Emulation, transparency, portability
Analysis of products that support the emulation of market-leading database management systems. Related subjects include:
MongoDB 3.4 and “multimodel” query
“Multimodel” database management is a hot new concept these days, notwithstanding that it’s been around since at least the 1990s. My clients at MongoDB of course had to join the train as well, but they’ve taken a clear and interesting stance:
- A query layer with multiple ways to query and analyze data.
- A separate data storage layer in which you have a choice of data storage engines …
- … each of which has the same logical (JSON-based) data structure.
When I pointed out that it would make sense to call this “multimodel query” — because the storage isn’t “multimodel” at all — they quickly agreed.
To be clear: While there are multiple ways to read data in MongoDB, there’s still only one way to write it. Letting that sink in helps clear up confusion as to what about MongoDB is or isn’t “multimodel”. To spell that out a bit further: Read more
| Categories: Database diversity, Emulation, transparency, portability, MongoDB, MySQL, NoSQL, Open source, RDF and graphs, Structured documents, Text | 4 Comments |
Transitioning to the cloud(s)
There’s a lot of talk these days about transitioning to the cloud, by IT customers and vendors alike. Of course, I have thoughts on the subject, some of which are below.
1. The economies of scale of not running your own data centers are real. That’s the kind of non-core activity almost all enterprises should outsource. Of course, those considerations taken alone argue equally for true cloud, co-location or SaaS (Software as a Service).
2. When the (Amazon) cloud was newer, I used to hear that certain kinds of workloads didn’t map well to the architecture Amazon had chosen. In particular, shared-nothing analytic query processing was necessarily inefficient. But I’m not hearing nearly as much about that any more.
3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, not everybody loves Amazon pricing.
4. Infrastructure vendors such as Oracle would like to also offer their infrastructure to you in the cloud. As per the above, that could work. However:
- Is all your computing on Oracle’s infrastructure? Probably not.
- Do you want to move the Oracle part and the non-Oracle part to different clouds? Ideally, no.
- Do you like the idea of being even more locked in to Oracle than you are now? [Insert BDSM joke here.]
- Will Oracle do so much better of a job hosting its own infrastructure that you use its cloud anyway? Well, that’s an interesting question.
Actually, if we replace “Oracle” by “Microsoft”, the whole idea sounds better. While Microsoft doesn’t have a proprietary server hardware story like Oracle’s, many folks are content in the Microsoft walled garden. IBM has fiercely loyal customers as well, and so may a couple of Japanese computer manufacturers.
5. Even when running stuff in the cloud is otherwise a bad idea, there’s still: Read more
| Categories: Amazon and its cloud, Cloud computing, Emulation, transparency, portability, IBM and DB2, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Oracle, Pricing | 6 Comments |
A new logical data layer?
I’m skeptical of data federation. I’m skeptical of all-things-to-all-people claims about logical data layers, and in particular of Gartner’s years-premature “Logical Data Warehouse” buzzphrase. Still, a reasonable number of my clients are stealthily trying to do some kind of data layer middleware, as are other vendors more openly, and I don’t think they’re all crazy.
Here are some thoughts as to why, and also as to challenges that need to be overcome.
There are many things a logical data layer might be trying to facilitate — writing, querying, batch data integration, real-time data integration and more. That said:
- When you’re writing data, you want it to be banged into a sufficiently-durable-to-acknowledge condition fast. If acknowledgements are slow, performance nightmares can ensue. So writing is the last place you want an extra layer, perhaps unless you’re content with the durability provided by an in-memory data grid.
- Queries are important. Also, they formally are present in other tasks, such as data transformation and movement. That’s why data manipulation packages (originally Pig, now Hive and fuller SQL) are so central to Hadoop.
Cask and CDAP
For starters:
- Continuuity toured in 2012 and touted its “app server for Hadoop” technology.
- Continuuity recently changed its name to Cask and went open source.
- Cask’s product is now called CDAP (Cask Data Application Platform). It’s still basically an app server for Hadoop and other “big data” — ouch do I hate that phrase — data stores.
- Cask and Cloudera partnered.
- I got a more technical Cask briefing this week.
Also:
- App servers are a notoriously amorphous technology. The focus of how they’re used can change greatly every couple of years.
- Partly for that reason, I was unimpressed by Continuuity’s original hype-filled positioning.
So far as I can tell:
- Cask’s current focus is to orchestrate job flows, with lots of data mappings.
- This is supposed to provide lots of developer benefits, for fairly obvious reasons. Those are pitched in terms of an integration story, more in a “free you from the mess of a many-part stack” sense than strictly in terms of data integration.
- CDAP already has a GUI to monitor what’s going on. A GUI to specify workflows is coming very soon.
- CDAP doesn’t consume a lot of cycles itself, and hence isn’t a real risk for unpleasant overhead, if “overhead” is narrowly defined. Rather, performance drags could come from …
- … sub-optimal choices in data mapping, database design or workflow composition.
Hadoop: And then there were three
Hortonworks, IBM, EMC Pivotal and others have announced a project called “Open Data Platform” to do … well, I’m not exactly sure what. Mainly, it sounds like:
- An attempt to minimize the importance of any technical advantages Cloudera or MapR might have.
- A face-saving way to admit that IBM’s and Pivotal’s insistence on having their own Hadoop distributions has been silly.
- An excuse for press releases.
- A source of an extra logo graphic to put on marketing slides.
Edit: Now there’s a press report saying explicitly that Hortonworks is taking over Pivotal’s Hadoop distro customers (which basically would mean taking over the support contracts and then working to migrate them to Hortonworks’ distro).
The claim is being made that this announcement solves some kind of problem about developing to multiple versions of the Hadoop platform, but to my knowledge that’s a problem rarely encountered in real life. When you already have a multi-enterprise open source community agreeing on APIs (Application Programming interfaces), what API inconsistency remains for a vendor consortium to painstakingly resolve?
Anyhow, it now seems clear that if you want to use a Hadoop distribution, there are three main choices:
- Cloudera’s flavor, whether as software (from Cloudera) or in an appliance (e.g. from Oracle).
- MapR’s flavor, as software from MapR.
- Hortonworks’ flavor, from a number of vendors, including Hortonworks, IBM, Pivotal, Teradata et al.
In saying that, I’m glossing over a few points, such as: Read more
| Categories: Amazon and its cloud, Cloudera, EMC, Emulation, transparency, portability, Greenplum, Hadoop, Hortonworks, IBM and DB2, MapR, Open source | 11 Comments |
Migration
There is much confusion about migration, by which I mean applications or investment being moved from one “platform” technology — hardware, operating system, DBMS, Hadoop, appliance, cluster, cloud, etc. — to another. Let’s sort some of that out. For starters:
- There are several fundamentally different kinds of “migration”.
- You can re-host an existing application.
- You can replace an existing application with another one that does similar (and hopefully also new) things. This new application may be on a different platform than the old one.
- You can build or buy a wholly new application.
- There’s also the inbetween case in which you extend an old application with significant new capabilities — which may not be well-suited for the existing platform.
- Motives for migration generally fall into a few buckets. The main ones are:
- You want to use a new app, and it only runs on certain platforms.
- The new platform may be cheaper to buy, rent or lease.
- The new platform may have lower operating costs in other ways, such as administration.
- Your employees may like the new platform’s “cool” aspect. (If the employee is sufficiently high-ranking, substitute “strategic” for “cool”.)
- Different apps may be much easier or harder to re-host. At two extremes:
- It can be forbiddingly difficult to re-host an OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) app that is heavily tuned, tightly integrated with your other apps, and built using your DBMS vendor’s proprietary stored-procedure language.
- It might be trivial to migrate a few long-running SQL queries to a new engine, and pretty easy to handle the data connectivity part of the move as well.
- Certain organizations, usually packaged software companies, design portability into their products from the get-go, with at least partial success.
I mixed together true migration and new-app platforms in a post last year about DBMS architecture choices, when I wrote: Read more
| Categories: Emulation, transparency, portability, Hadoop, NoSQL | 3 Comments |
Data integration as a business opportunity
A significant fraction of IT professional services industry revenue comes from data integration. But as a software business, data integration has been more problematic. Informatica, the largest independent data integration software vendor, does $1 billion in revenue. INFA’s enterprise value (market capitalization after adjusting for cash and debt) is $3 billion, which puts it way short of other category leaders such as VMware, and even sits behind Tableau.* When I talk with data integration startups, I ask questions such as “What fraction of Informatica’s revenue are you shooting for?” and, as a follow-up, “Why would that be grounds for excitement?”
*If you believe that Splunk is a data integration company, that changes these observations only a little.
On the other hand, several successful software categories have, at particular points in their history, been focused on data integration. One of the major benefits of 1990s business intelligence was “Combines data from multiple sources on the same screen” and, in some cases, even “Joins data from multiple sources in a single view”. The last few years before application servers were commoditized, data integration was one of their chief benefits. Data warehousing and Hadoop both of course have a “collect all your data in one place” part to their stories — which I call data mustering — and Hadoop is a data transformation tool as well.
MemSQL scales out
The third of my three MySQL-oriented clients I alluded to yesterday is MemSQL. When I wrote about MemSQL last June, the product was an in-memory single-server MySQL workalike. Now scale-out has been added, with general availability today.
MemSQL’s flagship reference is Zynga, across 100s of servers. Beyond that, the company claims (to quote a late draft of the press release):
Enterprises are already using distributed MemSQL in production for operational analytics, network security, real-time recommendations, and risk management.
All four of those use cases fit MemSQL’s positioning in “real-time analytics”. Besides Zynga, MemSQL cites penetration into traditional low-latency markets — financial services (various subsectors) and ad-tech.
Highlights of MemSQL’s new distributed architecture start: Read more
Teradata SQL-H
As vendors so often do, Teradata has caused itself some naming confusion. SQL-H was introduced as a facility of Teradata Aster, to complement SQL-MR.* But while SQL-MR is in essence a set of SQL extensions, SQL-H is not. Rather, SQL-H is a transparency interface that makes Hadoop data responsive to the same code that would work on Teradata Aster …
*Speaking of confusion — Teradata Aster seems to use the spellings SQL/MR and SQL-MR interchangeably.
… except that now there’s also a SQL-H for regular Teradata systems as well. While it has the same general features and benefits as SQL-H for Teradata Aster, the details are different, since the underlying systems are.
I hope that’s clear. 🙂
| Categories: Data integration and middleware, Data warehousing, Emulation, transparency, portability, Hadoop, SQL/Hadoop integration, Teradata | 2 Comments |
Comments on Gartner’s 2012 Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems — concepts
The 2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems is out. I’ll split my comments into two posts — this one on concepts, and a companion on specific vendor evaluations.
Links:
- Maintaining working links to Gartner Magic Quadrants is an adventure. But as of early February, 2013, this link seems live.
- I also commented on the 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006 Gartner Magic Quadrants for Data Warehouse DBMS.
Let’s start by again noting that I regard Gartner Magic Quadrants as a bad use of good research. On the facts:
- Gartner collects a lot of input from traditional enterprises. I envy that resource.
- Gartner also does a good job of rounding up vendor claims about user base sizes and the like. If nothing else, you should skim the MQ report for that reason.
- Gartner observations about product feature sets are usually correct, although not so consistently that they should be relied on.
When it comes to evaluations, however, the Gartner Data Warehouse DBMS Magic Quadrant doesn’t do as well. My concerns (which overlap) start:
- The Gartner MQ conflates many different use cases into one ranking (inevitable in this kind of work, but still regrettable).
- A number of the MQ vendor evaluations seem hard to defend. So do some of Gartner’s specific comments.
- Some of Gartner’s criteria seemingly amount to “parrots back our opinions to us”.
- As do I, Gartner thinks a vendor’s business and financial strength are important. But Gartner overdoes the matter, drilling down into picky issues it can’t hope to judge, such as assessing a vendor’s “ability to generate and develop leads.” *
- The 2012 Gartner Data Warehouse DBMS Magic Quadrant is closer to being a 1-dimensional ranking than 2-dimensional, in that entries are clustered along the line x=y. This suggests strong correlation among the results on various specific evaluation criteria.