Vertica pricing and customer metrics
Since last fall, Vertica’s stated pricing has been “$100K per terabyte of user data.” Vertica hastens to point out that unlike, for example, appliance vendors or Sybase, it only charges for deployment licenses; development and test are free (although of course you have to Bring Your Own hardware). Offer the past few weeks, I’ve gotten other pricing comments from Vertica to the effect that:
- Of course, Vertica offers substantial negotiated quantity discounts. (Specifics that Vertica told me are confidential.)
- Actually,Vertica’s official price list (unpublished but apparently freely available to prospects) contains quantity discounts too.
- Finally, Vertica told me that its actual average price is around $25K/terabyte, and gave me person to publish same.
I didn’t press my luck and ask exactly what “average” means in this context.
As for customers, metrics I got include: Read more
Some DB2 highlights
I chatted with IBM Thursday, about recent and imminent releases of DB2 (9.5 through 9.7). Highlights included:
- DB2 is getting Oracle emulation, which I posted about separately.
- IBM says that it had >50 new DB2 data warehouse customers last year. I neglected to ask how many of these had been general-purpose DB2 customers all along.
- By “data warehouse customer” I mean a user for InfoSphere Warehouse, which previously was called DB2’s DPF (Data Partitioning Feature). Apparently, this includes both logical and physical partitioning. E.g., DB2 isn’t shared-nothing without this feature.
- IBM is proud of DB2’s compression, which it claims commonly reaches 70-80%. It calls this “industry-leading” in comparison to Oracle, SQL Server, and other general-purpose relational DBMS.
- DB2 compression’s overall effect on performance stems from a trade-off between I/O (lessened) and CPU burden (increased). For OLTP workloads, this is about a wash. For data warehousing workloads, IBM says 20% performance improvement from compression is average.
- DB2 now has its version of one of my favorite Oracle security features, called Label Based Access Control. A label-control feature can make it much easier to secure data on a row-by-row, value-by-value basis. The obvious big user is national intelligence, followed by financial services. IBM says the health care industry also has interest in LBAC.
- Also in the security area, IBM reworked DB2’s audit feature for 9.5
- I think what I heard in our discussion of DB2 virtualization is:
- Increasingly, IBM is seeing production use of VMware, rather than just test/development.
- IBM believes it is a much closer partner to VMware than Oracle or Microsoft is, because it’s not pushing its own competing technology.
- Generally, virtualization is more important for OLTP workloads than data warehousing ones, because OLTP apps commonly only need part of the resources of a node while data warehousing often wants the whole node.
- AIX data warehousing is an exception. I think this is because AIX equates to big SMP boxes, and virtualization lets you spread out the data warehousing processing across more nodes, with the usual parallel I/O benefits.
- When IBM talks of new autonomic/self-tuning features in DB2, they’re used mainly for databases under 1 terabyte in size. Indeed, the self-tuning feature set doesn’t work with InfoSphere Warehouse.
- Even with the self-tuning feature it sounds as if you need at least a couple of DBA hours per instance per week, on average.
- DB2 on Linux/Unix/Windows has introduced some enhanced workload management features analogous to those long found in mainframe DB2. For example, resource allocation rules can be scheduled by time. (The point of workload management is to allocate resources such as CPU or I/O among the simultaneous queries or other tasks that contend for them.) Workload management rules can have thresholds for amounts of resources consumed, after which the priority for a task can go up (“Get it over with!”) or down (“Stop hogging my system!”).
| Categories: Application areas, Data warehousing, Database compression, IBM and DB2, Market share and customer counts, OLTP, Parallelization, Workload management | 2 Comments |
IBM’s Oracle emulation strategy reconsidered
I’ve now had a chance to talk with IBM about its recently-announced Oracle emulation strategy for DB2. (This is for DB2 9.7, which I gather has been quasi-announced in April, will be re-announced in May, and will be re-re-announced as being in general availability in June.)
Key points include:
- This really is more like Oracle emulation than it is transparency, a term I carelessly used before.
- IBM’s Oracle emulation effort is focused on two technological goals:
- Making it easy for an Oracle application to be ported to DB2.
- Making it easy for an Oracle developer to develop for DB2.
- The initial target market for DB2’s Oracle emulation is ISVs (Independent Software Vendors) much more than it is enterprises. IBM suggested there were a couple hundred early adopters, and those are primarily in the ISV area.
Because of Oracle’s market share, many ISVs focus on Oracle as the underlying database management system for their applications, whether or not they actually resell it along with their own software. IBM proposed three reasons why such ISVs might want to support DB2: Read more
DBMS transparency layers never seem to sell well
A DBMS transparency layer, roughly speaking, is software that makes things that are written for one brand of database management system run unaltered on another.* These never seem to sell well. ANTs has failed in a couple of product strategies. EnterpriseDB’s Oracle compatibility only seems to have netted it a few sales, and only a small fraction of its total business. ParAccel’s and Dataupia’s transparency strategies have produced even less.
*The looseness in that definition highlights a key reason these technologies don’t sell well — it’s hard to be sure that what you’re buying will do a good job of running your particular apps.
This subject comes to mind for two reasons. One is that IBM seems to have licensed EnterpriseDB’s Oracle transparency layer for DB2. The other is that a natural upgrade path from MySQL to Oracle might be a MySQL transparency layer on top of an Oracle base.
| Categories: ANTs Software, Dataupia, Emulation, transparency, portability, EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, IBM and DB2, Market share and customer counts, MySQL, Oracle, ParAccel | 11 Comments |
Closing the book on the DATAllegro customer base
I’m prepared to call an end to the “Guess DATAllegro’s customers” game. Bottom line is that there are three in all, two of which are TEOCO and Dell, and the third of which is a semi-open secret. I wrote last week:
The number of DATAllegro production references is expected to double imminently, from one to two. Few will be surprised at the identity of the second reference. I imagine the number will then stay at two, as DATAllegro technology is no longer being sold, and the third known production user has never been reputed to be particularly pleased with it.
Dell did indeed disclose at TDWI that it was a large DATAllegro user, notwithstanding that Dell is a huge Teradata user as well. No doubt, Dell is gearing up to be a big user of Madison too.
Also at TDWI, I talked with some former DATAllegro employees who now work for rival vendors. None thinks DATAllegro has more than three customers. Neither do I.
Edit: Subsequently, the DATAllegro customer count declined to 1.
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Market share and customer counts, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Specific users | 10 Comments |
Introduction to Expressor Software
I’ve chatted a few times with marketing chief Michael Waclawiczek and others at data integration startup Expressor Software. Highlights of the Expressor story include:
- Expressor was founded in 2003 and funded in 2007. Two rounds of funding raised $16 million.
- Expressor’s first product release was in May, 2008; before that Expressor built custom integration tools for a couple of customers.
- Michael believes Expressor will have achieved 5 actual sales by the end of this quarter, as well being in 25 “highly active” sales cycles.
- Whatever Expressor’s long-term vision, right now it’s selling mainly on the basis of performance and affordability.
- In particular, Expressor believes it is superior to Ab Initio in both performance and ease of use.
- Expressor says that parallelism (a key aspect of data integration performance, it unsurprisingly seems) took a long time to develop. Obviously, they feel they got it right.
- Expressor is written in C, so as to do hard-core memory management for best performance.
- Expressor founder John Russell seems to have cut his teeth at Info USA, which he left in the 1990s. Other stops on his journey include Trilogy (briefly) and then Knightsbridge, before he branched out on his own.
Expressor’s real goals, I gather, have little to do with the performance + price positioning. Rather, John Russell had a vision of the ideal data integration tool, with a nice logical flow from step to step, suitable integrated metadata management, easy role-based UIs, and so on. But based on what I saw during an October visit, most of that is a ways away from fruition.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Data integration and middleware, EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT, Expressor, Market share and customer counts | 4 Comments |
Talend update
I chatted yesterday at TDWI with Yves de Montcheuil of Talend, as a follow-up to some chats at Teradata Partners in October. This time around I got more metrics, including:
- Talend revenue grew 6-fold in 2008.
- Talend revenue is expected to grow 3-fold in 2009.
- Talend had >400 paying customers at the end of 2008.
- Talend estimates it has >200,000 active users. This is based on who gets automated updates, looks at documentation, etc.
- ~1/3 of Talend’s revenue is from large customers. 2/3 is from the mid-market.
- Talend has had ~700,000 downloads of its core product, and >3.3 million downloads in all (including documentation, upgrades, etc.)
It seems that Talend’s revenue was somewhat shy of $10 million in 2008.
Specific large paying customers Yves mentioned include: Read more
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Data integration and middleware, EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT, eBay, Market share and customer counts, Specific users, Talend | 5 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 |
ParAccel’s market momentum
After my recent blog post, ParAccel is once again angry that I haven’t given it proper credit for it accomplishments. So let me try to redress the failing.
- ParAccel has disclosed the names of two customers, LatiNode and Merkle (presumably as an add-on to Merkle’s Netezza environment). And ParAccel has named two others under NDA. Four disclosed or semi-disclosed customers is actually more than DATAllegro has/had, although I presume DATAllegro’s three known customers are larger, especially in terms of database size.
- ParAccel sports a long list of partners, and has put out quite a few press releases in connection with these partnerships. While I’ve never succeeded in finding a company that took its ParAccel partnership especially seriously, I’ve only asked three or four of them, which is a small fraction of the total number of partners ParAccel has announced, so in no way can I rule out that somebody, somewhere, is actively helping ParAccel try to sell its products.
- ParAccel repeatedly says it has beaten Vertica in numerous proofs-of-concept (POCs), considerably more than the two cases in which it claims to have actually won a deal against Vertica competition.
- ParAccel has elicited favorable commentary from such astute observers as Seth Grimes and Doug Henschen.
- ParAccel has been noted for running TPC-H benchmarks in memory much more quickly than other vendors run them on disk.
Uh, that’s about all I can think of. What else am I forgetting? Surely that can’t be ParAccel’s entire litany of market success!
| Categories: Data warehousing, Market share and customer counts, ParAccel | 6 Comments |
Update on Aster Data Systems and nCluster
I spent a few hours at Aster Data on my West Coast swing last week, which has now officially put out Version 3 of nCluster. Highlights included: Read more