Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Databases Oracle Businesses Cloud The Internet United States

Amazon Will Be Off All Oracle Databases By End of 2019, Says AWS Chief 61

Posted by BeauHD 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

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

Comments Filter:

  • Amazon better watch their backs. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @07:49PM (#57718156)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      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 s

    • Re:Amazon better watch their backs. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday November 29, 2018 @12:22AM (#57718996) Journal

      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... [lightreading.com]

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

  • In the past, their software was a good choice (Score:4, Informative)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @07:54PM (#57718178)

    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

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mermeid007 ( 5624172 )
      That was back when foursquare was a thing and people said things like Golly Be and Hot Dickens!

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

    • Re:In the past, their software was a good choice (Score:4, Informative)

      by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @08:15PM (#57718252)

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Dan667 ( 564390 )
      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"?

  • $witching away from Oracle? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @08:24PM (#57718278)
    Why would $ome company $top using Oracle'$ $exy databa$e?

  • Good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @09:19PM (#57718506) Homepage

    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.

  • 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... [percona.com], 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.

    • Re:Technically Amazon will still be running on Ora (Score:5, Informative)

      by jtara ( 133429 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @09:40PM (#57718584)

      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!

    • 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.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @10:47PM (#57718816)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • You're in luck! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Thursday November 29, 2018 @01:42AM (#57719178)
      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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

    • Re:turning the tide (Score:4, Informative)

      by Voyager529 ( 1363959 ) <voyager529@yahoo. c o m> on Thursday November 29, 2018 @10:20AM (#57720260)

      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.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • 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

    • 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.

  • Oracle Will Sue Amazon By End of 2019, Says Experience

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close