RE: Oracle Exadata Machine
- From: "Matthew Zito" <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <kmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Riyaj Shamsudeen" <riyaj.shamsudeen@xxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:33:49 -0400
Right, well, there's a couple of things to consider here:
- The storage architecture in the database machine is revolutionary for
Oracle - it transparently pushes some query processing down to the
storage itself. It also allows you to scale storage independent of
processing throughput, something that Netezza does not
- While it's nice that Netezza offers custom ASICs and the like, a
custom ASIC isn't necessarily faster than a flat-out Intel processor.
Power consumption is probably lower, but when you consider the piece
above about independently scaling processors vs. storage, it could
balance out
- The opportunity cost of rewriting your system for a new data
warehousing platform can be significant, not to mention the ongoing
overhead of feeding data between systems. The database machine allows
you to get comparable throughput to a Netezza machine while maintaining
Oracle compatibility.
I like the Netezza folks, I knew some of the earlier founding members
over there, no idea if any of them are still around. But the reality is
that a very very fast RAC cluster with offloaded storage processing has
a lot of advantages over a proprietary system.
As for looking at a standalone box, depending on the size you're looking
at, between the cost of a, say, 16 processor HP-UX machine plus some
high-end storage, I feel confident you can make a business case for a
Netezza or an Oracle Database Machine.
Thanks,
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:05 PM
To: Riyaj Shamsudeen
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Oracle Exadata Machine
Well, I did say "mostly". It's possible that "partially" is more
accurate. I
don't have direct performance comparison between the two but would
certainly
like to.
My point is that something designed from the ground up for a particular
task
'should' perform better than something that is adapted from existing
technology. Again, I can't say whether that is true in this case.
The Neteeza appliance is designed around modules with a CPU, custom ASIC
chip
and hard drive. There are around 200 modules (could be more or less
depending
on configuration), each processing 0.5% of the data and passing the
results to
another CPU for consolidation.
To me that is a better architecture for certain types of applications.
Then
there's the columnar database people (Vertica) that will tell you their
architecture is better still.
Keith
>>> The customized hardware is built for that while Oracle's
architecture is
> mostly a
>>> reconfiguration of existing Oracle features such as RAC along with
new
> hardware.
>
> I must disagree with that statement. Exadata is lot more sophisticated
for
> such an oversimplified statement.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts: