142 posts • joined Wednesday 15th July 2009 16:37 GMT
Re: Is this really an IT issue?
The reason it's broken is because of the draconian government rules now. Health insurers cannot compete across State borders, for one! The Feds will make the health care system worse for everyone, instead of great for most. The system was broken, but this is not the fix!
Actual free markets is the answer, not more government control. The incompetent website is not what's wrong with Obamacare. Governments are inherently incompetent. Free, regulated, markets are the answer. When I say, regulated, I don't mean making more rules so that the Pols get more money/control, but so that Free Markets are actually protected (protect us from monopolies and unfair competitive practices).
The middle class is once again being told to give to the poor, at gun point. Don't believe it? Try not paying your taxes, see what happens.
" let your aggressive tendencies go."
"Now where the moronity and lack of enterprise experience is? Seems to me that your reaction is just a defensive reflex?"
I think you mistake me for someone else. I never questioned your experience, just your conclusions. You can discern my comments based upon my handle. I have not been anonymous here, so it shouldn't be too difficult.
From your most recent comments I can only conclude that your point is that existing performance problems are generally not SW/HW related, but poorly tuned queries; Therefore, you seem to imply that many companies will pay huge sums of money for a product like this when they could have just paid someone like you to tune their environment (likely saving millions). I agree with that conclusion, if that is indeed what you are saying.
My problem with your comments is that I am aware of many many situations where existing environments are just hitting the wall on what they can do. They've tuned the crap out of it. They have so many indexes that they just can't possibly keep up with them all. Sure there are lazy DBA's that will just take their poor admin tendencies and move them over to faster HW/SW and call it good. So? That's been going on since the beginning of computing, and will likely continue. So I must ask, now that I think I get your point, why make the point in the first place?
I think the point is that you don't seem to see the need for 100-1000x speedup. That seems very naive for someone that has been in the industry as long as you state. I've seen queries take longer than 48hrs. I've seen queries that take 2 hours, that are unusable because the data that made it up is out of date already. If you could make that 2 hour query take only 2 minutes, then just imagine all of the decisions you could make that previously you were unable to substantiate?
The point is that this tech could provide for new uses of existing data that you have not thought of before. Currently you may limit your data size, or query, to accommodate a faster response. With this technology you may not have to do that. Currently, to enable decision support you may have to cache your data in an Exalytics (TimesTen) or squeeze your data into a HANA, but with this technology, you may not have to.
If you work in this industry, try not to limit yourself by what you currently do. New tech implies new opportunities.
Re: Anyway, TimesTen is a completely different product
I'm not sure what he's saying here anyway. SAP uses HANA and Sybase, two separate products. IBM uses DB2 and solidDB. TimesTen is separate from Oracle DB, but now they're moving some of those features into Oracle DB. So?
Re: Ellison found the hot water again...
None of this is for more than 10 years. The point was to find out what tech IBM and SAP have been doing for more than 10 years. SoldDB, as you state was released in 2003, and Sybase started in 2006. At least implies... well, at least 10 years. You've demonstrated only "at most".
If selecting "device:memory" is the same as in-memory, then why does SAP have a completely different product in HANA? You are duplicitous in your comments. Oracle must have two separate products, but it's okay for SAP to have two separate products? or is that not what you meant?
Also, to say that TimesTen is not "truly" in-memory seems like a dodge to me. Many smarter people than me, and I guess you, seem to think TimesTen is a "true" in-memory DB (actually, they say it is hybrid, but so are all of the options you mention).
I would be careful of IBM's use of the term "deployments". That term seems to leave out the fact that many/most are not in production, and many/most are not even paid for. I'm not saying that's what IBM is doing here, but... So, seeing how TimesTen has been around so much longer, and it has better integration with the most popular Database in the world, I think I'll stick with TimesTen/Exalytics.
Re: Dazed and Confused Great, you've spilled the beans
Funny. HP's HW sales are declining much faster than Oracles. As a matter of fact Oracle expects to possibly grow HW sales next quarter, while HP expects to continue to bleed profusely for the forseeable future. Is HP killing HW? No, of course not. Oracle is starting to turn around their HW house. SPARC is the most performant CPU on the market, and the only thing that Oracles competitors can say is "It's not all about performance". Boy, how the times, they are a changin'.
I know you didn't mention HP Matt, but you have to know that you have HP tatoo'd on your forehead.
Re: Ellison found the hot water again...
To claim that Oracle is late to the game on in-memory is nonsense. Oracle has had TimesTen since 2005. TimesTen has been around (on it's own) since 1996. It was actually created by HP. How long has Hana been around? Oh, there it is... 2010!!!
Which IBM and Sybase-SAP in-memory tech has been around for at least 10 years?
Hana has been around since 2010, that's only 3 years. IBM didn't put in-memory into DB2 until 2013, so you can't claim they've had it longer either. As far as I know, if you want in-memory from SAP you can't use Sybase, you have to use an unproven Hana technology. IBM's in-memory tech "solidDB" was released in 2008, so you can't mean that...
Your comment is obviously ill conceived. Can you please clarify your comment?
Thanks for this comment. I was thinking up my response to this posters nonsense, but I think your total disregard, and demonstrated disdain, is probably the correct route to take. You've saved me at least 2 minutes.
Re: Wait, what?
The point is that you won't need indexes. or do you like managing your indexes?
Re: re: Wow somebody doesn't understand the market worth a damn.
"Wii U CPU - Tri-Core IBM PowerPC "Espresso""
Thanks for that. I was not aware of what chip Nintendo was using. Well, Nintendo has never seemed to care as much about pure performance in the past, so if they got a good deal from IBM, I guess it makes sense. Sony and Microsoft went the obvious route, both abandoning Power.
I still don't see this relatively small (money-wise) portion of the market helping IBM. IBM is pushing hard to get others to use or even copy their chips. I think it is more to expand the use of Power versus trying to make money directly. Oracle (Sun) has been doing that for years with varying levels of success. Fujitsu is the most recent example to use the SPARC chips for their systems. From sparc.org there are some more examples.
"Deny all you want but sales of non x86 proprietary Unix boxes are dying on their ass."
Not denying, just a long time observer of the market. RISC was dying 10 years ago, but then the market for all chips exploded, taking RISC with it. Unix/RISC are still much more trusted than Linux/Intel.
Also, I know you probably understand the difference, but x86 is proprietary -- AMD had to reverse engineer it. SPARC and Power are actually open -- one of them more open than the other. Which is why we see Fujitsu working so closely with Oracle on SPARC. So your comment about "proprietary Unix boxes" is misguided at best. x86 is a Proprietary "industry standard", and not an Open standard by any accounts. That said, there is a chip that is nipping at the heels of x86 and is really giving Intel heartburn on the low end... that chip is ARM -- and it's RISC! So to say one platform has won is premature. This show is just getting interesting.
re: Wow somebody doesn't understand the market worth a damn.
I don't mind calling someone out, but you gotta know what you're talking about when you do it.
No one is using Power/Cell in their new game consoles. That will not keep IBM making chips. What will keep IBM making chips is the Billions of dollars they get from large corporations and governments that still rely on RISC/Unix. Not just from the initial sell, but from the add on services and solutions.
Though I disagree with TPM on his comment about week cores, he seems to get it in relation to high end systems. The industry is consolidating. HP has given up at the high end. Oracle, IBM and Fujitsu are the only ones that seem to care about high-end computing. As long as there is demand (which there still is - the bleeding is leveling out) then IBM/Oracle/Fujitsu will still make money. Personally, I don't see Fujitsu doing SPARC in 10 years, but who knows? I'm not talking HPC here. There's very little profits there -- just ask SGI. HPC is about advertising, not profits.
So, you'll buy your switches, routers and the rest from? Like it or not, but the enterprise runs on US tech.
"Oh, we changed our mind..."
China has stated they will not be investigating US companies... at least publicly.
George W. Bush is evil!
So, you big gov Socialist types think bigger government is a good thing, huh?
Re: Phil 4 The death knell for SPARC.
"LOL! It looks like the denail is still strong with some Sunshiners. I remember them accusing anyone that pointed out Sun's gradual demise as "working for hp", and it seems time and that experience haven't removed the blinkers."
No, I don't remember too many people being accused of working for HP -- just you Matt. No one spends as much time, as you do, defending a major multinational corporation unless they work for said company or they make a large portion of their career/money via that company.
I see nothing in this article that Oracle is not still doing their own engineering on the Midsize to Enterprise level engineered systems. Larry has made it clear that the low end of the market is not for him. He has clearly stated that he would like to leave that part of the market to partners. Dell appears to be one of those partners. this deal makes a lot of sense given Oracle's past statements.
I may not trust Google or any other Corporation...
but at least they can't arrest me based upon what they perceive as inappropriate, or literally hold a gun to my head. They'll merely try to profit from my depravity. If a corporation is bad, then we at least have a chance of punishing them via the government or lawsuit (courts), while if the government is bad what recourse do we have... especially in a totalitarian government?
"end of the RISC development capability."
Huh? End of the RISC development capability? What does that even mean? Most/All of the interesting things being done in chips today is in the RISC world (ARM, Power, Sparc, MIPS even). I don't really understand what your comment means.
Re: "Such moves have given Al Jazeera a spotty reputation among Americans..."
........ who believe that "Freedom of Expression" means "Freedom to say only the things that we agree with..."...
Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want and the government cannot stop you (of course, vulgarity appears to be a blaring exception). It does not mean that other citizens cannot disagree with you and voice their disagreement. If I disagree with you, I can choose to boycott you and/or your product. That is not censorship.
An example of Censorship is not allowing the press to say something controversial about the Royal Family... or even the government ownership of the major News Organization in a country. The second being less obvious, but even more insidious. If the government gives money to a News Org, then the government can withhold that money, and don't think that the News Org does not know that and act accordingly.
Re: Oracle, .... a busted flush with no future leading IP
>I heard the cloud services team is being forced to use Exa-data and Exa-Logic to double count the hardware >dollars and cloud dollars. Rumor also has it they are not happy with Sun x86 hardware. Notice how they said >Sun hardware.
I only notice how you say these things. You like to say "I heard" allot and then act like it's fact.
I have it on great authority that the Exa-folks are very happy with the Sun Hardware, especially when compared with what they got from HP. I don't have to make up "rumors".
Re: Oracle, .... a busted flush with no future leading IP
What utter nonsense. I've never seen Oracle invest in the future more. The Cloud is growing faster for Oracle than other cloud vendors, Fusion is starting to take hold, R&D has been in the 1-1.2 Billion range each quarter for the past two years (that's well over 4 billion a year in R&D). That's all investment in the future. That's in line with IBM, almost double SAP, and about 25% more than HP.
Re: Proud... I would be too, but
This assumes that Communism with a Capitalist/Slave Labor tilt will win out in the end. Russia fell as they tried to compete in the world market with a faulty moral/economic model. China will have a top and in the short term may be successful, but long term will fall as every Communist country has or will. The only thing that could stop this from happening is if the free countries move more toward communism... wait a second...
So, how do you measure the profit here then? Obviously it is not $4.1B as some here seem to think. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more taxes, but it is not the £400M in taxes as some seem to think it should be.
I've seen some different profit margins quoted for Google (between 13%-33.3%), but Forbes puts Googles pre-tax profit margins at 33.3%... So to be fair, Googles taxable amount would actually be closer to $1.36B. I believe that the Corporate tax rate in the UK is 26%, which I doubt most corporations actually pay, but stay with me here. Even at that amount, Google would pay at most $355M in corporate tax - somewhere around £220M.
Re: Matt: Lies, damn lies and marketing
Written by an Ex-Sun person, but referencing studies done by others that were not from Sun. Nice try Matt. Your FUDing abilities have improved.
So you're a denier then, huh? You seriously think that bit-rot does not exist? Okay. Good for you and your company. ZFS may not be the only answer, though btrfs seems to think it's important, as does Symantec (Volume Manager) as they have been attempting to also solve this problem.
Perhaps a CERN Study on Data Integrity is better for you?
Do you seriously not think that bits flipping under the cover of your RAID is not a potentially huge problem?
Re: Matt: Lies, damn lies and marketing
Woohoo! That makes me feel better. Matt's never seen bit-rot before. I was relying on studies like the ones described here:
I can rest better now that I know Matt has never seen data corruption caused by bit-rot.
re: These sort of things make it cloudy:
Solaris - Zones -- Check
I didn't read this whole link, but it just looks like a whitepaper on how to setup clouds using Windows?
That's not a feature, it's a whitepaper!
Give me a second to search on a Solaris Cloud Whitepaper....
Yes, there's some:
Solaris - Cloud Whitepaper - Check
Network virtualization. Really? Microsoft's delivered where Solaris has not?
Solaris - Network virtualization - Check
So, could you please comment on where Microsoft has delivered and Solaris has not?
Re: RISC Chips
Did you read the same article I did? Compared to the "new" IBM offering, the T5's seem to be light years ahead.
Sun was a religious zealot when it came to CMT. Threads at all costs!!! For web hosting and a lot of other workloads it worked great. However, in many other cases it did not work so well. It was like having to push start a race car because the gearing is for top end high speeds, but at the low speeds it couldn't even get off the starting line without a push. There were still too many of those stop light to stop light applications out there. Run super fast and then stop... That's what IBM did well at... Leave no app behind!
Since Oracle makes the applications, they seem to get what these servers are made for. You gotta do it all, and the T4/T5 seem to be perfect for that. Comparing a T4/T5 to what IBM is putting out right now is a joke. Cost to Cost and RU to RU, there's no comparison. The T4 evened the playing field and the T5 seems to jump over POWER 7+ easily. It will be very interesting to see if M4 can compete in the high end of the market that IBM now owns.
re: Destroy All Monsters
I completely agree. That's kinda Oracles point though. They optimize the stack so you don't have to. There's also some special sauce in there, but the beauty is in the simplicity and consistency. Of course, if it were just better integration then HP and IBM could actually be competitive with Exadata. So far, from the testimonials (read customers), Exadata is blowing everyone away on real customer data. You'd think that IBM would come up with a competitive engineered system if it were just integration of components. It's an engineered system right? IBM has engineers I assume?
Though I disagree with the original posters premise that the employees killed the company, I can't help but feel that the Unions may have had a part in its undoing. The Unions force companies to overpay someone to do a job that obviously any third world person can do. Unions are anti-capitalist by nature. Capitalism requires that companies cannot band together and charge unreasonable prices. Unions are allowed to join forces and force companies to pay unreasonable prices for labor. You are not due a high wage simply because you show up to work. You should have to compete for what you get and if you're not worth it, then someone else will get it.
Re: Besides Larry Page and Jonathan Schwartz
El Reg did comment on Larry Page's and Scott McNeally's testimony in an earlier article. If you believe that Scott McNeally lied, you may want to read the blog post by James Gosling, Java's creator and all around Oracle hater:
re: Are Google that cunning
Does it really matter whether Google makes money from Android directly, indirectly, or at all? Oracle/Sun had a technology. Google liked it, used it and gave it away. If Google had paid a license fee, then perhaps they could not have given it away for free. It was Googles choice to take a loss, not Oracles.
scoop so low
You may not stoop so low, which is fine, but to say that $777M is a major part of Oracles business plan is dishonest. The three letter company you speak of, from Santa Cruz if I'm not mistaken, did in fact get to the point where they were only making lawsuits, not product.
You can make an argument that Oracle is dishonest, low down, thieving, or whatever your chosen epithet, but you cannot say that their business plan relies on litigation to a great degree. Last year they had revenues of $35.9 Billion, of which $777M would only be about 2%. Not insubstantial, but definitely not a major part either.
I thought is was...
April 1st. Nope. Not an April fools joke then.
Re: Que? Down-voters.
I downvoted you because your comments are based on bigotry.
"The two are contradictory - if Larry really had just been biding his time then his website would have been ready to switch the new webpages into place along with the rest of the marketting."
Not necessarily. Vendors often announce product and then don't turn on the spigot until later.
IBM, for example announced POWER VII well before is was available, or before it was documented on their website.
Oracle has constantly stated that they are not a commodity player. They want to release an integrated, polished product. They don't want to sell things one at a time. This seems very consistent with that policy.
"To me, it looks more like Larry was actually desperately trying to look like Oracle wasn't a month behind hp, IBM and Dell."
At least you acknowledge that this is just your opinion, unlike some others here that espouse opinion as fact and even make "I've heard..." statements to spread FUD. I'm not sure that I see much desperation here. HP, IBM, and DELL seem to have no problem selling systems one at a time. Oracle seems not so inclined.
Of course, all of the above is just my opinion...
Re: "Ramp-up" or selling
EMC (Kevins employer) purchased Greenplum at the end of 2010. From that point on Kevins blog entries have been a bit less... um, pragmatic. Listening to Kevin Klossen about anything Oracle is like listening to Microsoft say anything about Apple.
Kevin has turned into a troll, unfortunately.
Re: Performance increase is not goal of a replacement....
geez Allison, are your pants on fire, or are you sitting in a pool of water when you write this stuff?
"Power7 is a chip that can be 4,6 or 8 cores depending on the performance customers want" -- This is merely a way to sell the procs with broken cores. It is not a feature. You'd think that since IBM owns the fab they could do a better job.
"Power7 has the ability to run 1,2 or 4 threads per core on the fly depending" -- Very misleading. IBM shops must change the thread count based upon the load, and the system does not adjust to the load in a dynamic way (Like SPARC T4 does). This means you cannot have a mixed workload in one instance.
"thread swapping in supporting 8 "simultaneous" threads down from 16 which did not work well." -- Did not work well? It works for the applications it's intended for. That's like saying that a single 4-Core Power7 does not work well, when you use it for a high throughput application. Just plain silly. As far as the "simultaneous" threads argument. Oracle has 16 threads running simultaneously on T3 and 8 Running Simultaneously on T4. The "switching" you speak of is to handle cache misses on each core (which believe it or not, even IBM has a lot of!) I think even Kebabart could explain this to you if you are confused.
"Oracle has a roadmap with M-class systems which are really T-class and Sun engineers have not been able to build a >4 socket system since 2004." -- Um, the roadmaps we've all seen clearly show the M-Series going to a different chip than the T-Series, and to at least 16 sockets. You merely spout FUD, but cannot substantiate any of it.
I do understand a little why Oracle not reselling SPARC64 confuses you, as you come from IBM, where rewrites/recompiles of code between different versions of SW/HW is common, but Oracle/Sun have kept binary compatibility for decades. They've promised to do this moving forward as well.
"I am willing to bet their M system will have the same terrible interconnect as the X4800." -- I'll that that bet! The X4800 is X86. M-Series is SPARC. X4800 only goes up to 8-Sockets, while the M-Series, shown on the roadmap, shows at least 16-sockets.
"Oracle is not only glueless they are clueless." -- You've been told before, but glueless is actually a good thing in many respects, especially in serviceability, and had relatively little affect on performance. Of course, since IBM does not have an entereprise OS they can put on their comparable systems, they/you would see glueless as a bad thing (Linux does not have the RAS features to take advantage of the serviceability benefits).
"I would say Larry would get out of hardware all together but he is a stubborn little man." -- I haven't met Larry, so I'm not sure of his stature. I agree, however, that he is stubborn. He will not give up easily on high-end HW, like HP apparently is (now that's FUD!)
I'm really impressed with the rate of innovation in SPARC since Oracle took over. IBM should be very concerned. I don't think they will be able to keep up in the medium to long run at this rate of change. Of course, Oracle has kept all of their SPARC promises so far, but it will be interesting to see if they can keep them moving forward.
Re: I smell something funny
I smell something funny too. It's your logic and obvious sour grapes.
IDC says that Exadata has sold over 1,000 Exadata's (as of about Oct '11). This matches the number that Oracle provides as well. I guess the average customer could have 10 of these things, but I doubt it. Oracle says that they expect to have sold about 3,000 by 2013. Not a bad market to get into.
One question that I have on the NetApp solution is can it do HCC? The Oracle backup solution with ZFS Appliance supports HCC so you do not have to decompress and then backup -- maybe it's not as much of a downfall as I think though. Also, can you hook up the NetApp storage directly to the infiniband network? Without this, then you would have to backup over the 1GbE or 10GbE network using RMAN, right? That does not seem like a comparable solution to the ZFS Storage solution that Oracle sells.
OK... I just looked a bit closer at the NetApp whitepaper, and it seems that you have to uncompress the data before backing up, and all of the compression benefit they show is only with non-hcc compressed data. I guess that answers that question.
There's also no mention of Infiniband, so I assume you can't hook up the NetApp storage to the Infiniband network either.
re: Jonathan White
I assume it was released because of the "freedom of information act". It is not uncommon for information like this to be released after the death of the individual.
Over regulation stifles
No poll can tell how many small businesses were not created simply because of over-regulation and outrageous "fees". If you're in business already, regulation can actually protect you from new competition as it makes it nearly impossible to break into an existing market.
So... TPM is honest with his biases, huh?
Oracle increases revenues by 2% and net revenues grow by 17%, so TPM's headline is "Oracle hammered as hardware sales soften: Software sales flaccid, as well".
IBM increased revenues by 1.6% and net revenues grow by 4.4%, and TPM's headline is "Currency flux capacitates IBM's Q4 sales: Earnings better than expected".
Is it possible to be more obviously biased? Really, you should just go work for IBM and be done with it. It would be funny if... well, I guess it is pretty funny.
I thought that Allison would beat out Matt for the most self-righteous commentard of the year award, but Wunderbar1 has come on strong toward the end. At least, to my knowledge, Allison and Matt don't have discussions with themselves... Wunderbar1 likes to congratulate himself on his cleverness through AC cover. Downright silly if you ask me.
re: old news
Hmmm. Lots of bitter jealousy from the IBM bigots. The quote was 30 machines, not just 2 as you attempt to imply. Oracle never claimed to sell many of the HP based systems, so my assumption is that the 30 systems sold were Sun/Oracle based.
I can't answer the question about the number of Exa's sold vs installed vs shipped, but the number that can't be fudged is the revenue number for Exadata and they've said they intend to triple that number this year (2012).
The continued FUD coming from the IBM crowd is hilarious. Exadata is doing extremely well and Oracle is making money hand over fist on it. As stated earlier, ask any customer how much free stuff Oracle has ever given them. I'm pretty sure you'll hear crickets.
Oracles revenue miss was because they did not grow as fast as expected. They still grew faster than IBM's last quarter where IBM grew just 13% versus the compare (well below analysts expectations). Oracle grew 17% with much higher margins than IBM.
re: Another Clarification
You make your statements as if they are facts. They sound like sour grape FUD to me. Ask any Oracle customer how much free they have ever gotten from Oracle. I'm sure you'll get a very hearty laugh.
Oracle won't even put a free unit on site for you to try out and maybe buy. They will however let you buy a unit and then try it out. Does any other vendor really do "Buy and Try" like Oracle?
This is the type of information that Allison would drool over, with the lack of
critical thinking that is.
"T3 was 6 months late"? T3 was earlier than most analysts thought it would
be. IBM says that P7+ will be out any day now... at least Oracle had an excuse
after having just acquired Sun. T4 was WAY early and they expect T5 to be
much earlier than expected as well.
"Very short chassis lifetime"?-- Just hyperbole. No one knows except Oracle.
IBM may give you one or two generations of slot compatible, but that's about
it. The M series was released in 2007, so according to IBM it will survive 'til at
least 2012 with at least 4 generations and speed bumps.
IBM questions the use of the term M4 and M5? Why not? Fujitsu never used
those terms for their chips... It's like telling IBM to not call their chip P8
because it will use a different chassis than P7. Nonsense. SPARC is SPARC,
no matter who makes it.
IBM complains about TSMC making the chips for Oracle? Huh? I thought
that one of the benefits of IBM making Power was that they make chips for
other platforms as well (games consoles, etc). TSMC has been making the
chips for T-Series and from what I understand SPARC64 as well. So the
problem here is?
IBM then says that the merger of M-Series with T-Series is the first
"new combined, dynamic threading model?" Huh? "Power5 had
this for 10 years"? Please correct me if I am wrong here, but I could
have swore that IBM's "dynamic threading" model was that if you
wanted full performance you had to turn off threading and possibly
even cores (you had to choose single thread perf or throughput).
T4 it is truly dynamic right now, not in the future, changing behavior
depending on the needs of the code. If you have a process that
needs a full core, then it will get it. If you need more threads, then
you will get those. No turning off cores or threads. When will Power
This IBM FUD piece is laughable.
- On the matter of shooting down Amazon delivery drones with shotguns
- Review Bring Your Own Disks: The Synology DS214 network storage box
- OHM MY GOD! Move over graphene, here comes '100% PERFECT' stanene
- IT MELTDOWN ruins Cyber Monday for RBS, Natwest customers
- Google's new cloud CRUSHES Amazon in RAM battle