Data warehouse appliances
Analysis of data warehouse appliances – i.e., of hardware/software bundles optimized for fast query and analysis of large volumes of (usually) relational data. Related subjects include:
- Data warehousing
- Parallelization
- Netezza
- DATAllegro
- Teradata
- Kickfire
- (in The Monash Report) Computing appliances in multiple domains
Oracle says they do onsite Exadata POCs after all
When I first asked Oracle about Netezza’s claim that Oracle doesn’t do onsite Exadata POCs, they blew off the question. Then I showed Oracle an article draft saying they don’t do onsite Exadata proofs-of-concept. At that point, Oracle denied Netezza’s claim, and told me there indeed have been onsite Exadata POCs. Oracle has not yet been able to provide me with any actual examples of same, but perhaps that will change soon. In the mean time, I continue with the assumption that Oracle is, at best, reluctant to do Exadata POCs at customer sites.
I do understand multiple reasons for vendors to prefer POCs be done on their own sites, both innocent (cost) and nefarious (excessive degrees of control). Read more
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Buying processes, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Exadata, Oracle | 10 Comments |
Netezza’s marketing goes retro again
Netezza loves retro images in its marketing, such as classic rock lyrics, or psychedelic paint jobs on its SPUs. (Given the age demographics at, say, a Teradata or Netezza user conference, this isn’t as nutty as it first sounds.) Netezza’s latest is a creative peoples-liberation/revolution riff, under the name Data Liberators. The ambience of that site and especially its first download should seem instinctively familiar to anybody who recalls the Symbionese Liberation Army when it was active, or who has ever participated in a chant of “The People, United, Will Never Be Defeated!”
The substance of the first “pamphlet”, so far as I can make out, is that you should only trust vendors who do short, onsite POCs, and Oracle may not do those for Exadata. Read more
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Buying processes, Data warehouse appliances, Exadata, Netezza, Oracle | 2 Comments |
Kickfire reports a few customer wins
Kickfire has the kind of blog I emphatically advise my clients to publish even when they don’t have management bandwidth to do something “sexier.” If nothing else, at least they record their customer wins when they can.
The current list of cited customers is two application appliance OEM vendors (unnamed, but with some detail), plus one Web 2.0 company (ditto). They’ve also posted about a Sun partnership.
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Kickfire, Market share and customer counts | 1 Comment |
The “baseball bat” test for analytic DBMS and data warehouse appliances
More and more, I’m hearing about reliability, resilience, and uptime as criteria for choosing among data warehouse appliances and analytic DBMS. Possible reasons include:
- More data warehouses are mission-critical now, with strong requirements for uptime.
- Maybe reliability is a bit of a luxury, but the products are otherwise good enough now that users can afford to be a bit pickier.
- Vendor marketing departments are blowing the whole subject out of proportion.
The truth probably lies in a combination of all these factors.
Making the most fuss on the subject is probably Aster Data, who like to talk at length both about mission-critical data warehouse applications and Aster’s approach to making them robust. But I’m also hearing from multiple vendors that proofs-of-concept now regularly include stress tests against failure, in what can be – and indeed has been – called the “baseball bat” test. Prospects are encouraged to go on a rampage, pulling out boards, disk drives, switches, power cables, and almost anything else their devious minds can come up with to cause computer carnage. Read more
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Buying processes, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing | 6 Comments |
How to tell Teradata’s product lines apart
Once Netezza hit the market, Teradata had a classic “disruptive” price problem – it offered a high end product, at a high price, sporting lots of features that not all customers needed or were willing to pay for. Teradata has at times slashed prices in competitive situations, but there are obvious risks to that, especially when a customer already has a number of other Teradata systems for which it paid closer to full price.
This year, Teradata has introduced a range of products that flesh out its competitive lineup. There now are three mainstream Teradata offerings, plus two with more specialized applicability. Teradata no longer has to sell Cadillacs to customers on Corolla budgets.
But how do we tell the five Teradata product lines apart? The names are confusing, both in their hardware-vendor product numbers and their data-warehousing-dogma product names, especially since in real life Teradata products’ capabilities overlap. Indeed, Teradata executives freely admit that the Teradata Data Mart Appliance 551 can run smaller data warehouses, while the Teradata Data Warehouse Appliance 2550 is positioned in large part at what Teradata quite reasonably calls data marts.
When one looks past the difficulties of naming, Teradata’s product lineup begins to make more sense. Let’s start by considering the three main Teradata products. Read more
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Netezza, Pricing, Teradata | 14 Comments |
Introduction to Kickfire
I’ve spent a few hours visiting or otherwise talking with my new clients at Kickfire recently, so I think I have a better feel for their story. A few details are still missing, however, either because I didn’t get around to asking about them, or because an unexplained accident corrupted my notes (and I wasn’t even using Office 2007). Highlights include: Read more
| Categories: Columnar database management, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Kickfire, MySQL, Theory and architecture | Leave a Comment |
Quick guide to Teradata’s announcements this week
The Teradata Partners (i.e., user) conference is this week. So there have been lots of press releases, some presentations, lots of meetings, and so on. A lot of Teradata’s messaging is in flux, as it moves fairly rapidly to correct what I believe have been some deficiencies in the past. One confusing result is that there was very little prebriefing about the actual announcement details, and we’re all scrambling to figure out what’s up.
Teradata does a good job of collecting its press releases at one URL. So without linking to most of them individually, let me jump in to an overview of Teradata news this week (whether or not in actual press release format): Read more
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Teradata | 9 Comments |
A data warehouse pricing complication: Software vs. appliances
Juan Loaiza of Oracle disagrees with a number of my opinions. We plan to talk about some of that when I visit on Thursday, after Teradata Partners. 🙂 But I’d like to throw one of his ideas out there right now. Juan contends that comparisons of Oracle Exadata pricing are apt to be misleading because — among other reasons — Oracle licenses can be reused on other hardware, in ways that appliance software can not. (The same reasoning would of course apply to almost everybody else except Teradata and Netezza.) Read more
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Exadata, Oracle, Pricing | 2 Comments |
Advance sound bites on the Microsoft/DATAllegro announcement
Microsoft said they’d prebrief me on at least the DATAllegro part of tomorrow’s SQL Server announcements, but that didn’t turn out to happen (at least as of 9 pm Eastern time Sunday night). An embargoed press release did just arrive, but it’s so concise and high-level as to contain almost nothing of interest.
So I might as well post sound bites in advance. Here goes:
- With the DATAllegro acquisition, Microsoft leapfrogged Oracle. But with Exadata, Oracle leapfrogged Microsoft back. Exadata is actually shipping.
- There’s no assurance that the first DATAllegro/Microsoft release will inherit SQL Server’s level of concurrency. After all, DATAllegro/Ingres wasn’t as concurrent as plain Ingres.
- Porting DATAllegro from Ingres to SQL Server is likely to be straightforward. If they screw up it will be because they tried to do too much else at the same time, not because the basic port failed.
- Porting DATAllegro from Linux to Windows should also be OK. DATAllegro doesn’t stress the operating system in the areas where Windows remains weak.
- Earlier this year, DATAllegro had exactly one customer known to be in production, but I’ve spoken with that one. It’s TEOCO, which has a multi-hundred terabyte DATAllegro installation. TEOCO is a very price-oriented buyer.
- DATAllegro reports that two more customers are in production with large systems now. Neither of those is believed by industry sources to be especially in love with DATAllegro. Otherwise, nobody seems able and willing to identify other DATAllegro customers.
I’m going to be pretty busy Monday anyway. Linda is having a bit of oral surgery. And if I get back from that in time, I have calls set up with a couple of clients.
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Microsoft and SQL*Server | 3 Comments |
History, focus, and technology of HP Neoview
On the basis of market impact to date, HP Neoview is just another data warehouse market participant – a dozen sales or so, a few systems in production, some evidence that it can handle 100 TB+ workloads, and so on. But HP’s BI Group CTO Greg Battas thinks Neoview is destined for greater things, because: Read more
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, HP and Neoview | 12 Comments |