Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Will Be Off All Oracle Databases By End of 2019, Says AWS Chief

Posted by BeauHD on from the do-it-yourself dept.

Amazon Web Services CEO Andy Jassy said in an interview on Wednesday that almost all of Amazon's databases that ran on Oracle will be on an Amazon database instead. "We're virtually done moving away from Oracle on the database side," Jassy said. "And I think by the end of 2019 or mid-2019 we'll be done." CNBC reports: Amazon is reducing its reliance on Oracle for its data needs and is instead using its own services. Jassy said 88 percent of Amazon databases that were running on Oracle will be on Amazon DynamoDB or Amazon Aurora by January. He added that 97 percent of "mission critical databases" will run on DynamoDB or Aurora by the end of the year. On Nov. 1, Amazon moved its data warehouse from Oracle to its own service, Redshift, Jassy said.

34 of 61 comments (clear)

  1. Amazon better watch their backs. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oracle can't let this work without a hitch. Or the rest of their victims will start to get ideas.

    Bezos better have new hires work in a fake 'live', target rich environment for a few months. Let the moles find things to break, then fire them.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Amazon better watch their backs. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well actually, in reality, it makes sense for data treaties between large data organisations, to collectively back up each others data, to an extent ie agree to back up 10,000 terabytes or what ever, just in case. Little bit of extra hardware and labour, for a major critical safety increase and they can always say, they did it, in the case of data leaks but one can assume the data backed up would be heavily encrypted, so bit hard to pull that one. Rather than pay each, they set up, mutual backups of equal size, just in case, cost versus risk, risk in this case being death of the company, versus a few million a year. Might even do data from the 'opposition', of equal amounts, ISPs do the same thing.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re: Amazon better watch their backs. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Found the Oracle narketing rep.

    3. Re:Amazon better watch their backs. by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oracle can't let this work without a hitch.

      Last year, Oracle taunted Amazon into abandoning Oracle.

      10/2/2017: Oracle's Ellison: Amazon & SAP Use Our Database Because We're Better
      https://www.lightreading.com/e...

      I'd say that two years is pretty quick for replacing and re-engineering a non-trivial chunk of your infrastructure.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re: Amazon better watch their backs. by mermeid007 · · Score: 1

      Oracle has good features too. It is just from a different time and era. Marketing experts have always praised their paper-based advertisements. Maybe someone should collect something like that as well. Why not? People seem to think obsolesence is the kiss of death. Or that nothing is ever obsolete. They don't see the obvious middle ground.

  2. In the past, their software was a good choice by MpVpRb · · Score: 3, Informative

    They offered an alternative to IBM that many considered to be a good choice at the time
    Today, it's just expensive and old, while the competition got better .. much better
    Times change

    1. Re:In the past, their software was a good choice by mermeid007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      That was back when foursquare was a thing and people said things like Golly Be and Hot Dickens!

    2. Re:In the past, their software was a good choice by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Informative

      They offered an alternative to IBM that many considered to be a good choice at the time
      Today, it's just expensive and old, while the competition got better .. much better
      Times change

      Want to know true hell?

        Being an Oracle DBA on VM/CMS.

        If you typed shutdown at the wrong prompt, you wouldn't shutdown Oracle. You'd kill the whole mainframe instance.

    3. Re:In the past, their software was a good choice by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Want to know true hell?

        Being an Oracle DBA on VM/CMS.

        If you typed shutdown at the wrong prompt, you wouldn't shutdown Oracle. You'd kill the whole mainframe instance.

      "Are you absolutely sure you wish to shutdown IBM's superduper resilient logically partitioned Gibson mainframe?
      Abort, Retry, Fail?"

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re: In the past, their software was a good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As if the DBA account would also have rights to perform a system shutdown.

    5. Re:In the past, their software was a good choice by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Molly guard FTW

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    6. Re: In the past, their software was a good choice by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was, a long, long, long time ago, a DEC trained VAX/VMS sysadmin. VMS could easily be properly set up so that this would be impossible. I despise Ellison, but the blame lies firmly on the idiot typing shutdown and the sysadmin who didn't configure things properly, not Oracle.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re:In the past, their software was a good choice by Dan667 · · Score: 2

      25 years ago I used an oracle database at a major fortune 500 company. It was antiquated, slow, and not intuitive at all. How far back do you have to go back for it to have been the "good choice"?

    8. Re:In the past, their software was a good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      26 years

    9. Re:In the past, their software was a good choice by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      Being an Oracle DBA on VM/CMS.

      You could have stopped at Oracle DBA, as nothing past this point could possibly be worse. Managing Oracle is a nightmare that is unsurpassed in modern computing, not even by Windows.

    10. Re:In the past, their software was a good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The technical chops of Oracle are rarely questioned by people who actually run big systems that require high availability. Their gripes tend to be about exorbitant licensing fees and constant unplanned charges that blow their budgets to hell.

    11. Re:In the past, their software was a good choice by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In 'olden days' of EBCDIC, CICS, punched cards and raised floors. When the NSA got it's metadata on 9 track tape.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. $witching away from Oracle? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why would $ome company $top using Oracle'$ $exy databa$e?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  4. Good by Trogre · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm no fan of Amazon as a company, but that bastard Oracle deserves to lose all his customers.

    I only hope other locked-in companies watch the Amazon transition with great interest.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  5. Technically Amazon will still be running on Oracle by idontusenumbers · · Score: 2, Informative

    Amazon Aurora is technically Oracle-based, depending on how you look at it, since it's based off MySQL, which is currently an Oracle product. According to https://www.percona.com/blog/2..., it is based off the MySQL database source code of 5.6.10, which was released 2013-02-05, 3 years and 1 month after Oracle purchased Sun, which is 2 years after Sun bought MySQL.

  6. Re:Technically Amazon will still be running on Ora by jtara · · Score: 4, Informative

    I recall reading about Aurora this YEARS ago. (at the time, at least) Aurora is really just a proprietary storage engine that they dropped into MySQL.

    They now have versions "compatible with" both MySQL and PostgreSQL.

    The PostgreSQL one is the one they are using internally!

  7. Re:Technically Amazon will still be running on Ora by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Nobody thinks MySQL is what Amazon means by "off of Oracle".

    Anyway, they're just using the engine, not the storage. And, granted, they should using MariaDB. Larry seems like the kind of guy who would be happy to sue them over some technicality here, the way they tried to clobber Google with a stupid java header copyright theory.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. From Oracle to .. MySQL?! by aberglas · · Score: 1

    What a choice.

    Postgresql would benefit greatly from some Amazon support.

    And Dynamo, NoSql, for ERP systems?

    They may well look back on Oracle with fond memories...

    1. Re:From Oracle to .. MySQL?! by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Amazon actually uses QLDB (just made public!) for most of the critical storage (like EC2 control plane). The data warehousing has been migrated to Redshift and less important systems might run off RDS or custom DB instances.

  9. Huzzah! by TimMD909 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I didn't want to read the article, so I didn't. Luckily, the summary mentioned "DynamoDB" and "Amazon Aurora". Now would be a good time to learn a bit about them, add it to the resume, and grit the teeth for the inevitable: headhunter spam. Don't worry, folks. I'm still a die hard MariaDB and PostgreSQL fan. However, I don't see a reason not to look on the other side of the fence for a sec... either way, take some time to do a victory dance that Oracle got a kick to the groin.

    1. Re:Huzzah! by srichard25 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Aurora, but DynamoDB is a pain in the ass. Limited functionality, some odd rules, and a very crappy API. I hated using it and would be concerned about any "mission critical databases" running on DynamoDB.

  10. fully license the physical hosts composing the VM by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Does Oracle want them to fully license the physical hosts cores in the composing the VM cluster??

    For AWS that must be like 1,000,000+ cores even only %0.05 need to run Oracle under the 1000 page EULA Oracle is the one to make judgment calls on what is part of the systems.

  11. You're in luck! by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're in luck! Amazon Aurora is basically a different backend for PostgreSQL (just announced) or MySQL that simplifies management. You don't have to learn anything new.

  12. turning the tide by sad_ · · Score: 1

    Ofcourse a lot of companies are not on oracle, or have migrated away, however none of them are as big as Amazon.
    And that is important, because if they can move away from Oracle so can anybody.
    This might be the start of a real exodus towards other db's in many big enterprises.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:turning the tide by Voyager529 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And that is important, because if they can move away from Oracle so can anybody.

      Uhm, no. I mean, yes, Oracle isn't increasing their customer base, but saying "if Amazon can do it, anybody can do it" misses the three big reasons why Amazon can do it.
      First, Amazon has billions of dollars at their disposal. Even if Oracle was letting them run their database for zero dollars and it was nothing more than a dick waving competition between Jeff Bezos and Larry Ellison just so Jeff could show Larry that he could, Amazon can financially afford to do that.
      Second, Amazon has the coding talent to do it. A whole lot of people using Oracle are still doing so because they don't have the specialists required to do that sort of migration. Even if they did, most Oracle customers run Oracle because an upstream piece of software relies on it, so even if they wanted to retool *and* they had a sufficiently skilled DBA to move the data over, they probably don't have the ability to do the same for their upstream software. Pursuant to the prior point, Amazon can either fix it themselves (because they wrote it), demand the upstream vendor retools for DynamoDB (because they can afford it), or they can write a replacement that fits well enough to route around it.
      Finally, unlike most Oracle customers, Amazon can easily recoup their expenses for writing DynamoDB - not just in the money they save by not-paying Oracle, but by selling the use of the database on AWS. That's fairly unique to Amazon; most other Oracle customers aren't selling database-aaS such that rolling their own will pay dividends.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Re:What about Oracle-wares? by drummerboybac · · Score: 2

    If they still have PeopleSoft, they could always replace it with the combo of Workday/Salesforce, or something of that ilk. As a bonus, Workday was founded by David Duffield, who also founded PeopleSoft and was forced out as part of a hostile takeover of PeopleSoft by Oracle. As such, Id imagine that Duffield would love to stick it to Oracle wherever possible.

    When I worked at HP, they managed to pull off the move from PeopleSoft to Workday and it was smoother than expected, given that it was HP. So if they can do it, I'm sure Amazon could do the same.

  15. Oracle Will Sue Amazon By End of 2019, Says Experi by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Oracle Will Sue Amazon By End of 2019, Says Experience

  16. Re:What about Oracle-wares? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    plenty of alternatives to oracle's overpriced crap that comes with pestilent auditors that camp in your company for months wasting your resources.

    ADP, Workday, SAP, TriNet, etc.