81
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
81 points (97.6% liked)
Linux
4898 readers
277 users here now
A community for everything relating to the linux operating system
Also check out [email protected]
Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A lot of companies have been making it a goal to move away from Oracle as a whole. The Java enterprise licensing thing from a few years back rubbed every company in the world the wrong way, their rep is permanently trashed.
I cannot speak for smaller firms because we only deal with enterprise level projects. What we have seen and continue to see is that if the demands of the project are light enough to run on the cloud, then the company will do that (Azure is kicking everyone's ass in sales BTW). Anyone else, which is the majority or pur clients (and they don't like hearing it) are stuck with Oracle. Sure, you can off-load a lot of functionality to other things, but for RDBMS you are stuck with the big red ⭕.
Hard disagree. Cloud natives like aurora and spanner can kick ass, and Postgres, MongoDB and Yugabyte or Planetscale are eating a lot of business FAST. Most companies see Oracle as legacy. It won't go away any faster than mainframe has, but you are far from stuck with them.
I mean, you can disagree if you want to but I am not quoting opinion, these are facts on the ground from firms running the largest applications. I am by no means saying that Oracle is in a growth state, quite the contrary. Anybody that has $ORCL should be dumping that stock. The issue is that the large scale applications (not environments) are stuck with Oracle as the backend. The NoSQL promise and FOSS transition didn't work out for them. Now the issue as it relates to the original post is, IF you are stuck with Oracle because of one or two critical apps, and you can't afford Exadata, then you might gravitate to the RHEL variants for those systems. You could go SUSE for the rest, but most big organizations tend to prefer a single stop shop.
Oddly enough, and this is now purely personal opinion, of Oracle adjusted their Exadata pricing, I think they could solidify their dominance in the space long term AND free IT organizations to chose SUSE without fear.
NoSQL are growing 50% YoY, have like 5% market share. They offer ACID, all enterprise security you expect, and cheap scaling. NewSQL are popping up left and right. Many Fortune companies have already canceled their Oracle contracts and are in the middle of moving away before support expires, or at least paying for 3rd party support. Moving all oracle install base. No saying it's easy, but if you piss the C suite enough, they will bite the bullet.
I 100% agree, unfortunately the reality is that it is just not possible...yet. We have projects where the C suite has demanded a cloud transition and a move from Oracle and every single one has been a disaster. The highest tier iops Azure offers is not enough to cover our smallest medium customer. Believe me, I have been working with Oracle since v7. You will be hard pressed to find someone that dislikes Oracle more than me and I pray for the day they go away or have a massive shift like MS has. But, as it relates to SUSE's growth as a RHEL replacement, Oracle is and will likely continue to be a deterrent. I hope I am wrong because even though I started my Linux journey with Red Hat Halloween, they too have lost me.
Azure has had nvme drives with hundreds of thousands of iops for a couple of years. That plus sharding should take care of any problems. I have personally taken care of a project with 2M tps and it wasn't even the biggest in my region, at the small-ish company I work for. Yes, re-architecting that is a pain but doable.
Lift and shift may be out of the question tho.
That and cost are the real issue. This is not their app, so they cannot rearchitect it. To make it fit to best use cloud resources, the thing would need to be rebuilt from scratch, and the savings are just not there to do so.
We need to move 8 gigabytes per second, sustained, which Azure can do at their highest tier. The problem is that, as I said, this is the smallest of our medium clients, and at the tier that can sustain that, the cost per terabyte per month is well beyond the client's budget. We told them to go with Exadata but the initial sticker shock and the execs lack of faith on their IT team made them run. Now they are committed to Azure. Just last week we had that call where we told Azure our requirements and they just came back with the price a few days ago. Suddenly, dropping seven figures for the hardware doesn't seem too expensive.
Whatever. We get paid either way.