Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oracle To Sell Database Hardware

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the new-ventures dept.

Oracle 93

qazsedcft writes "In a move the company is billing as its first foray into the hardware business, Oracle Corp. said Wednesday it will begin selling server computers that come with its database software pre-installed."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No Surprise (4, Interesting)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 6 years ago | (#25154469)

One could now conceivably have a datacenter with Oracle machines, running Oracle OS for Oracle database, Oracle apps and Oracle middleware. This was pretty much the last piece.
Will everyone buy in? I doubt it - but they can now provide everything a business needs from top to bottom, if that business is so inclined.

Re:No Surprise (0)

PowerEdge (648673) | about 6 years ago | (#25154531)

I run MSSQL/Greatplains on my Xbox farm. I don't see why everyone else doesn't buy in.

Re:No Surprise (3, Funny)

jedidiah (1196) | about 6 years ago | (#25154601)

Someone might want to INSERT something.

Re:No Surprise (4, Funny)

spazdor (902907) | about 6 years ago | (#25154829)

That's what she said!

Re:No Surprise (4, Interesting)

_Sharp'r_ (649297) | about 6 years ago | (#25154561)

Why wouldn't Oracle just throw in the hardware with the costs of the license?

Hardware is so cheap and the licenses so expensive that you'd think the sales guy will be on the golf course with the CEO saying, "Tell you what, you buy the unlimited user license for your website for four processors and we'll have our guys build the servers, install the software (really just a drive image) and deliver it ready to go to your datacenter, all for free."

Re:No Surprise (2, Funny)

msimm (580077) | about 6 years ago | (#25155285)

Oracle's always been more a blood/turnip company.

Re:No Surprise (4, Informative)

cerberusss (660701) | about 6 years ago | (#25155457)

Why wouldn't Oracle just throw in the hardware with the costs of the license?

That's pretty funny. Maybe the hardware you use at home is cheap. And maybe you even have a couple of throw-away Supermicros in a datacenter. But the Sun and/or EMC kit that, say, a publisher buys is not cheap. Just a couple of 16-way Sun servers with a decent SAN with backup possibility starts around 250K. After negotiating, that is. Now, you can say that this doesn't matter when your Oracle licenses run up to 2,500K but it still isn't pocket change like you're making it sound like.

Re:No Surprise (3, Interesting)

Kamokazi (1080091) | about 6 years ago | (#25156295)

That's pretty funny. You don't understand that most of the hardware you just mentioned is considerably cheaper to the manufacturer than what you pay (Aside from some of the stuff in the Sun boxes...but those aren't really necessary for a lot of businesses that would still have uses for Oracle). I would say the majority of the cost is for support and to fatten their wallets. Enterprise-grade anything has insane profit margins.

SANs are expensive because of the software/firmware that runs the controllers, failovers, etc. The hardware in them is relatively cheap...most of the components are standard, it's just the controller board that gets custom-designed, which is still not an overly expensive process. (SANs use the same chips that are in $1-2k NICs from Alacritech and others, and even cheaper RAID controllers from LSI, etc.)

Now I don't see making it free, but it would be a good way for them to make it seem like they are giving huge discounts. Take that 40k SAN and cut the cost to 10k and break even. Maybe on lower-end servers it would can easily spec out a throw-away Supermicro for $2k that could handle a hundred or so DB users without flinching.

Re:No Surprise (1)

cerberusss (660701) | about 6 years ago | (#25156471)

That's pretty funny. You don't understand that most of the hardware you just mentioned [...]

OK, I get it. Reading back, the tone of my message was condescending. But yes, I understand that the hardware is considerably cheaper to the manufacturer. That's why I mentioned 'after negotiating' because I've seen there's a lot of room for that when buying Sun or EMC equipment (and Oracle licenses for that matter).

Still my original point stands, and that is that the hardware still is not pocket change compared to the Oracle licensing. Sure, smaller than before. But not what the GP makes it out to be

Re:No Surprise (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | about 6 years ago | (#25157867)

Yeah, agree with you there. Some low-mid stuff they may be able to give it away depending on what they buy, but the big stuff still is worth some dough.

Re:No Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25161747)

Fibrechannel in most cases uses an overclocked serial port controller.

Re:No Surprise (1)

_Sharp'r_ (649297) | about 6 years ago | (#25173473)

The last Oracle licenses I purchased cost $1.5 million and the clustered hardware we ran it on cost less than $100K. I know Oracle has lowered some of their pricing since then, but I think they could still afford a 10% or less "discount" and cover hardware for people.

Using your numbers, Oracle licenses of $2.5 million and hardware of $250K is still only 10%. They'll give you that just to make their end-of-quarter sales quotas.

On those $1.5 million Oracle licenses, the "list" was at least 25% higher than what we actually paid, so it's not like they aren't discounting in other ways already.

Remember that the marginal license costs to Oracle aren't very high, so they can afford to offer huge discounts. Offering them in the form of hardware instead of costs-off doesn't really matter to them, but will sound good to a lot of buyers.

Re:No Surprise (1)

marafa (745042) | about 6 years ago | (#25157279)

interesting offer. but with or without the san?

Re:No Surprise (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | about 6 years ago | (#25154721)

Will anyone afford it?

Re:No Surprise (5, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#25154775)

RTFA. There's no "Oracle machine." This is a cobranded HP/Oracle product.

Re:No Surprise (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | about 6 years ago | (#25156179)

yea, it's a co-branded product, but unless they're just taking HP servers and slapping an Oracle logo on it, it's still an Oracle machine. i mean, they say they've been working on this product for a while now. unless they just mean business negotiations rather than R&D, then that would imply that this is a new line of hardware distinct from what HP has been selling.

i guess there really aren't enough details out right now to confirm it either way. the article states that it will fetch data from Oracle databases faster than competing hardware, but that could just be marketing BS. it would be disappointing to find out that you just paid extra for an added Oracle logo on your HP server.

Buy in, why not! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25154821)

Then when your business finally collapses under the ridiculous financial pressure you can have the Oracle creditors and lawyers too! Get the whole set!

Re:No Surprise (1)

perdelucena (455667) | about 6 years ago | (#25154915)

Some PHB will []

Larry Ellison has MS envy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25155023)

He always has.

He has a jet fighter because a Ferrari just doesn't compensate enough for him - if-you-know-what-mean.

Re:No Surprise (1)

ptrace (1078855) | about 6 years ago | (#25156575)

IBM did this for decades. Hence the term, "IBM Shop".

Re:No Surprise Lotsa "Os" there...(let's have fun) (1)

davidsyes (765062) | about 6 years ago | (#25157255)

O... O.. O... Ohhhhh.

I'll bet the board room deliberated this one carefully... LOL

(Reminds me of the time years ago when one late night at work i called a company to get address information. I hit one extra digit. The something vox system said, "There IS no extention: Two-OH-four." I tried again. Got same response. Tired, antsy, and wanting to go home, I was up for fun and games. I hit -rapidly- something like: 12000000, and she responded, "There IS no extension: One Two OH OH OH OH OH OH OH...." (Eventually, i got the right number, but returned to the "OH" game a bit...)

I couldn't STOP laughing. Did it a few more times... Next morning, i gathered up some co-workers, repeated the performance, and there was great laughter. But, no sexual discrimination worries...)

Core business (2, Informative)

qoncept (599709) | about 6 years ago | (#25154511)

I don't see Oracle being successful moving in to areas that aren't it's core business (hardware vs software), especially one that's already saturated. The insurance company makes a lot of acquisitions, and the first step is always unloading everything the new company does that isn't insurance, no matter how profitable they've been.

Re:Core business (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | about 6 years ago | (#25154593)

What about all those insurance companies that decided to become investment banks, like AIG? That worked out pretty well, right?

Seriously though, this could work for people that like to hand over the keys to one company and wipe their hands of the whole mess (a non-trivial number of companies), but any company that likes to handle most of its own IT is probably not going to go for it unless Oracle has come up with a way to optimize the hardware for the Oracle DB that no one else has.

Re:Core business (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25157407)

"unless Oracle has come up with a way to optimize the hardware for the Oracle DB that no one else has"

Which they did. The storage array is database aware. It can do predicate-pushing, so that it only returns the rows you need, rather than every disk block you need to scan.

Re:Core business (5, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 6 years ago | (#25154671)

The insurance company makes a lot of acquisitions, and the first step is always unloading everything the new company does that isn't insurance, no matter how profitable they've been.

Where've you been the past few years? Insurance companies used to be forbidden from operating in certain other areas. Not so anymore... look at Prudential. They have diversified bigtime.

As for Oracle in particular... this is not an unrelated product. Providing hardware for their software could potentially reduce their support costs significantly. I haven't seen any numbers, and I'm only slightly familiar with Oracle's pricing structure for support, but it seems to me that some of their clientele might prefer one-stop shopping... as they then save money on installation costs.

So rather tha seeing this as Oracle moving away from their core business, maybe a better perspective would be to think of this as supporting their core business.

One other thing to note -- Oracle's core business is no longer software, it's services. While the services business is largely dependent on their software offerings, take a look at their recent revenue figures... and take a bigger look at where their projected growth is.

Re:Core business (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25156023)

Providing hardware for their software could potentially reduce their support costs significantly.

If you include "user experience" in the costs bucket, this sounds remarkably like another software company's business model. Apple.

Re:Core business (5, Insightful)

Shotgun (30919) | about 6 years ago | (#25154725)

Could be that you have a limited view of what their core business is. Is it selling databases? Or, could it be selling database services?

For a given number of dollars, what is the optimum hardware to run a database? How much memory of what type vs how much/many hard disks? Which OS? Which drivers?

Selling the hardware will let them present an entire solution that is optimized for the one thing that they want to do...serve data as quickly as possible. The customer is presented with an appliance that will offer the maximum database performance for a given dollar point. Well, at least as optimized as anything can be with an Oracle Database stamp on it.

Re:Core business (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25154747)

Unlike what the headlines tell you, this is not a move into the hardware/storage business only. HP is the partner for the hardware. This is also a move to catch up with companies like Greenplum and Netezza in the Data Warehousing appliance market in terms of performance.

Till now these companies could take advantage of their Massively Parallel Processing architecture by distributing DW/BI/Analytics queries to compute nodes that are closer to the data. This way only the results and not the entire data has to be shipped back. The Oracle Exadata is similar in a way that some of the processing is moved to the storage cells in order to reduce the network and processing overhead. This should help Oracle catch up in terms of performance.

Re:Core business (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25155005)

They will just stick a logo to those things, no need to design/produce anything.

FYI this is a successful business model (sticking prestigious logos and increasing the price).

It's about time! (0)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | about 6 years ago | (#25154515)

Well, it's gotta be better than installing Oracle yourself.

Re:It's about time! (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 6 years ago | (#25154643)

Yeah... cause using an InstallShield style GUI wizard installer is "just so hard".

Re:It's about time! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25155649)

No, it's the stupid fucking Java-based installer that they insist on using that runs like shit on every system I've ever seen it on, no matter how beefy a box it is. Fuck those fucking fuckers in their fucking asses.

Re:It's about time! (2, Informative)

Colin Smith (2679) | about 6 years ago | (#25155771)

I can tell you have vast Oracle experience...


Re:It's about time! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 6 years ago | (#25169193)

Perhaps you should update yours.

Perhaps try something other than Solaris or version 7.

The issue is not how easy it is to set up the thing
to melt a hole in the floor or set a new TPC record.

There is more to it than launching runInstaller (2, Informative)

Stone316 (629009) | about 6 years ago | (#25155977)

Yes, installing Oracle is simple.. You could even install Oracle's E-Business Suite easily. The hard part is configuring it and its even harder to configure it for performance.

Behind an environment built for performance is network, SAN and OS. If the admins for theses services aren't familiar with your application or databases then chances are its not configured optimally. You wouldn't believe how many arguments I have had with OS and SAN admins who believe that they can use the same generic configuration that they use for any other server.

Re:It's about time! (1)

cerberusss (660701) | about 6 years ago | (#25156195)

It's been a while since I installed Oracle (since 9i) but the GUI wizard installer does not increase the maximum number of semaphores, shared memory stuff etc. While it's not so hard, it also isn't clicking next-next-finish.

Re:It's about time! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 6 years ago | (#25169033)

It really depends on the Unix.

Solaris is stupid about this sort of thing.

Linux and AIX is not.

Unless you're going to be running the sort of app where
a guru of some sort will be needed, you probably won't
need to do anything but "run the installer" on Linux or

Great! (1)

ilovesymbian (1341639) | about 6 years ago | (#25154565)

Great, now we have a quality product where both software+hardware come from the same source, like Sun's Solaris boxes and Apple's Macs.

Not Really Building (1)

bsharitt (580506) | about 6 years ago | (#25154567)

So this is more like what SecureComputingdoes with their firewalls when they just rebadge off the shelf dell server?

Makes sense (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25154637)

Proprietary software is dying. Larry Ellison knows that. That's why he's been buying up Open Source companies like Sleepy Cat and Inno DB and made evaluation versions of orcale free (as in cheapskate). The next step is to move into the hardware business and open source their code. Will it work? I don't know. But I do know the idle section sucks and shaved pussy is hot. Larry didn't get rich by being stupid. With their linux distro and linux FS (btrfs, which has ZFS-like features), I expect they'll try a takeover attempt of red Hat someitme in 2009.

Re:Makes sense (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 6 years ago | (#25154767)

Eval versions of Oracle have been readily available
since long before Free Software was a threat to Larry's
lifestyle. As long as mysql gets installed by default
with key things like proper crash recovery disabled
then there will be plenty of room for proprietary
RDBMS vendors.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25160533)

I'm feeding the troll, but Oracle gives away a limited-edition version (crippleware, but not nagware), the XE version [] at the Oracle Technology Network [] . It's not an eval version, you can use it for production:

Oracle Database 10g Express Edition (Oracle Database XE) is an entry-level, small-footprint database based on the Oracle Database 10g Release 2 code base that's free to develop, deploy, and distribute; fast to download; and simple to administer.
Oracle Database XE can be installed on any size host machine with any number of CPUs (one database per machine), but XE will store up to 4GB of user data, use up to 1GB of memory, and use one CPU on the host machine.

Oracle also has eval versions of most other software at OTN, but there's no activation or any of that crap. Licensing is controlled by legal means, not technical measures. When Oracle buys other proprietary software vendors, the first thing the company does after change-in-control is give away unlimited-use licenses [] (aka disable licensing as much as can easily be done). The second thing the company does is rip out licensing entirely in the next version of the product.

And yes, I'm an Oracle employee, posting AC because I'm not authorized to speak for the company.

Is Cindy McCain: +1, Helpful (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25154649)

still a junkie [] .

K. Trout

Obama's "I didn't inject" moment (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25155097)

still a junkie [] .

Is Obama still a junkie? []

Re:Obama's "I didn't inject" moment (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25157243)

You obviously lack facility in English. The question asks "STILL a junkie"?

Oracle appliance? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 6 years ago | (#25154675)

The article doesn't give much information. If the objective is just to rebrand Proliants, it's not interesting. If the objective is to create a "database appliance" pre-optimized for Oracle, easy to administer and cluster, that would be a lot more interesting.

Re:Oracle appliance? (1)

Jim_Maryland (718224) | about 6 years ago | (#25155157)

As you said, the article doesn't really provide much detail. I am wondering though if this could be similar to what we are seeing with their recently acquired BEA WebLogic line. Have you read the BEA WebLogic 9.2 Virtual Edition [] offering? Most solutions will install products like Oracle and WebLogic on a dedicated server to maximize performance. What if they removed all but the necessary components of an operating system and optimized it? This has potential if it isn't, as you said, just a rebranded Proliant server with Oracle pre-installed.

Re:Oracle appliance? (1)

aevans (933829) | about 6 years ago | (#25155713)

people used to buy software on disks. Because software ran on disks. Now software runs on servers. Why not buy software on servers?

Re:Oracle appliance? (1)

hanshotfirst (851936) | about 6 years ago | (#25156915)

It's a big-a$$ data warehousing appliance, apparently good for OLTP also, if you need an OLTP app that big.

More details here: []
and here: []

Target market seems to be big companies that don't want the usual hassle of configuring storage+hardware+RAC+consultants to make it all work together.

intelligent disks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25154679)

Apparently, the key idea here is "intelligent disks".

Actual Information (5, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#25154681)

It would be nice if submitters took a moment to find some actual information, instead of just submitting the first (usually content free) blurb that they see. A tiny amount of Googling would have turned up this Oracle product page [] with full technical specs.

It's worth mentioning that this product is not a computer. It's a 42U rack stuffed 8 dbms servers, 14 storage servers, and 4 switches. Which means a lot of low-end 1U servers. Not exactly a lot of computer power. One or two 4U dbms servers and 3 or 4 4U storage servers (like Sun's X4600 and X4500 boxes) would seem more to the point.

Re:Actual Information (4, Informative)

More_Cowbell (957742) | about 6 years ago | (#25155613)

Which means a lot of low-end 1U servers. Not exactly a lot of computer power.

You could have gone one step further and actually read the specs [] before deriding them...

8-HP Proliant DL360 G5 database servers, with
2 quad-core Intel Xeon Processor E5430 (2.66GHz)
32GB memory
1-HP InfiniBand Dual Port HCA
4-146GB SAS 10K hard disk drives
4-24-port InfiniBand switches

14-HP Exadata Storage Server Hardware--each is an HP ProLiant DL180 G5, with
2 quad-core Intel Xeon Processor E5430 (2.66GHz)
8GB memory
1-HP InfiniBand Dual Port HCA
12-300GB SAS or 12-1TB SATA disk drives

Now I won't argue that Sun doesn't put out more robust hardware (for that matter HP does, the DL line is far from their top end), but this is not exactly 'low end' computing power here...

Re:Actual Information (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 years ago | (#25156025)

but this is not exactly 'low end' computing power here

It might be from the grandparent's perspective. If so, perhaps we could, uh, borrow some things from his datacenter?

Re:Actual Information (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#25156353)

Actually, you can borrow stuff from my datacenter. You just have to promise to consider buying it! []

Re:Actual Information (2, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 years ago | (#25156789)

I can definitely promise to consider buying it. Do I have to promise to be able to afford it too?

Re:Actual Information (1)

lorenzino (1130749) | about 6 years ago | (#25158171)

yes you do.
They do a thing on your credit card (maybe debit card too) that doesn't remove the money but checks if it could.

OR , cause I just had a flash in my mind, they take it and then either undo the transaction or put it back (I only heard recently that people could put money straight back in your card)

I took a x86 AMD Opteron workstation.
Kept it for a while, like few months and then called them up about 10/15 days before the end of the "consideration trial".
I basically bought my self some time before getting my amd phenom ..
I didn't get the sparc because .. well, I wasn't really sure Sun Os, Solaris, was the right thing.
And it didn't start well, as soon as they delivered it (for free, as well as when they take it back) the system couldn't boot. Something corrupted on the hard drive ? Maybe a fucked up sector ?
Anyway, no problem, I install it again. NO, WAIT, no damn dvd with Solaris nor OpenSolaris.

I download it, with my mac, install it and then realize how far is OpenSolaris on the desktop, not mentioning I'm a unix geek and software developer on C++/java/python.

Debian ..yeah, it was far far easier to get gcc and other GNU stuff, which let me say it, it's much better than other OSs .. grep is my favourite example :)

All right, sorry for the semi-hot topic, just giving you my experience with that trial.
BTW, the hardware however noisy was very solid and .. fast too.

Mod accordingly (Redundant?)

Re:Actual Information (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#25156303)

I did read the specs. I even quoted them. We're talking a bunch of 2-processor systems. In the server world, a 2P system is definitely low end.

The Sun X4600 is an 8P, 4U system. So 2 X4600s have the same number of processors and the same amount of rack space. Having all 8 processors in one system makes the whole a tad more efficient and cheaper.

I'm not suggesting that HP doesn't have something equivalent to the X4600 — I'm sure they do. I just happen to be more familiar with Sun x64 systems because that's where I work. My point is simply that if you're going to put that much processing power into one rack, a few high end systems make more sense than a lot of low-end systems.

I could make a similar argument about using 14 Exadata storage servers (each with 12 disks in a 2U space) versus 3 or 4 X4500 or X4540 storage servers (each with 48 disks in a 4U space). Or versus the HP equivalent of the X45x0. But you get my drift.

Operational cost? (1)

Mutatis Mutandis (921530) | about 6 years ago | (#25156185)

I wonder what their approach to maintenance and service will be. These tasks tends to be rather critical for a database system. I also expect that for many of Oracle's customers, running cost would be the decisive factor, and not purchase cost.

Maintenance costs vary rather wildly from the around 3% of purchase cost per year you expect to be charged for next-business-day-on-site service purely for computer hardware, over the about 10% per year that a supplier of really high-tech stuff will charge you, to the 500% or more per year that an IT department may charge to keep a computer running, maintained, secure, and backed-up. I've seen figures up to 2000%, admittedly as the bloated end result of an apparatchik mentality.

The attractiveness of a standard vendor system may be economies of scale -- if Oracle and HP can sell a lot of them, maintenance on them could be relatively cheap. For people who don't really need a carefully tuned and powerful system, that could be very attractive.

Re:Actual Information (1)

awgupta (638380) | about 6 years ago | (#25156231)

It's not about the particular HW config. The point of the machine is that it moves a portion of querying to the disk, so the disk is shipping back matching tuples as part of the parallel query, rather than blocks. There are a couple of CPUs, 4 cores each on each disk. The great problem in high-scale data warehouses is in shipping blocks across the interconnect. This reduces that.

Re:Actual Information (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#25157409)

OK, that's an argument for having a lot of (relatively) sparse storage servers instead of a few dense storage servers. But why have 8 2P1U DBMS servers instead of just 2 8P4U DBMS servers? You're getting less processing power for more money.

Re:Actual Information (1)

awgupta (638380) | about 6 years ago | (#25158363)

The pipe is the bottleneck, not the compute server. I assume they do this because more servers allows more pipes between storage and dbms.

Re:Actual Information (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#25158895)

Why does more servers mean more pipes? You can easily add additional network interfaces to any system with spare PCIe or PCIx slots. And 4U systems typically have more spare slots than 1U systems.

Re:Actual Information (1)

awgupta (638380) | about 6 years ago | (#25159617)

Would that not push the bottleneck to the bus on the compute server? I haven't gone through the specs to see whether that it would saturate out otherwise, but that would be my guess.

More information (3, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 6 years ago | (#25154685)

The posted story didn't have many details. Look here for more [] . As you can read, nothing inside is that crazy, but its a nice configuration with massive storage and massive bandwidth. Its not just a simple 1U proliant with oracle.

Beautiful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25154707)

Now all you need to do to install Oracle is to buy one of these babies.

500 page deinstall guide? A thing of the past. Just chuck the server out the window!

It will be good for HP... (3, Insightful)

thered2001 (1257950) | about 6 years ago | (#25154777)

Maybe not so good for the customers, though. This seems almost like the mainframe world where peripherals and upgrades often cost more than they should. I envision more than one support contract being voided by adding 'non-approved' hardware to one of these machines.

That will be nice... (3, Funny)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | about 6 years ago | (#25154787)

That will be nice, though I don't know how they plan on doing it. As far as I can tell, it's impossible to install Oracle on anything.

Re:That will be nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25161443)

.... which is why they are planning to pre-install it for you ;)

Except it's not really their first foray (3, Informative)

tlambert (566799) | about 6 years ago | (#25154933)

Except it's not really their first foray: []

This was the company that Larry invested in to build massively (for the time) parallel machines to run Oracle better. He even relocated them to Foster City to get them loser to Oracle corporate headquarters.

A company where I worked (Whistle Communications, and, after they were acquired, IBM) shared the same building with them. When they closed the Foster City office 2002 (after Larry stepped down as CEO), they dumpstered a large number of 19" racks full of interesting hardware.

-- Terry

Re:Except it's not really their first foray (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 years ago | (#25156051)

He even relocated them to Foster City to get them loser to Oracle corporate headquarters.

Freud got you again!

What are we going to do tonight, Brain? (0, Redundant)

roansal (1372063) | about 6 years ago | (#25155053)

-The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world.

But what will happen... (1)

uberlinuxguy (586546) | about 6 years ago | (#25155125)

... to all those sys. admins. and DBA's that once fought through an install of Oracle 8 on a Red Hat Linux platform because someone above them heard the buzz word "Oracle" and thought it would be a good idea?

Will there be a "Vetrans of Oracle Installers" day? Or perhaps a memorial wall?

Unbreakable (1)

lawaetf1 (613291) | about 6 years ago | (#25155365)

I predict they will be as successful as they were with Unbreakable Linux!!

(not very)

wonder what their resellers think? (1)

prgrmr (568806) | about 6 years ago | (#25155561)

Resellers make a lot of consulting dollars just on doing the Oracle db install and "tuning" for the applications going on top of the db. Now that Oracle can come pre-installed, this levels the playing field with respect to IBM's DB2 and MS SQL-Server. It would be interesting to know whose idea this was initially: Oracle's or HP's, and to find out who each of them believe this is going to benefit more.

O.K.- So this means.... (2, Funny)

komische_amerikaner (1365847) | about 6 years ago | (#25155665)

Given the size of the codebase, and how I've seen Oracle used in the past, does this mean that we are now going to see Oracle hardware the size of the old UNIVAC Mainframes?

Auto update (1)

bobs666 (146801) | about 6 years ago | (#25155805)

I hope Oracle includes some sort of automatic patch tool with this distro. There quarterly patches are quite a pain. Although I admit they are getting better as of late.

What about the nCube? (2, Informative)

tramm (16077) | about 6 years ago | (#25155943)

Oracle had a previous venture into the database hardware business, the nCube [] . They bought the parallel computer company and attempted to build a database / video-on-demand server from it.

Re:What about the nCube? (1)

MoreThanZero (1372875) | about 6 years ago | (#25168671)

nCube is still around to some extent and is at the core of some of the VOD products for one of the major players in this market. nCube rolled into Broadband Management Solutions, which was purchased by C-COR who in turn was purchased by Arris.

I got mine on order (2, Funny)

C_Kode (102755) | about 6 years ago | (#25156137)

I've already ordered my iOracle Mini for a low low price with no money down...

Not Oracle's First foray into Hardware (1)

RunzWithScissors (567704) | about 6 years ago | (#25156153)

Oracle used to sell specialized Oracle hardware back in the day. They bought a company in Landover, MD, I think they were called Gould Systems, but they made machines to run Oracle.

Oracle later re-named them the Oracle Complex Systems Group, then later still, axed the whole thing.

Seems someone in PR doesn't know their own company's history...


biznatCh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25156703)

by bSDI who sell for the state of Fear the reaper And as BSD sinks to die. I will Jam was in the tea I and the striking BE NIGGER! BE GAY!

Oracle is the new Cobol (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about 6 years ago | (#25156903)

In 5 to 10 years, people will sneer at Oracle the way we all like to sneer at Cobol today. Sure, there will be a lot of Oracle jobs out there but the cool hombres won't touch it.

Re:Oracle is the new Cobol (1)

Ant P. (974313) | about 6 years ago | (#25159761)

Why wait 5 years? Oracle's a niche product already with its price tag; everyone else just uses Postgres.

Not Raw Iron (1)

randomjohndoe (618905) | about 6 years ago | (#25157371)

Rats; I thought it might finally be Raw Iron, but it's Oracle Enterprise Linux. I wonder if their branded linux runs the database faster than Redhat or proprietary unixes?

Is this really the 1st time? Raw Iron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25157433)

Oracle tried an H-P base appliance about 10 years ago. Granted that given the advances and new Oracle products (home brewed and bought) of the past decade this new offering is substantially different than what came in the Raw Iron box. But this is not the first time that Oracle wanted to back up the truck and offload a turnkey system.

missing the point (1)

fragbait (209346) | about 6 years ago | (#25157443)

I think some of you here are missing the point of the product. It is an appliance of sorts that is meant to compete with the likes of Netezza [] and Teradata [] , i.e. massively parallel, share nothing database architectures meant for datawarehousing. Typically, that means long running queries over gigabytes and terabytes of data.

Note the name of Exabyte. The prefix "exa" is greater than the prefix of "tera" in Teradata. They are trying to compete with Teradata.

Sure, it also claims to have good OLTP capability in addition to going for the OLAP market. But, this isn't a product for a web app database, high transaction volume (hotel reservations), or customer database. It is a product to mine all of the data generated by customers you interact with. All the data you generate when all the doubleclick, etc., tags fire on your websites.

The point of having several 1U, 2 processor machines is to make it like a grid. Again, this is for massively parallel database architectures. I am sure that the the storage servers serve the data to an Oracle RAC installation, thus the 1U 2 processor machines as RAC is meant to be run on lots of small machines.

On the note of massively parallel database architectures, check out Greenplum [] for a company using MySQL to attack this market.


mod 3own (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25158061)

Might also be linked to a move by Microsoft.... (2, Insightful)

SixDimensionalArray (604334) | about 6 years ago | (#25159459)

This might be a response to the fact that Microsoft recently purchased a company that sells integrated hardware/software for databases/data warehousing supporting massively parallel processing, named Datallegro [] . They are currently integrating it with SQL Server 2008. Somewhat exciting, in my opinion!

Re:Might also be linked to a move by Microsoft.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25160139)

This might be a response to the fact that Microsoft recently purchased a company that sells integrated hardware/software for databases/data warehousing supporting massively parallel processing, named Datallegro [] . They are currently integrating it with SQL Server 2008. Somewhat exciting, in my opinion!

As Larry's keynote mentioned, Exadata has been in R&D for 3 years, way before MS acquires DATAllegro.

Uh, Mr VAR, um, you, buddy! (1)

LibertineR (591918) | about 6 years ago | (#25159769)

Seems pretty clear to me, baby!

If I am Joe Hardwarewhore, pitchin' HP or Sun solutions, this really ought to piss me off. Oracle selling hardware, is tantamount to Microsoft selling pre-installed Exchange Servers, something that would end up in a Dell or HP lawsuit in a MINUTE.

Now, admittedly, VARs have literally written the book on how to fail, so I can see where Oracle might want to strike out on their own, but its bad business. If your VAR channel fails, it is your job to train them, stoke them, incentive-ize them into performing on your behalf.

This will end badly.

m,o3 down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25160425)

Response to Sun buying MySQL? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | about 6 years ago | (#25160773)

I suppose if Sun can sell hw, os, and database; Oracle has to say they can do the same thing.

I can remember when it was normal for the same company to provide all hw and sw.

patches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25179743)

lol, they could give the hardware and software away and just sell the patches

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?