Some may not like it, but in a few years, thanks to this vision, we have moved from clusters, to engineered systems, to serverless architectures. Hats off then!
Why all Amazon senior managers seems to have problems with their shoes?! Werner is wearing shoes frivolously and Andy wears snickers with formal attire!
Can we imagine a scenario after 3 yesrs when cloud would be free and all the major vendors AWS, Azure , GCP and Alibaba making mony from the application hosting.
So he attacks Oracle that apparently "had a bug" back in 2004, which I am sure they were running since day 1 when AWS started in 2002? and up until 2018, 16 years later with relatively no problems (and by the way, Amazon is *a born in the Cloud company* that has skyrocketed in marketshare & revenue), has been running Oracle for majority of its existence, so how can he say that Oracle is not a Cloud database? Salesforce, Concur, Ariba, SuccessFactors are all "born in the cloud" companies, all running Oracle-yet he says Oracle is not a cloud Database? Interesting that Werner doesn’t bring up Amazon's recent (oct 2018) move off Oracle that caused a major Prime Day outage in one of its biggest warehouses according to Amazon? www.cnbc.com/2018/10/23/amazon-move-off-oracle-caused-prime-day-outage-in-warehouse.html
Yes OK so apparently the Prime Day outage was a problem with the Amazon Retail Software Stack. So what is the "Amazon Retail Software Stack"? Most likely these applications were developed to run with Oracle Database which of course had to be re-developed to run on Aurora, which by the way is based on MySQL, also an "Oracle Database". So indirectly it's Database related so the article appears to be mostly right. And AWS still hasn’t provided/presented any documentation proving how they are getting to make these statements "with better avail, less bugs and patches, less troubleshooting, less hw cost". What about people costs/OPEX? How can they prove better availability as its only been up and running a month or so? Lets see over next few years...Which big companies are running their entire business on Aurora like many are on Oracle Database? Oh sorry, that’s right, AWS doesn’t have a single database to run your business. You'll need Aurora, Redshift, DynamoDB, etc etc etc.
I see your point and just wanted to say that this news was not the mot reliable. Btw Aurora has also a PostgreSQL compatibility layer. aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/details/postgresql-details/ I think that the process which led them to do what they did is fascinating from a technical stand point. Plus it requires balls and vision (and tons of money :p). For the rest I don't care, Yes they want to dominate the work, that's the kind of world we live in.
Huh. It would appear that according to LinkedIn, Phil Dunn is either a primary sales consultant for Oracle or a director of global high-performance cloud solutions for Oracle. He is also apparently a person who feels that he does not need to disclose his conflicts of interest when posting angry notes about competitors online.
OK so yes I'm an Oracle employee and clearly I have my biases as everyone does (where does it show where you come from for example?) and so will defend against those trying to bash Oracle. Amazon wouldn't be where they are today without the use of Oracle and that clearly isn't acknowledged here and stating that Oracle is not cloud ready is just wrong.
It's different. What Werner is saying is that they've architected the underpinnings very differently. They're not using 3 Oracle DB instances in one data centre, they're using many cell-based instances in multiple failure zones in multiple data centres. Therefore, the blast radius is much smaller, 1/9th vs. 1/3rd -- as per the slide at 6:13, but in actuality with web-scale and the pay-as-you-go pricing, there's nothing to stop you dispersing that load, or horizontal layer, over as many instances as you'd like. With AWS, it's pretty easy to build/deliver systems at 99.95% availability. To get the 4th and 5th 9, it takes special architectures and a good attention to detail, but many of the tools are within the AWS world to do that. If not, pursuing a multi-cloud strategy may be a viable option.
Some may not like it, but in a few years, thanks to this vision, we have moved from clusters, to engineered systems, to serverless architectures. Hats off then!
People have been doing those shit way before aws docker k8s lambda and all the likes.
worlds top expert on distributed computing
Awesome video. Really impressed about Serverless concepts.
will the DAT347 session that was referenced @ 31:02 be available?
Nice!
Did anyone notice that he's wearing a Skrillex shirt?
Will thare be timestamps
I do t understand What he is saying …
Is it true that Werner got all of his strategies on management from British prisoner Charles Bronson?
Where did the music go at the beginning!!!
I am wondering what is that music at the time Holy M is coming on the stage.
It was edited into a separate video. ruclips.net/video/EBU-7gZh5MQ/видео.html
@@justinjbenjamin yhhihhyrjcx
I don't think anyone in the audience has seen Spinal Tap....
What the emacs vs vi wars are over? Who won? What were the surrender terms? 😀
Redshift rocks！
Very good keynote, but not too much new stuff though.
Why all Amazon senior managers seems to have problems with their shoes?! Werner is wearing shoes frivolously and Andy wears snickers with formal attire!
because silicon valley..
You must be looking for IBM. =P
Will the dat347
Can we imagine a scenario after 3 yesrs when cloud would be free and all the major vendors AWS, Azure , GCP and Alibaba making mony from the application hosting.
You mean storage will be free?
compute and storage will always cost money, it's however all economies of scale and tehcnology impovements that will make costs go down
@@Cenot4ph I think other services like ML and AI services is where the real high margin is.
1:45:24
So he attacks Oracle that apparently "had a bug" back in 2004, which I am sure they were running since day 1 when AWS started in 2002? and up until 2018, 16 years later with relatively no problems (and by the way, Amazon is *a born in the Cloud company* that has skyrocketed in marketshare & revenue), has been running Oracle for majority of its existence, so how can he say that Oracle is not a Cloud database? Salesforce, Concur, Ariba, SuccessFactors are all "born in the cloud" companies, all running Oracle-yet he says Oracle is not a cloud Database? Interesting that Werner doesn’t bring up Amazon's recent (oct 2018) move off Oracle that caused a major Prime Day outage in one of its biggest warehouses according to Amazon? www.cnbc.com/2018/10/23/amazon-move-off-oracle-caused-prime-day-outage-in-warehouse.html
twitter.com/Werner/status/1054901529478459392
twitter.com/andy_pavlo/status/1055154039606910976
Yes OK so apparently the Prime Day outage was a problem with the Amazon Retail Software Stack. So what is the "Amazon Retail Software Stack"? Most likely these applications were developed to run with Oracle Database which of course had to be re-developed to run on Aurora, which by the way is based on MySQL, also an "Oracle Database". So indirectly it's Database related so the article appears to be mostly right. And AWS still hasn’t provided/presented any documentation proving how they are getting to make these statements "with better avail, less bugs and patches, less troubleshooting, less hw cost". What about people costs/OPEX? How can they prove better availability as its only been up and running a month or so? Lets see over next few years...Which big companies are running their entire business on Aurora like many are on Oracle Database? Oh sorry, that’s right, AWS doesn’t have a single database to run your business. You'll need Aurora, Redshift, DynamoDB, etc etc etc.
I see your point and just wanted to say that this news was not the mot reliable.
Btw Aurora has also a PostgreSQL compatibility layer.
aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/details/postgresql-details/
I think that the process which led them to do what they did is fascinating from a technical stand point. Plus it requires balls and vision (and tons of money :p).
For the rest I don't care, Yes they want to dominate the work, that's the kind of world we live in.
Huh. It would appear that according to LinkedIn, Phil Dunn is either a primary sales consultant for Oracle or a director of global high-performance cloud solutions for Oracle.
He is also apparently a person who feels that he does not need to disclose his conflicts of interest when posting angry notes about competitors online.
OK so yes I'm an Oracle employee and clearly I have my biases as everyone does (where does it show where you come from for example?) and so will defend against those trying to bash Oracle. Amazon wouldn't be where they are today without the use of Oracle and that clearly isn't acknowledged here and stating that Oracle is not cloud ready is just wrong.
02:55 So they didn't want to depend on Oracle but they want everyone else to depend on AWS 03:21 . LOL wtf
It's different. What Werner is saying is that they've architected the underpinnings very differently. They're not using 3 Oracle DB instances in one data centre, they're using many cell-based instances in multiple failure zones in multiple data centres. Therefore, the blast radius is much smaller, 1/9th vs. 1/3rd -- as per the slide at 6:13, but in actuality with web-scale and the pay-as-you-go pricing, there's nothing to stop you dispersing that load, or horizontal layer, over as many instances as you'd like.
With AWS, it's pretty easy to build/deliver systems at 99.95% availability. To get the 4th and 5th 9, it takes special architectures and a good attention to detail, but many of the tools are within the AWS world to do that. If not, pursuing a multi-cloud strategy may be a viable option.
That’s what happens when Bezos tries to do business while Lauren is sucking his junk LOL
Compare the pricing models. I’d bet real money AWS will be much cheaper at the same level of performance at high scale.