But the eWeek article demonstrates that the same concerns [nb: about security] exist where Hadoop implementations are concerned. The article says: “It [Hadoop] was not written to support hardened security, compliance, encryption, policy enablement and risk management.”

The story goes like this: in the early days of NoSQL, when no NoSQL database had any sort of security features, people behind the projects answered: “it’s too early. we’re focusing on more important features. and you can still get around security by placing your database behind firewalls”. Today, when more and more NoSQL databases are adding security features, the story these same people are telling is quite different: “ohhh, security is critical. we don’t really see how you could run a database without these features”.

Security is always critical. And exactly the same can be said about maintaining a solid, coherent story of what you are telling your users.

Original title and link: Hadoop, Security, and DataStax Enterprise (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.datastax.com/2013/04/hadoop-security-and-the-enterprise

I have some serious doubts about Alex Williams’s post on TechCrunch about the connection between the recently announced results from Oracle and DataStax. To exemplify, these paragraphs don’t make a lot of sense to me:

The reason for the drop has more to do with the enterprise acceptance of online applications more than anything else, said Datatastax CEO Billy Bosworth in an interview last week.

Does it mean that enterprises are discovering online applications now?

When companies come to Datastax, they say the number one thing they need is security, Bosworth said. They are building from day one to avoid disaster scenarios.

DataStax introduced security features just recently, so I’ll assume Billy Bosworth was actually referring to fault tolerance and resilience. What ended up in the article is a different story.

Datastax has its own challenges. It competes with Amazon Web Services and all the other NoSQL providers such as 10gen.

Once again I’ll assume the author wanted to refer to Amazon Dynamo (and RDS?), but thought it’ll read better as “Amazon Web Services”.

Actually, now that I read it twice, I realize that I shouldn’t link to it. But at least I can suggest you to waste no time with it.

Original title and link: Oracle and DataStax on TechCrunch (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/24/oracle-is-bleeding-at-the-hands-of-database-rivals/

Robin Schumacher describes the new security features added to Apache Cassandra and DataStax Enterprise:

This article will concentrate on the new internal authentication and authorization (or permission management) features that are part of both open source Cassandra as well as DataStax Enterprise. Authentication deals with validating incoming user connections to a database cluster, whereas authorization concerns itself with what a logged in user can do inside a database.

I’m happy to see NoSQL databases entering the space of security as this would ease their way inside enterprises. But I fear a bit the moment when the marketing message will change from “it’s too early to provide security features” to “the first enterprise grade NoSQL database”.

Original title and link: A Quick Tour of Internal Authentication and Authorization Security in DataStax Enterprise and Apache Cassandra (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/post/a-quick-tour-of-internal-authentication-and-authorization-security-in-datastax-enterprise-and-apache-cassandra

Matthew Aslett about Couchbase’s and DataStax’s reactions to Oracle’s announcement of MySQL support of NoSQL API:

Sure, Couchbase and DataStax laid it on a bit thick, but these are corporate blog posts – it goes with the territory.

I’ve already linked and commented about these: Couchbase’s reaction and DataStax’s reaction. What I didn’t know—more accurately I should probably write “I hoped”—is that this sort of reactions come with the “corporate” badge. But I’ll keep my hope considering the exhaustive list of reactions from other NoSQL companies.

Original title and link: NoSQL on MySQL: Stating the Obvious (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://blogs.the451group.com/information_management/2013/02/13/nosql-on-mysql-stating-the-obvious/

Jonathan Ellis in a post about MySQL 5.6 and how Oracle got the whole NoSQL wrong, considering NoSQL is, in this exact order, about scaling, continuous availability, flexibility, performance, and queryability:

The big news for MySQL 5.6 was the inclusion of “NoSQL” features in the form of a memcached api for get and put operations.

In cases like this, it’s tough to tell whether Oracle got this so wrong deliberately to sow confusion in the market, or because they really think that’s what NoSQL is about.

I know Jonathan Ellis has always had very strong opinions about the technical superiority of Cassandra and Cassandra is indeed a very solid solution, but I’m always reluctant to calling a competitor stupid and using the myopic argument “if I’m good at X and suck at Y, then what everyone is looking for is only X”.

Original title and link: DataStax’s Reaction to MySQL 5.6: Oracle’s MySQL Misses the NoSQL Mark (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/oracles-mysql-misses-the-nosql-mark

I think this is the first extensive Big Data report I’m reading that includes enough relevant and quite exhaustive data about the majority of players in the Big Data market, plus some captivating forecasts.

As of early 2012, the Big Data market stands at just over $5 billion based on related software, hardware, and services revenue. Increased interest in and awareness of the power of Big Data and related analytic capabilities to gain competitive advantage and to improve operational efficiencies, coupled with developments in the technologies and services that make Big Data a practical reality, will result in a super-charged CAGR of 58% between now and 2017.

While there are many stories behind these numbers and many things to think about, here is what I’ve jotted down while studying the report:

• it’s no surprise that “megavendors” (IBM, HP, etc.) account for the largest part of today’s Big Data market revenue
• still, the revenue ratio of pure-players vs megavendors feels quite unbalanced: $311mil out of $5.1bil
  • the pure-player category includes: Vertica, Aster Data, Splunk, Greenplum, 1010data, Cloudera, Think Big Analytics, MapR, Digital Reasoning, Datameer, Hortonworks, DataStax, HPCC Systems, Karmasphere
  • there are a couple of names that position themselves in the Big Data market that do not show up in anywhere (e.g. 10gen, Couchbase)
• this could lead to the conclusion that the companies that include hardware in their offer benefit of larger revenues
  • I’m wondering though what is the margin in the hardware market segment. While not having any data at hand, I think I’ve read reports about HP and Dell not doing so well due exactly to lower margins
  • see bullet point further down about revenue by hardware, software, and services
• this could explain why so many companies are trying their hand at appliances
• by looking at the various numbers you can see that those selling appliances usually have a large corporation behind supporting the production costs for hadware and probably the cost of the sales force
• in the Big Data revenue by vendor you can find quite a few well-known names from the consulting segment
• the revenue by type pie lists services as accounting for 44%, hardware for 31%, and software for 13% which might give an idea of what makes up the megavendors’ sales packages
  • most of the NoSQL database companies and Hadoop companies are mostly in the software and services segment

Great job done by the Wikibon team.

Original title and link: Big Data Market Analysis: Vendors Revenue and Forecasts (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://wikibon.org/wiki/v/Big_Data_Market_Size_and_Vendor_Revenues