ALL COVERED TOPICS

NoSQL Benchmarks NoSQL use cases NoSQL Videos NoSQL Hybrid Solutions NoSQL Presentations Big Data Hadoop MapReduce Pig Hive Flume Oozie Sqoop HDFS ZooKeeper Cascading Cascalog BigTable Cassandra HBase Hypertable Couchbase CouchDB MongoDB OrientDB RavenDB Jackrabbit Terrastore Amazon DynamoDB Redis Riak Project Voldemort Tokyo Cabinet Kyoto Cabinet memcached Amazon SimpleDB Datomic MemcacheDB M/DB GT.M Amazon Dynamo Dynomite Mnesia Yahoo! PNUTS/Sherpa Neo4j InfoGrid Sones GraphDB InfiniteGraph AllegroGraph MarkLogic Clustrix CouchDB Case Studies MongoDB Case Studies NoSQL at Adobe NoSQL at Facebook NoSQL at Twitter

NAVIGATE MAIN CATEGORIES

Close
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
‹ Back

Oracle Paper: The Cost of Do-It-Yourself Hadoop vs Oracle Big Data Appliance

About:
,
,
,
,

Based on ESG’s modeling of a medium-sized Hadoop-oriented big data project, the preconfigured Oracle Big Data Appliance is 39% less costly than a “build” equivalent do-it-yourself infrastructure. And using Oracle Big Data Appliance will cut the project length by about one-third. For most enterprises planning to take big data beyond experimentation and proof-of- concept, ESG suggests skipping the idea of in-house development, on-going management, and expansion of your own big data infrastructure, to instead look to purpose-built infrastructure solutions such as Oracle Big Data Appliance.

This is an extract from Oracle’s whitepaper “Getting Real about Big Data: Build Versus Buy“. It’s a nice reading excercise to better understand how the database leader is positioning their Oracle Big Data Appliance compared to Hadoop’s commodity-hardware cluster.

I’d love seeing the equivalent paper from Hortonworks1.

  1. The only reason I’m referring directly to Hortonworks and not also Cloudera is that the Hadoop part of Oracle Big Data Appliance is offered by Cloudera. ↩

Original title and link: Oracle Paper: The Cost of Do-It-Yourself Hadoop vs Oracle Big Data Appliance (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)