Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Data Storage

Amazon Wants To Run Your High-Performance Databases 142

Posted by samzenpus
from the let-us-do-that dept.
jfruh (300774) writes "Amazon is pushing hard to be as ubiquitous in the world of cloud computing as it is in bookselling. The company's latest pitch is that even your highest-performing databases will run more efficiently on Amazon Web Services cloud servers than on your own hardware. Farming out your most important and potentially sensitive computing work to one of the most opaque tech companies out there: what could possibly go wrong?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Wants To Run Your High-Performance Databases

Comments Filter:
  • First Post (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30, 2014 @05:48AM (#47127329)

    Due to my high performance AWS posting station.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Amazon Web Services can be found on the list of Linux Foundation patrons [linuxfoundation.org], which means that they help to assure that open source projects get the appropriate funding that they sorely need. I don't know about you, but that's a big plus in my book.
  • by Typical Slashdotter (2848579) on Friday May 30, 2014 @06:20AM (#47127399)

    Needless, inane, editorializing in the summary, as usual. So sad. Especially when the article itself is concise, factual, and free of such nonsense.

    • So true. Takes all the fun out of everyone on slashdot saying exactly the same thing in response to the article.

      The procedure is; Throw the red meat out in front of the rabid dogs -- pull hand back. You put an article out and your hands is at all still on it -- the dogs chew on you. // But all kidding aside -- YES, articles should be submitted without bias -- or with as little bias as possible. This is how we should get our news, and this is how we should start debates. It's just the reality that on Slashdo

    • I personally find it interesting how Slashdot was so Pro-Cloud when it came out, then when RMS did some rant about it they almost all changed their minds overnight.

      As with any new approach or technology, you need to look at the good and bad. The fact that there is a trade off to a different approach doesn't make it bad, it comes down to is that trade off worth the benefit.
      For some people yes it is. For a lot of people the risk of not having control of your hardware is worth the value of lower upfront cost

    • by tgv (254536)

      The article itself is nothing but a few selected quotes from Amazon's press release. You can call that factual, but I bet it hasn't even been fact-checked.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday May 30, 2014 @06:23AM (#47127405)

    People, "cloud computing" is nothing but a rather thinly veiled mix of software as a service and server hosting, ok? The reason why we needed a new word for it is that the former had a very bad rep by now (and it fully earned that rep), and the latter is anything but edgy and cool anymore.

    Could we, at least here, avoid the whole marketing lingo? It may be "cloudy" to markedroids and management, but I guess we DO know here that the data is not just put "somewhere in the cloud", right?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "Somewhere in the cloud" is as much as I need to know about the cloud services I use, that's kind of the whole point. Products don't get named for their underlying implementation they get named for their user-visible attributes. "Combination of SQL host, file server and front-end interface with best-effort backup protocols" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "cloud computing", and it takes longer to say.

      • Can't we just create an acronym for it like in government work? CSHFEIWBEBP is totally more marketable than Cloud Computing.
        • Sure, but abbrev it. It's too long for anyone to remember. CSHFE would do. Pronounced as "cash fee".

    • by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Friday May 30, 2014 @07:34AM (#47127563)

      Could we, at least here, avoid the whole marketing lingo?

      But Dude! How will we proactively leverage our infrastructure emplacement in world-centric roll-outs, and obtain niche market ubiquity? We're not going to do that with mere synergy based breakthroughs in the cloud!

      • Bullshit! [wikipedia.org]

        Wow, you beat my ex-boss by at least 3 sentences!

      • by sribe (304414)

        We're not going to do that with mere synergy based breakthroughs in the cloud!

        You idiot. That doesn't even make sense. Obviously, you require synergy based breakthroughs in the cloud in order to accomplish that kind of paradigm domination!

        • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

          We're not going to do that with mere synergy based breakthroughs in the cloud!

          You idiot. That doesn't even make sense. Obviously, you require synergy based breakthroughs in the cloud in order to accomplish that kind of paradigm domination!

          Sure, but you run the risk of adverse customer valuation index meltdown, which throws your entire supply chain into a positive feedbak loop, eventually completely wrecking the whole buy in process.

          I mean, that should be your takeaway, right?

    • by Vrtigo1 (1303147)

      "cloud computing" is nothing but a rather thinly veiled mix of software

      I'd disagree with that pretty strongly. It can be that, but if you're using it for what it was really designed for then it's much more than that. Let's say you're a startup and you have no idea how your product is going to catch on. In the old world you'd have to buy or lease server capacity for what you anticipate your demand will be. In the cloud world, you just pay for enough to keep the system running at current demand levels, build your solution to scale horizontally, spend half a day configuring

      • by alen (225700)

        technically yes and it's working now because the market is growing

        wait till growth of new customers stops and the players start to figure out ways to squeeze more profits from current customers. they over subscribe servers now, but wait a few years and see how bad it gets. and when you call support they will just blow you off and tell you it's your app that's not compatible with a hyper visor or whatever

      • That still doesn't make it something that needs a fuzzy description. It STILL is a server housing service. Scaling very easily to meet demands, yes, but it still is the same old deal it was a decade ago.

        What remains of it is that 9 out of 10 times whenever someone wants to put something "in the cloud" it actually means "I have no idea how to realize that". Call a spade a spade and say what you mean. Trying to be vague is not what I need when you try to describe what you WANT.

        • by Vrtigo1 (1303147)
          It's definitely not the same as it was 10 years ago, not even close. 10 years ago we literally had server housing services, AWS can be that but it is also much more. Yes, part of AWS involves hosting servers, but AWS is a complete platform with its own toolset. And that's just talking about EC2. If you look at the other services there was nothing even remotely close on the market before them. Nothing like S3, RDS, Elasticache, Cloudfront etc existed in a form where it was available to everyone. Used to
  • And I mean "my", "fucking", "dead" and "body" literally. I already imagine telling one of my customers that I host their data on Amazon AWS. I will never have had that good an opportunity to study people's backs.
  • by bayankaran (446245) on Friday May 30, 2014 @06:39AM (#47127445) Homepage
    Seems Amazon and Google see the writing on the 'internet wall'.
    Their core products/services are not going to bring them anymore revenue than what they get now, and can shrink further when nimble competitors or new ideas happen. So the only way is to branch out.
    Google thinks it will be driver-less cars, automation, internet balloons, thermostat etc., while Amazon thinks it will be AWS, cloud and so on.
    Surprisingly both these behemoths are not branching into life sciences. May be no has made good impressive power points yet.
    The one company terribly lost is Apple. They are buying into an arthritic rapper!!!
    • by Orne (144925) on Friday May 30, 2014 @08:35AM (#47127807) Homepage

      Amazon is not going after Apple, they are going after IBM. Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure are the leaders in this space, and are hitting reliability and scalability metrics that are pushing the old models out of business.

      Bloomberg had a great article this month on how IBM is losing *government* contracts (its bread and butter) to AWS.

        http://mobile.businessweek.com... [businessweek.com]

    • by ADRA (37398)

      Companies always expand (sometimes to the neglect of their core products) because it feeds investor interest in the possibility that there's still profit growth in the company. If google stopped making cool things and still held like 85% of the ad market, the company's stock performance would in turn be tied pretty solidly with the ad market, which one would assume doesn't grow much above inflation, so not a great investment. So, companies expand into areas where they can convince the market that they're di

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      Seems Amazon and Google see the writing on the 'internet wall'.
      Their core products/services are not going to bring them anymore revenue than what they get now, and can shrink further when nimble competitors or new ideas happen. So the only way is to branch out.
      Google thinks it will be driver-less cars, automation, internet balloons, thermostat etc., while Amazon thinks it will be AWS, cloud and so on.
      Surprisingly both these behemoths are not branching into life sciences. May be no ha

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      Seems Amazon and Google see the writing on the 'internet wall'.
      Their core products/services are not going to bring them anymore revenue than what they get now, and can shrink further when nimble competitors or new ideas happen. So the only way is to branch out.
      Google thinks it will be driver-less cars, automation, internet balloons, thermostat etc., [...]

      You forget that when Google launched their IPO
      they told everyone that Google would be spending money on stuff outside their core services,
      that it wasn't necessarily going to be profitable, and to deal with it if you want Google stocks.

      There aren't many publicly traded companies who can basically say "I do what I want and you agreed to it."
      Not that it matters, since the stocks are structured so that the founders always retain voting control.

      You might be right, that this is Google trying to "branch out," but

    • by jon3k (691256)
      False Dichotomy [google.com].
  • Cloud is dead (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TractorBarry (788340) on Friday May 30, 2014 @06:44AM (#47127455) Homepage

    Dear America,

    Following the Snowden revelations your NSA inspired dream of cloud computing and total social networking (i.e. full access too all the data in the world) is dead.

    Nobody with a brain would even think of storing their data on an American computing resource.

    Sincerely yours,

    The rest of the world.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Virtucon (127420)

      Even though about 80% of what Snowden "leaked" is hyperbole meant to stir up shit? After listening to the interview [nbcnews.com] I'm convinced that a ton of this information is utter crap. "ooh I'm a spy" "ooh I was trained by the CIA" Does the NSA have a bulk collection program? Yes. Do the US Federal Courts screw us over on privacy issues? Yes. Do the FISA courts represent a black hole in the justice system? No more than the IRS' Tax Courts but both are invalid "justice" systems meant to screw over Americans. W

      • You say "hyperbole" and then go on to make a point about Google and Huffingtonpost getting all the information there is about people -- so how is it Hyperbole to assume that the NSA isn't getting at least as much as Google?

        You're not defending the practice of Google or the NSA -- you're saying "Everyone is doing it so what is the big deal?"

        It's not hyperbole if it is true and if you want a Constitutional Amendment -- which I don't think is necessary when we already have an Right To Privacy our Supreme Court

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          It's not hyperbole if it is true and if you want a Constitutional Amendment -- which I don't think is necessary when we already have an Right To Privacy our Supreme Court ignores.

          Uh, wait, what? I'm sorry, can you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to privacy? The Supremes created that right (I don't believe in natural rights, sorry) which they said the other amendments wouldn't work without, by ruling that the constitution implied it. In fact, we do not have an explicit right to privacy in the constitution. If we did, that would really help support some of the other amendments as well, and would have saved us a lot of trouble.

          The Constitution was a pretty aw

        • by Virtucon (127420)

          The point is you're getting spied on by a lot of organizations, not just governments or their agencies. That's a fact, not hyperbole. If everybody suddenly became astonished when Snowden leaked a bunch of shit, then we have a bunch of people around the world who have been living in a fantasy world. Sure the Snowden affair has put a new light on the subject, but lets face it this shit has been going on for decades and even the EU in the 90s recognized the fact that spying on citizens was going on.

          also

          You're not defending the practice of Google or the NSA -- you're saying "Everyone is doing it so what is the big deal?"

          No,

      • by ADRA (37398)

        Any law that makes collection of terrestrial citizens information from external sources makes all this pretty much moot. Who says Canada, UK, hell Russia snoops on Americans and sells back Canadian,UK,Russian, etc.. citizen's data back with a swap? The US would turn a blind eye to it if it meant getting around pesky laws and such.

        • by ADRA (37398)

          Sorry, meant to say, unless there is a law.... etc.. rinse and repeast.

        • by Virtucon (127420)

          Any law that makes collection of terrestrial citizens information from external sources makes all this pretty much moot.

          So we have extraterrestrial citizens? They should phone home.

    • Dear America,

      Following the Snowden revelations your NSA inspired dream of cloud computing and total social networking (i.e. full access too all the data in the world) is dead.

      Nobody with a brain would even think of storing their data on an American computing resource.

      Sincerely yours,

      The rest of the world.

      Dear World,

      Following the Snowden revelations your Marketing Techdroid inspired dreams of cloud computing and total social networking (i.e. full access too all the data in the world) is dead. Did you not notice the stories of how your countries / companies were complicit? If "Multinationals" in the USA rolled over, when for all intents and purposes, they own our politicians -- is it too much of a stretch to think they WANT the pervasive spying? The question to ask is; "What do multinationals get out of knowi

    • Nobody with a brain would even think of storing their data on an American computing resource. Sincerely yours, The rest of the world.

      I think you over-estimate how much the 'rest of the world' cares about that when the cloud lets them look at pictures of their friends. When profits are to be, had companies don't care about privacy; when it gets in the way of what they want right now, consumers don't care about privacy.

  • since i write my database with a #2 pencil on paper
  • At first glance, I red "Ruin" instead of "run". I must be biased.
  • Yes, I'm sure Amazon can run my database more efficiently than I can. But what are they going to do when I need to fetch 100 megabytes of data from a table and I want it in less than 30 seconds over my 20 megabit/s internet connection? Hmm?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Everybody that uses external hosting for applications that use databases (I refuse to use the c-word any more) also uses it to host the databases they rely on, as it is a basic principle that you need to minimize network latency in this scenario. Having an application talk to databases thousandss of miles away running over anything but very expensive dedicated fiber would be a Very Bad Idea.

    OK, Amazon probably handle the install and basic configuration for you, but how difficult is this for a DBA? In my ex

    • Service Provider. That's what they are. I used to call them Application Service Providers, but Microsoft swallowed that acronym.
  • Why use Amazon when its competitors are offering SLAs?

    • The amount the SLA covers is pathetic to the actual harm downtime can cause. Even with a industry leading SLA if you are spending $10k a month and get less than 99%, you might get that full $10k back. Too bad you lost $100k (or more) thanks to that downtime. Good luck getting that additional $90k back.

      So yes, it is nice that they will offer a refund for performance under a certain level, but when you expect a high, usually VERY HIGH, profit margin on this process, recouping costs is nice but far from
  • The R3 is just an "instance". Sure it's a memory optimized instance, but it's not even their relational instances [amazon.com] or mapreduce [amazon.com] databases.

He's dead, Jim.

Working...