Don’t read this, Oracle

Don’t read this, Oracle… It’s the rise of the open-source data strategies

Could this be the end of RDBMS?

LinkedIn0619

Comment Oracle is industry’s single largest database vendor – which was great during the days before cloud and open source.

Now, however, the on-prem RDBMS giant faces a challenge, one which is compounded by cloud. According to Gartner, Oracle owns just a tiny sliver of the cloud infrastructure market – 0.3 per cent. But while that tiny figure doesn’t seem to account for how cloud hurts Oracle’s database business, there’s something else to consider: a developer’s first decision is what cloud platform they’ll use.

The database a developer elects to use then follows from the options made available by that cloud platform. By making it cost-prohibitive to run Oracle DB on the public clouds that developers actually use – AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud – Oracle has tied its database future to the mast of its sinking cloud ship. Who reaps the benefits of its myopic strategy? Open-source databases.

Opening up the database

Yes, open-source databases. While databases like MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, and Apache Cassandra have long scored points with web developers, historically they didn’t compete on Oracle’s core database turf.

But that was then, this is now. According to recent Gartner analysis, open-source databases now constitute 7.6 per cent ($2.6bn) of the global database market, worth $34bn. If that doesn’t seem like much, consider that over the past two years the open source DBMS market averaged 75 per cent growth, compared to a more tepid 7.7 per cent growth in the total market.

Where is that growth coming from? In part, it reflects developers’ desires to run new applications with modern databases. Those decisions have been made much easier by AWS, in particular, which has taken many of the most popular open source databases and turned them into services, removing the complexity of managing them. As such, according to DB-Engines, which ranks database popularity across a number of factors, half of the world’s most popular databases are now open source.

Widen that aperture a bit and you get MariaDB, a fork of MySQL, in the 13th spot. Widen it even further, and you see a host of other open source databases, and particularly those that AWS has turned into cloud services, roaring up the popularity charts.

As noted, developers are increasingly turning to the cloud for their databases, spurring a host of database services from Amazon, Microsoft, and Google to rocket up DB-Engines’ rankings. For those who want the option of running a database in the cloud or in their datacenter, the primary choice is between PostgreSQL and MongoDB.

The former is often the preferred choice for a developer who wants to stick with a relational database but wants to remove the cost or complexity of Oracle. MariaDB is also increasingly an option for this crowd. MySQL, somewhat out of favor since its acquisition by Oracle, has been declining in popularity over the last several years.

The other option, MongoDB, gets picked when a developer is refactoring her application and needs a significant boost in developer productivity or the scale-out architecture that MongoDB’s document database affords. Either way, the choice is for open source, not Oracle.

It would be comforting to the Oracle faithful to believe that this open source onslaught isn’t having an impact on the database behemoth. It would also likely be wrong. In a conversation with Gartner analyst Merv Adrian, he noted that Oracle has lost market share every year since 2013. As a club, the top-five database vendors have seen their collective share of the market drop from 91 per cent to 86.9 per cent since 2011.

While open-source databases can’t take all the credit for that slide, what with proprietary cloud databases like Amazon DynamoDB or Microsoft CosmosDB also in play, it’s almost certain that open source databases are wreaking havoc to the tune of billions of of dollars.

Nor do those dollars tell the whole story.

Gartner, after all, measures market share based on revenue. Open source databases, however, are used for free far more often than they are used “for fee”. Recognizing this fact, Gartner posits that “a good overall rule of thumb is that paid customers only account for 1 per cent to 5 per cent of the actual user base.” In other words, open source databases may earn $2.6bn for their vendors, but they annihilate orders of magnitude more paid value that other vendors like Oracle might otherwise earn.

But wait! It gets worse for Oracle.

Making developers happy

The biggest risk to Oracle is not the cost of an open-source database like MongoDB or PostgreSQL. While license fee savings from open source hit 100 per cent, open-source databases also yield significant savings in hardware costs. All in, companies can expect to save 70 per cent by shifting from Oracle to a database like MongoDB (even once you account for the cost of migration, re-skilling DBAs, etc.) On the AWS platform, the list price for running Oracle (RDS) is $25.68 per hour. Running PostgreSQL or MySQL (RDS) is 1/8th to 1/10th that cost.

As big as those savings are, however, the bigger cost differential derives from developer and DBA productivity.

For DBAs skilled with Oracle’s database, they can often manage up to 25 database servers, on average. That same DBA can manage a million database servers on Amazon’s RDS, thanks to the benefits of automation. Talk about scale.

On the developer side, given that developers are the new kingmakers, as Redmonk likes to remind us, shifting to an open-source DBMS is much more about super-charging developers than any belt-tightening exercise around license or hardware costs. Mat Keep, director of product marketing at MongoDB, put this in a personal context:

When I joined MongoDB, about 5 per cent of all projects were relational migrations – now it’s 30 per cent as companies look to transform. Cost can be a factor, but more often it’s development speed and running at scale. It’s not unusual to see developer productivity up 3 to 5x after switching [from an RDBMS], coupling MongoDB with a shift to cloud, microservices, and agile/devops.

Even in areas where Oracle likes to trumpet the richness of functionality it offers, like Oracle HA, the reality is that much of the “richness” is actually external to the database itself. You “have to add a ton of stuff outside of the database [to make it work] for replication, failover, monitoring, etc,” Keep says. Of course, this being Oracle, each of these add-ons is sold separately, resulting in a fat price tag and a seriously complex system to manage. Even worse for Oracle, the only way for a developer to get access to such Oracle extras is on the Oracle cloud, which basically no one wants to use.

Nor are such add-ons all that revolutionary. On its latest earnings call, Oracle said, with a straight face, “[T]he amazing thing about the autonomous database is it’s the only database in the planet that requires no human labor to administer the database.”

This is 100 per cent false. Behind the scenes Oracle has scads of people running around to keep the lights on, even as AWS and other cloud vendors deliver truly automated databases at dramatically bigger scale. If anything, Oracle is way behind the cloud versions of open source databases.

But, but, but…

Of course, there’s a reason Oracle continues to makes bajillions of cash selling its database: it has decades of experience building databases, and does so very well. The problem, however, is that what worked for Oracle 10 or 20 years ago is looking less and less ideal today. Its strengths like serious scale-up architecture are now relics of a bygone era.

Name the last big company to stake its future on Oracle. Salesforce probably comes to mind, though rumors have rumbled that it’s not happy with its choice. Meanwhile, the other big SaaS companies like Workday have been building on open-source databases like MySQL, often running them on AWS or other clouds. As enterprises move to distributed computing, they’re trying to minimize the cost of failure, separating, for example, storage from compute. As they do so, Oracle simply isn’t a consideration.

Open-source databases like PostgreSQL and MariaDB remove the bureaucracy inherent in acquiring Oracle’s database. PostgreSQL, in particular, has made it relatively straightforward to migrate things like stored procedures from Oracle to PostgreSQL.

Even non-relational databases like MongoDB have obviated the need to stick with Oracle. Oracle has conditioned developers and DBAs to think such relics of relational data modeling – like multi-record transactions – are essential. They’re not, and more companies are discovering that they either don’t need the “full-fat” Oracle database and can go with a lower-cost relational open-source database, or they’re seeing that they don’t need a relational database at all and can instead benefit from increased developer productivity and improved scale that a NoSQL database (with ACID guarantees) like MongoDB offers.

What does this mean to Oracle? Given how much friction is involved in moving to alternative databases, Oracle’s database should last a long, long time. Much more likely is the fact that we’ll see all the growth go to open-source databases and cloud databases (with particular growth in those databases that are both open and cloudy). Expect, also, Oracle to keep buying SaaS companies as its future becomes fueled more by SaaS applications and much less so by database dominance. ®

Matt Asay is Head of Developer Ecosystem at Adobe.

 

A world leading steelmaker chooses Altibase over Oralce

A World Leading Steelmaker Chooses Altibase over Oracle and Lowers Database-Related TCO by over 60%

 NEWS PROVIDED BY

Altibase Corp. 

Jun 11, 2018, 08:32 ET

NEW YORKJune 11, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — This June, Altibase completed installation of its in-memory/hybrid database for a blast furnace of one of the world’s biggest steel manufacturers. The company, headquartered in South Korea, is a multinational steel-making company and the world’s fourth-largest steelmaker.

In late 2017, the company decided to upgrade its database that provided real-time monitoring and analysis of one of its blast furnaces. The company first considered Oracle for the job, but then rejected Oracle because its license and maintenance costs were too costly.

The company then turned to Altibase. With nearly 20 years’ experience serving more than 600 enterprise clients, including those in the Fortune Global 500, Altibase offered performance and reliability comparable to Oracle at a fraction of the cost.

In choosing Altibase, the company considered these five factors:

1. Performance. It required a database that could handle over 100,000 transactions per second with response rates measured in microseconds. Altibase’s in-memory capabilities met this standard with ease.

2. Hybrid Technology. With Altibase’s all-in-one hybrid technology, the company’s data could be stored and manipulated in main memory alone, on physical disk alone, or on a combination of both. As Altibase is a hybrid database, the company did not need to purchase a disk-resident database separately to store and manipulate historical and less frequently used (cold) data.

3. Reliability. Altibase’s built-in replication features provided the company with peace of mind even in the unexpected failure of its master server.

4. Speed of Installation. Altibase’s installation took only three months: two months for application development and one month for performance tuning. Most of its applications are built on relational databases. It eliminated the need for the company to make any radical architectural changes to existing applications. And, the company’s existing DBAs found that Altibase is easy to learn and adopt.

5. Cost. By adopting Altibase, the company lowered database-related TCO by over 60%.

Altibase chairman, Paul Nahm, says, “With the company’s successful adoption, Altibase has again demonstrated that you can have an enterprise grade database that provides reliable, comprehensive solutions for mission critical applications at a much lower TCO. And now that we went open source in February, Altibase lowers TCO even more.”

Learn more about Altibase at https://youtu.be/pooexk0glK8, and download its open source database at https://altibase.com.

Contact:
Paul Nahm
Chairman
44 Wall St. 12th Fl.
New York, NY 10005
1-888-837-7333

SOURCE Altibase Corp.

Related Links

https://www.altibase.com

Altibase Challenges Oracle, IBM & Microsoft

Altibase Challenges Oracle, IBM & Microsoft

Mature, battle-tested database is now open source

Feb 12, 2018, 10:47 EST

NEW YORKFeb. 12, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — On February 12 in 2018, Altibase, an enterprise grade relational database, announced that it is now open source.

“The database industry is going open source – the trend is clear,” says Altibase Chairman, Paul Nahm. “But for discerning and prudent enterprise clients with mission critical applications there is still one big question: Is there an open source database I can trust to be reliable 24/7? The answer is as of today: Yes, Altibase.”

Altibase is a mature, battle-tested database. For nearly 20 years, Altibase has served over 600 enterprise clients, including 8 Fortune Global 500 companies, in more than 6000 deployments.

Altibase was included in Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for operational DBMSs in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Compare Altibase. Function for function, Altibase matches Oracle, IBM and Microsoft with one big difference, Altibase is now open source.

Enterprise Grade 
Database Providers

Oracle

IBM  

Microsoft

Altibase

Years in operation

41

35

29

19

In-memory storage

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Replication

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Relational

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Full ACID compliance

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

SQL standards

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

GUI tool

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Hybrid table

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

On-disk storage

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sharding

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Spatial

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Open Source

Yes

By going open source, Altibase directly challenges Oracle, IBM and Microsoft by providing equal functionality at much lower cost. Now, users don’t have to choose between low cost and reliability. With Altibase, they can now have both.

Furthermore, Altibase provides state-of-the-art sharding technology. With Altibase, enterprises do not have to make any changes to their existing systems running on relational databases, so execution is easy and quick.

In addition, Altibase super-minimizes the use of coordinators in sharding so that enterprises experience almost no coordinator-related bottlenecks. No matter how many servers are added, linear performance enhancement is maintained, resulting in lower TCO. (https://youtu.be/T1JbefKxmPA)

Download Altibase today to discover why so many major companies around the world have chosen Altibase.

More information about Altibase is available at its website. (www.altibase.com)

Altibase – Downloading is Believing

Why enterprises switch to Altibase from legacy databases?

Altibase matches Oracle function for function except for one: Altibase is now open source.

Feb 12, 2018

Altibase Introduction(Open Source)

Altibase matches Oracle function for function except for one: Altibase is OPEN SOURCE

Feb 9, 2018

Why enterprises switch to Altibase from Oracle?