From the report: Amazon began moving off Oracle about four or five years ago, said one of the people, who asked not to be named because the project is confidential. Some parts of Amazon's core shopping business still rely on Oracle, the person said, and the full migration should wrap up in about 14 to 20 months. Another person said that Amazon had been considering a departure from Oracle for years before the transition began but decided at the time that it would require too much engineering work with perhaps too little payoff. The primary issue Amazon has faced on Oracle is the inability for the database technology to scale to meet Amazon's performance needs, a person familiar with the matter said. Another person, who said the move could be completed by mid-2019, added that there hasn't been any development of new technology relying on Oracle databases for quite a while.
Oracle can keep circling the drain.
Ellison was initially a big critic of cloud computing and famously boasted that it would be a flop. Now that a lot of companies have embraced it, Oracle is left scrambling. Workday, Amazon, Google, Microsoft...they all have a huge head start.
If this keeps up poor old Larry is going to have to sell off one of his Hawaiian islands or a couple of Malibu estates...oh the humanity!
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here.
The Oracle RDBMS is pretty much a giant pile of proprietary mess. Then there is the whole stack of applications that Oracle sells to run on top of it as well. Also 100% in house stuff. Oracle Linux only exists so that people would stop buying RHEL support contracts and buy Oracle support contract. If you are getting at the Oracle Linux stuff with the MIT/GPL comment, that is very little of what they do.
Also, Oracle sells a fair bit of hardware still, there are a dedicated core of customers who still want UltraSparc systems.
Clearly you've never had to deal with Oracle products...
SQL isn't "web scale"
SQL is a language. That's like saying that English isn't "web scale"...whatever that means.
Ezekiel 23:20
S3 is object storage, not a database. While AWS offers front-ends like Athena to query it, it's still a file system. You can persist lots of data pretty economically, but it's not a database. You do get benefits like automatic replication across regions, archive policies, etc. If you consider S3 a database, I guess you would have to consider NFS one as well.
DynamoDB is indeed a NoSQL database, and, yeah, I would not use it for transactional database operations. Amazon hardly always encourages NoSQL, though, they offer RDS (hosted MySQL, PostgreSQL, MSSQL and even Oracle) as well as their own relational solution Aurora, which is a highly scalable MySQL and PostgreSQL compatible database and supports transactions.
If Amazon encourages anything, it's to leverage a combo of RDS/Aurora for transactional work, DynamoDb or Elasticache (Redis) for key-based persistence and then Redshift and EMR (Hadoop/Pig/etc.) for warehousing/lakes/analytics; and then using leveraging things like Lambda and SQS to "glue" things together. Of course, leveraging that entire stack can easily lock one into their ecosystem (which Bezos won't shed any tears over); but along with the other gazillion service offerings they offer, it is pretty comprehensive.