Xkoto Gridscale highlights
I talked yesterday with cofounders Albert Lee and Ariff Kassam of Xkoto. Highlights included: Read more
| Categories: Clustering, IBM and DB2, Market share and customer counts, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Parallelization, Pricing, Xkoto | 15 Comments |
Sorting out Netezza and Oracle Exadata data warehouse appliance pricing
Netezza recently announced a new generation of data warehouse appliance called TwinFin. TwinFin’s clearest stated list price is “a little under $20,000 per terabyte of user data,” which in my opinion immediately became the new industry reference point for discussing prices in the data warehouse appliance category. Vigorous discussion ensued, especially in the comment thread to the first of the two posts linked above. Here’s some followup.
Netezza should not have claimed a “10-15X price/performance improvement,” based on a 3-5X performance improvement and a 3X decrease in price/terabyte, and I should have grilled Netezza harder when it first made the claim. In fact, there is no unit of performance that you can, in a reasonable blended average, get 10-15X more of per dollar in TwinFin than you can in the predecessor NPS series.
| Categories: Data warehousing, Exadata, Netezza, Oracle, Pricing | 19 Comments |
“The Netezza price point”
Over the past couple of years, quite a few data warehouse appliance or DBMS vendors have talked to me directly in terms of “Netezza’s price point,” or some similar phrase. Some have indicated that they’re right around the Netezza price point, but think their products are superior to Netezza’s. Others have stressed the large gap between their price and Netezza’s. But one way or the other, “Netezza’s price” has been an industry metric.
One reason everybody talks about the “Netezza (list) price” is that it hasn’t been changing much, seemingly staying stable at $50-60K/terabyte for a long time. And thus Teradata’s 2550 and Oracle’s larger-disk Exadata configuration — both priced more or less in the same range — have clearly been price-competitive with Netezza since their respective introductions.
That just changed. Netezza is cutting its pricing to the $20K/terabyte range imminently, with further cuts to come. So where does that leave competitors?
- The Teradata 1550 is in the Netezza price range (still a little below, actually).
- Oracle basically has nothing price-competitive with Netezza.
- Microsoft has stated it plans to introduce Madison below the old DATAllegro price points; conceivably, that could be competitive with Netezza’s new pricing, although I haven’t checked as to how much it now costs simply to buy a lot of SQL Server licenses (which presumably would be a Madison lower bound, and might except for hardware be the whole thing, since Microsoft likes to create large product bundles).
- XtremeData just launched in the new Netezza price range.
- Troubled Dataupia is hard to judge. While on the surface Dataupia’s prices sound very low, you can’t use a Dataupia box unless you also have a brand-name DBMS (license and hardware) alongside it. That obviously affects total cost significantly.
- Kickfire seems unaffected, as it doesn’t and most likely won’t compete with Netezza (different database size ranges).
- For the most part, software-only vendors are free to adapt or not as they choose. Hardware prices generally don’t need to be over $10K/terabyte, and in some cases could be a lot less. So the question is how far they’re willing to discount their software.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Dataupia, Exadata, Kickfire, Oracle, Pricing, Teradata, XtremeData | 14 Comments |
Netezza is changing its hardware architecture and slashing prices accordingly
Netezza is about to make its biggest product announcement in years. In particular:
- Netezza is cutting prices to under $20K/terabyte of user data, with even lower numbers promised for the near future.
- Netezza is replacing its PowerPC chips with Intel-based IBM blades.
- There will be substantial changes in how data flows between the various parts of a Netezza node.
- Netezza claims this will all produce an immediate 10-15X increase in price-performance, based on a 3X cut in price/terabyte and a 3-5X improvement in mixed workload performance. (Edit: Netezza now agrees that it shouldn’t have phrased things that way”.)
Allow me to explain. Read more
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Netezza, Pricing, Theory and architecture | 35 Comments |
XtremeData announces its DBx data warehouse appliance
XtremeData is announcing its DBx data warehouse appliance today. Highlights include: Read more
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Pricing, XtremeData | 34 Comments |
User data vs. raw disk space as a marketing metric
I tried to post a comment on Daniel Abadi’s blog, but doing so seems to require some sort of registration process, so I’m posting here instead.
In a comment to his post on node scalability, Daniel Abadi argued that disk space is a better metric to use in marketing than (presumably compressed) user data. Well, I imagine he didn’t quite mean to say that, but that’s actually what he wound up saying, starting from the accurate observation that compression ratios vary wildly from one data set to another, even more than they vary from product to product on the same data.
Nonetheless, I favor user data as a metric because:
- That’s what users care about.
- That’s how a number of analytic DBMS vendors, including Vertica, actually price.
| Categories: Data warehousing, Parallelization, Pricing | 3 Comments |
Aster Data enters the appliance game
Aster Data is rolling out a line of nCluster appliances today. Highlights include:
- Configurations ranging from 9 6.25 terabytes to 1 petabyte of user data. (Edit: Here’s the up-to-date data sheet.)
- A $50K “Express Edition” price for <1 terabyte of user data. Unfortunately, that’s the only stated price.
- The option of bundled MicroStrategy.
- “MapReduce” in the name, which suggests something about the positioning — i.e., enterprise decision support, rather than Aster’s usual web/”frontline” emphasis. (Edit: That also fits with Aster’s recent MapReduce-for-.NET announcement.) (Edit: Actual name is Aster MapReduce Data Warehouse Appliance.)
- Claims that because Aster runs effectively on cheaper, more truly “commodity” hardware than competitors, you get more hardware bang for the buck if you buy from Aster.
I don’t have a lot more to add right now, mainly because I wrote at some length about Aster’s non-appliance-specific, non-MapReduce technology and positioning a couple of weeks ago.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Aster Data, Business intelligence, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, MapReduce, Pricing | 16 Comments |
ParAccel pricing
As I noted in connection with ParAccel’s recent TPC-H filing, I think the whole exercise is basically an expensive joke. But one slightly useful spin-off is that ParAccel disclosed pricing. Specifically, ParAccel’s stated price in the disclosure document is:
- $100,000/TB license fee (user data). That’s like Vertica, although I don’t know whether ParAccel emulates Vertica’s policy of making test and development licenses free.
- 57% quantity discount at 30 terabytes. That’s not surprising.
- 1% annual maintenance fee (applied to the discounted price). That’s astounding.
Last year ParAccel quoted prices of $100,000/TB or $50,000/server. The latter figure would seem to have led to lower numbers on the benchmark configuration, so perhaps it’s no longer an option on ParAccel’s price list.
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Data warehousing, ParAccel, Pricing | 3 Comments |
Netezza Q1 earning call transcript
I finally read the Netezza Q1 earnings call transcript, put out by Seeking Alpha. Highlights included:
- Netezza got 14 new-name accounts and 21 follow-on deals. Average sale in both groups was right around $1 million.
- The economy is tough, deals are slipping, and nobody knows for sure what will happen.
- Netezza’s main head-to-head competitors are Oracle and Teradata. Netezza claims good but not perfect win rates against each, but concedes that those vendors (especially Oracle) of course get other deals Netezza never sees.
- Netezza characterizes Teradata as offering its multiple product lines, trying to upsell many customers from cheaper to more expensive product lines, and being selectively aggressive about pricing. None of this is surprising to me.
- 80% of Netezza’s Q1 revenue, and perhaps even a higher fraction of new-name accounts, was in four vertical markets: “Digital media,” telecom, government, and financial services.
- Some time over the next few months, Netezza will give at least some more clarity about future products.
One tip for the Netezza folks, by the way, from this former stock analyst — you should never use the word “certainly” about a deal you haven’t closed yet. “Almost surely” could be OK, but “certainly” — well, it certainly was not the thing to say.
Per-terabyte pricing
Software-only DBMS vendors sometimes price per terabyte of user data. Vertica’s list price is $100K/TB. Greenplum’s list price is $70K/TB. In practice, both offer substantial discounts, especially at higher volumes. In both cases, this means raw data, uncompressed, without counting indexes or temp space.
Client experience teaches me that this definition is easy to forget, so let me reemphasize the key point:
Per-terabyte pricing is based on a calculated figure. Per-terabyte pricing is not based on the current disk space used by your database when managed by the DBMS you are replacing.
There’s at least one important difference in how Vertica and Greenplum calculate database size. No matter how many times you copy the data, Vertica only charges you for it once.* But if you spin out data marts and recopy data into it — as Greenplum rightly encourages you to do — Greenplum wants to be paid for each copy. Similarly, Vertica charges only for deployment, and not for test or development; I didn’t remember to ask what Greenplum’s policies are in those regards. (Edit: Greenplum says in a comment below that it doesn’t charge for test or development data either.)
*That policy is a great fit with Vertica’s performance recommendation that you should store columns in different sort orders, perhaps an average of two copies per column.