Kristen Nicole interviews Bob Wiederhold (CEO Couchbase) about the adoption of NoSQL in the enterprise world:

Recently, there has been growing debate about the current and future penetration of NoSQL in the enterprise, broadly defined as ‘brick and mortar’ companies of all types. Some see the enterprise as the stronghold of incumbent leaders like Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft. Others see the enterprise following the same path as Web 2.0 companies.

Based on my experience in the enterprise world (dated though), my answer is that enterprises are generally slow adopters of new technologies due to bureaucracy and too many a$$ insurance policies.

Original title and link: NoSQL and the Enterprise - an Interview With Bob Wiederhold, CEO Couchbase (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/03/25/a-move-into-the-modern-web-world-nosql-the-enterprise/

Matt Asay (10gen) providing (a more reasonable) explanation of Oracle’s last quarter financial results:

This isn’t just a matter of improving legacy software products. It’s a matter of fundamentally changing how these legacy vendors deploy and charge for software.

Original title and link: Changing How Vendors Get Paid (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://readwrite.com/2013/03/26/oracles-big-miss-the-end-of-an-enterprise-era

Mature database management systems like DB2 also offer advantages like high availability and data compression that the newer NoSQL systems have not had time to develop.

Misinform your customers to save them the trouble of discovering alternative solutions.

Original title and link: IBM: Behind the Buzz About NoSQL (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://ibmdatamag.com/2012/03/behind-the-buzz-about-nosql/

Redmonk’s James Gavernor in a sort of a documented Redis? Hell yeah!:

Indeed mentions on HackerNews is just a sign of breaking the awareness threshold. But with awareness comes adoption. The only thing that remains to be established is the relevance of the HN community.

Original title and link: Redis: Hell Yeah Take 2 (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2012/03/15/redis-utterly-killed-it-in-2010-check-out-the-growth-in-share-of-developer-conversation/

1. I find it amazing how technologies that are put together with rubber bands and chewing gum become the de-facto standard in which all other technologies are measured. Sadly, it’s easy to see why.

2. Not only is it complicated, but these layers are built on top of inefficiency.

3. Hey, but it’s free! Or is it? Inefficiency sells hardware, complexity sells services. It’s no wonder that the big solution providers are backing it. Unfortunately, you will rapidly learn that free gets pretty expensive and by the time you realize it, you have just been Hadooped!

Bashing Hadoop when you have nothing else to offer is a fashionable new business model these days.

Original title and link: Bashing Hadoop as a Business Model (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://bcsolution.com/post/19332214477/have-you-been-hadooped

Tim Moreton¹:

I expect not much in the short term, until some key issues are solved. First, the sources and consumers of data are still on-site. These guys are tackling a specific technical limitation, not necessarily looking to re-architect their wider systems, which are often complex and inter-dependent. Second, security and regulatory concerns may need addressing. Third, the TCO needs to stack up. A quick and dirty back of the envelope calculation suggests that although it’s free to get started with DynamoDB, for the sort of deployment sizes we’re seeing, DynamoDB works out considerably more expensive than alternatives like Acunu deployed on hardware (even after accounting for typical full costing for outsourced data centers).

Keeping my eyes on all things NoSQL for more than 2 years, I’d say that NoSQL databases in general do not mean much for the enterprise world². Yet.

Original title and link: What does DynamoDB mean for the enteprise world? (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.acunu.com/blogs/tim-moreton/welcome-party-dynamodb/

Billy Bosworth¹:

Personally, I have never believed that other post-relational (aka NoSQL/Hadoop) database companies were our primary competition.  The brute fact of the matter is that if you put us all together, we are still not statistically relevant compared to the overall DBMS market.

I had only one real personal fear coming into this market: That I would sink a big portion of my life into something that would never take hold in the mainstream. I suspect that would be a truly awful ending for all of us in this space. But thanks to companies like Amazon and Oracle, that feels highly unlikely now, and that is a great thing.

Just to play the devil advocate for a second: Oracle won’t lose much in the NoSQL market if things don’t work out well and Amazon’s DynamoDB is part of a larger plan. But for all the NoSQL database companies it is an all-or-nothing game².

Original title and link: DataStax’s CEO thoughts on the NoSQL Market and Competition (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.datastax.com/2012/01/my-thoughts-on-amazons-dynamodb

Tarsnap is a service offering secure online backups. Colin Percival details the costs Tarsnap would have for using Amazon DynamoDB:

For each TB of data stored, this gives me 30,000,000 blocks requiring 60,000,000 key-value pairs; these occupy 2.31 GB, but for DynamoDB pricing purposes, they count as 8.31 GB, or $8.31 per month. That’s about 2.7% of Tarsnap’s gross revenues (30 cents per GB per month); significant, but manageable. However, each of those 30,000,000 blocks need to go through log cleaning every 14 days, a process which requires a read (to check that the block hasn’t been marked as deleted) and a write (to update the map to point at the new location in S3). That’s an average rate of 25 reads and 25 writes per second, so I’d need to reserve 50 reads and 50 writes per second of DynamoDB capacity. The reads cost $0.01 per hour while the writes cost $0.05 per hour, for a total cost of $0.06 per hour — or $44 per month. That’s 14.6% of Tarsnap’s gross revenues; together with the storage cost, DynamoDB would eat up 17.3% of Tarsnap’s revenue — slightly over $0.05 from every $0.30/GB I take in.

To put it differently getting an 83.7% profit margin sounds like a good deal, but without knowing the costs of the other components (S3, EC2, data transfer) it’s difficult to conclude if this solution would remain profitable at a good margin. Anyway, an interesting aspect of this solution is that the costs of some major components of the platform (S3, DynamoDB) would scale lineary with the revenue.

Original title and link: A Cost Analysis of DynamoDB for Tarsnap (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2012-01-23-why-tarsnap-wont-use-dynamodb.html

Jelastic, a company offering a cloud platform for Java server hosting, has published some stats about the databases used by their over 7000 users:

While it would be wrong to generalize these results to absolute database marketshare, it is interesting nonetheless to see that MongoDB is already outrunning PostrgeSQL being the second most used database and that CouchDB, which was added only one month ago, is already used by 5% of Jelastic’s users. MySQL detains the first position with over 40% users or differently put double the number of the second place (MongoDB).

These numbers would be even more interesting if they would account for some real usage stats like database sizes or query volumes.

Mat Keep

Original title and link: Jelastic Database Marketshare: MySQL, MongoDB, MariaDB (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

via: http://blog.jelastic.com/2012/01/23/database-marketshare-january-2012/