DBMS product categories
Analysis of database management technology in specific product categories. Related subjects include:
This week at the Teradata Partners user conference
Teradata tells me that its press embargoes are ending at 9:00 this morning. Here are some highlights of what’s going on, although names, dates, and details will have to await conversations and press releases this week.
- Teradata is productizing “private cloud,” under names including “Teradata Enterprise Analytics Cloud,” “Teradata Agile Analytics Cloud,” and “Teradata Elastic Mart Builder.” I.e., Teradata hopes to leapfrog Greenplum in its “Enterprise Data Cloud” strategy. This is only fair, in that Greenplum lifted the idea from Teradata and eBay in the first place. It also provides major support for what I think is an extremely sensible trend. Give or take issues of who announces and ships what a couple months before or after a competitor, my early thinking is that the main differences between Greenplum and Teradata in this regard will be:
- Virtual as opposed to just physical data marts, based on robust workload management software. (Advantage: Teradata)
- Pricing, deployment options. (Advantage: Greenplum)
- Features that don’t directly relate to enterprise/private cloud. (Advantage: Either, often Teradata.)
- Teradata is generally strengthening its data movement technology, e.g. for making various appliances work in sync. I’m not too clear yet on the details of that. I think this is what Teradata’s phrase “ecosystem management” refers to.
- Teradata is (pre-)announcing – at least as a statement of direction — an appliance based on solid-state drives (SSDs). I’ve thought for a while that Teradata was a leader in thinking through the issues around solid-state memory in data warehousing, so it makes sense that they’re among the leaders in actually coming to market as well. I plan to say more after meeting with, e.g., Carson Schmidt.
- Teradata has achieved a 300%ish speed-up in geospatial processing. I gather this is largely a byproduct of the parallel analytics work Teradata did around strengthening its SAS integration. However, there don’t seem to be a lot of Teradata geospatial users yet.
- Teradata Express, Teradata’s free Windows-based crippleware, is being ported to Amazon EC2 and VMware as well. Presumably to avoid cannibalizing Teradata product sales, there are quite a few limitations on Teradata Express, including system capacity, database size, and “no production use.”
- Teradata continues to extend its optimizations to handle queries issued by business intelligence tools. Previously, the focus of what Teradata discussed in this regard was query rewrite. But soon automatic recommendation and creation of Aggregate Join Indexes – i.e.., materialized views – will be included as well.
Greenplum customer notes
In a briefing about a forthcoming product announcement, Greenplum threw in a slide saying:
- Greenplum is getting 12-15 new (paying) customers per quarter, all of whom it fondly refers to as “Tier 1” enterprises.
- Greenplum will hit the 100+ customer mark this quarter (thus joining Vertica and Infobright).
- <10% of Greenplum business is now “influenced” by Sun hardware.
I asked Ben Werther to unpack that last claim for me. He quickly noted that it wasn’t his slide, but rather had been put together by colleagues. That said:
- As of the past quarter or two, <10% of Greenplum’s sales activity is on Sun, which works out to maybe one sale per quarter and at most a small number of sales cycles. (That’s down from from 50%+ not that long ago.)
- Most Greenplum business is now on HP or Dell equipment. Some is on IBM. There are some interesting sales cycles on Cisco’s new UCS (Unified Computing System) blades, but no closed deals yet. EMC seems to be part of the Cisco story.
No doubt part of the reason for the move away from Sun equipment is the impending Oracle acquisition. Another may be that the Greenplum/Sun appliance is somewhat underpowered. E.g., without particularly high levels of compression, eBay puts over 60 terabytes of data on each Greenplum node, which probably isn’t ideal from the standpoint of query performance.
Greenplum also says that 50% or so of sales are subscription-priced, rather than perpetual-licensed. I don’t have a sense for how long that’s been going on. (Edit: Ben Werther tells me this has been true for over a year.)
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Greenplum, Market share and customer counts, Pricing | 2 Comments |
Kickfire capacity and pricing
Kickfire’s marketing communication efforts are still a work in progress. Kickfire did finally relax its secrecy about FPGA-vs.-custom-silicon – not coincidentally during Netezza’s recent publicity cycle. That wise choice helped Kickfire get some favorable attention recently for its technical and market strategy, e.g. from Daniel Abadi, Merv Adrian and, kicking things off — as it were — me. Weeks after a recent Kickfire product release, there’s finally a fairly accurate data sheet up, although there’s still one self-defeatingly misleading line I’ll comment on below. Pricing is a whole other area of confusion, although it seems that current list prices have been inadvertently* leaked in Merv’s post linked above, with only one inaccuracy that I can detect.**
*I gather from the company that they forgot to tell Merv pricing was NDA.
** Merv cited a price as “starting” that I believe to be top-of-the-line. No criticism of Merv is implied in that; Kickfire has not been very clear in communicating hard numbers.
All that said, if one takes Kickfire’s marketing statements literally, Kickfire list pricing is around $20-50K per terabyte for a few small, fixed, high-performance configurations. That’s all-in, for plug-and-play appliances. What’s more, that range is based on the actual published user data capacity numbers for various Kickfire models, which I think are low for several reasons:
- Kickfire doesn’t officially admit that its model with 14.4 terabytes of disk can manage more than 6 terabytes of data, even though it clearly can.
- Actually, those 14.4 terabytes of disk can be increased or lowered as you choose.
- The basic compression figures implied in those calculations seem conservative.
- Compression figures are a lot more conservative yet, in that Kickfire assumes you’ll have a lot of actual indexes on your data. I’m not sure that’s necessary for most workloads.
| Categories: Columnar database management, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, Kickfire, Pricing | 3 Comments |
Infobright notes
I had lunch w/ Bob Zurek and Susan Davis of Infobright today. This wasn’t primarily a briefing, but a few takeaways are:
- Infobright now has >100 paying customers.
- Typical database size is from the low 100s of gigabytes to the low single-digit number of terabytes.
- Agile development is at or approaching two-week release cycles.
- Like Kickfire, Infobright has a multi-year deal with MySQL that insulates it against many potential Oracle/MySQL shenanigans.
- From an industry perspective, Infobright’s customer base sounds a lot like other vendors’:
- Data mart outsourcing/online analytics
- Log files for websites
- Telecommunications
- Financial services
- OEM, especially in the markets cited above
- “Hey, we’re beginning to see the occasional energy deal”
- A few random others
- Infobright is seeing some household-name customers, who surely have big-name analytic DBMS products, but who also have a policy that open source is the default choice, and if open source can get the job done then the favorite closed-source choices aren’t used.
- Infobright has the usual open-source community story — lots of involvement and engagement in the forums, but contributions are limited mainly to connectivity, utility scripts, etc. (Maybe some national language translation too; I’m not sure.)
How 30+ enterprises are using Hadoop
MapReduce is definitely gaining traction, especially but by no means only in the form of Hadoop. In the aftermath of Hadoop World, Jeff Hammerbacher of Cloudera walked me quickly through 25 customers he pulled from Cloudera’s files. Facts and metrics ranged widely, of course:
- Some are in heavy production with Hadoop, and closely engaged with Cloudera. Others are active Hadoop users but are very secretive. Yet others signed up for initial Hadoop training last week.
- Some have Hadoop clusters in the thousands of nodes. Many have Hadoop clusters in the 50-100 node range. Others are just prototyping Hadoop use. And one seems to be “OEMing” a small Hadoop cluster in each piece of equipment sold.
- Many export data from Hadoop to a relational DBMS; many others just leave it in HDFS (Hadoop Distributed File System), e.g. with Hive as the query language, or in exactly one case Jaql.
- Some are household names, in web businesses or otherwise. Others seem to be pretty obscure.
- Industries include financial services, telecom (Asia only, and quite new), bioinformatics (and other research), intelligence, and lots of web and/or advertising/media.
- Application areas mentioned — and these overlap in some cases — include:
- Log and/or clickstream analysis of various kinds
- Marketing analytics
- Machine learning and/or sophisticated data mining
- Image processing
- Processing of XML messages
- Web crawling and/or text processing
- General archiving, including of relational/tabular data, e.g. for compliance
Oracle Exadata 2 capacity pricing
Summary of Oracle Exadata 2 capacity pricing
Analyzing Oracle Exadata pricing is always harder than one would first think. But I’ve finally gotten around to doing an Oracle Exadata 2 pricing spreadsheet. The main takeaways are:
- If we believe Oracle’s claims of 10X compression, Exadata 2 costs more per terabyte of user data than Netezza TwinFin — $22-26K/TB vs. TwinFin’s <$20K — but less than the Teradata 2550.
- These figures are highly sensitive to assumptions about Oracle’s hybrid columnar compression.
- Similarly, if Netezza or Teradata were to significantly upgrade their own compression, the price comparison would look quite different.
- Options such as Data Mining or Oracle Spatial add 12% or so each to Exadata’s total system price.
Longer version
When Oracle introduced Exadata last year it was, well, expensive. Exadata 2 has now been announced, and it is significantly cheaper than Exadata 1 per terabyte of user data, based on:
- Similar overall pricing
- Twice the disk capacity
- Better compression
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Columnar database management, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, Exadata, Netezza, Oracle, Pricing, Teradata | 13 Comments |
Jacek Becla on issues in scientific data management
Just as Martin Kersten did, Jacek Becla emailed a response to my post on issues in scientific data management. With his permission, I’ve lightly edited his email too, and am posting it below, with some interspersed comments of my own. Read more
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Hadoop, MapReduce, Objectivity and Infinite Graph, Open source, Parallelization, SciDB, Scientific research | 4 Comments |
Issues in scientific data management
In the opinion of the leaders of the XLDB and SciDB efforts, key requirements for scientific data management include:
- A data model based on multidimensional arrays, not sets of tuples
- A storage model based on versions and not update in place
- Built-in support for provenance (lineage), workflows, and uncertainty
- Scalability to 100s of petabytes and 1,000s of nodes with high degrees of tolerance to failures
- Support for “external” data objects so that data sets can be queried and manipulated without ever having to be loaded into the database
- Open source in order to foster a community of contributors and to insure that data is never “locked up” — a critical requirement for scientists
However: Read more
Yahoo wants to do decapetabyte-scale data warehousing in Hadoop
My old client Mark Tsimelzon moved over to Yahoo after Coral8 was acquired, and I caught up with him last month. He turns out to be running development for a significant portion of Yahoo’s Hadoop effort — everything other than HDFS (Hadoop Distributed File System). Yahoo evidently plans to, within a year or so, get Hadoop to the point that it is managing 10s of petabytes of data for Yahoo, with reasonable data warehousing functionality.
Highlights of our visit included:
- There are dozens of people at Yahoo doing Hadoop development that will wind up getting open sourced. (Full-time or close to it.) In particular, everything Mark’s team does goes to open source.
- Yahoo is moving as much of its analytics to Hadoop as possible. Much of this is being moved away from Oracle and from Yahoo’s own Everest.
- A column store is being put on top of HDFS, based on Yahoo technology. Columns will be striped across nodes. Perhaps that’s why the effort is called Project Zebra.
- Mark believes that in a year Hadoop will be much further along in meeting traditional data warehousing requirements, in areas such as:
- Metadata
- SLAs/high availability/other workload management
- Data retention policies
- Security/privacy*
- Yahoo views the time-to-market benefits of Hadoop as being more important than TCO.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Data warehousing, Hadoop, MapReduce, Open source, Oracle, Petabyte-scale data management, Web analytics, Yahoo | 6 Comments |
Facts and rumors
- Vertica is putting out a press release today touting its 100th customer, and talking of triple digit growth last year.
- Multiple sources have told me that the DATAllegro system is being thrown out of Dell, so evidently Dell is telling this to one and all. If that goes through, this would presumably leave TEOCO as DATAllegro’s single happy customer. (I haven’t checked with Microsoft for its view.)
- A rumor has it that Infiniband technology vendor Voltaire, Ltd. privately claims triple-digit sales of switches for Exadata 1 (I think that one would be one switch per Exadata installation, not per rack). Based just on a quick glance, this is far from confirmed by Voltaire’s earnings conference call transcripts or SEC filings. However, the most recent transcript does seem to indicate Voltaire got multiple Exadata deals in the telecommunications sector, and suggests some Exadata penetration in other sectors as well.
- I was told of a classified-agency user that has >1 petabyte of data on Exadata 1 and 600 terabytes or so on Netezza. My not-obviously-biased source says the agency is distinctly happier with Netezza than Exadata.
- Like ParAccel, Oracle just got dinged for TPC-related misbehavior.
- Rumor has it that Sun has no intention of helping ParAccel rerun its withdrawn TPC-H benchmark.
- ParAccel has withdrawn the claim from its home page to be the “CERTIFIED” price-performance leader. This seems to confirm that the claim was a reference to the TPC-H. In my opinion, that was a gross misrepresentation of what the TPC-H shows.