ODBMS Industry Watch » cloud stores http://www.odbms.org/blog Trends and Information on Big Data, New Data Management Technologies, Data Science and Innovation. Fri, 09 Feb 2018 21:04:31 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.19 On the future of Data Warehousing. Interview with Jacque Istok and Mike Waas http://www.odbms.org/blog/2017/11/on-the-future-of-data-warehousing-interview-with-jacque-istok-and-mike-waas/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2017/11/on-the-future-of-data-warehousing-interview-with-jacque-istok-and-mike-waas/#comments Thu, 09 Nov 2017 08:54:27 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=4502

” Open source software comes with a promise, and that promise is not about looking at the code, rather it’s about avoiding vendor lock-in.” –Jacque Istok.

” The cloud has out-paced the data center by far and we should expect to see the entire database market being replatformed into the cloud within the next 5-10 years.” –Mike Waas.

I have interviewed Jacque Istok, Head of Data Technical Field for Pivotal, and Mike Waas, founder and CEO Datometry.
Main topics of the interview are: the future of Data Warehousing, how are open source and the Cloud affecting the Data Warehouse market, and Datometry Hyper-Q and Pivotal Greenplum.


Q1. What is the future of Data Warehouses?

Jacque Istok: I believe that what we’re seeing in the market is a slight course correct with regards to the traditional data warehouse. For 25 years many of us spent many cycles building the traditional data warehouse.
The single source of the truth. But the long duration it took to get alignment from each of the business units regarding how the data related to each other combined with the cost of the hardware and software of the platforms we built it upon left everybody looking for something new. Enter Hadoop and suddenly the world found out that we could split up data on commodity servers and, with the right human talent, could move the ball forward faster and cheaper. Unfortunately the right human talent has proved hard to come by and the plethora of projects that have spawned up are neither production ready nor completely compliant or compatible with the expensive tools they were trying to replace.
So what looks to be happening is the world is looking for the features of yesterday combined with the cost and flexibility of today. In many cases that will be a hybrid solution of many different projects/platforms/applications, or at the very least, something that can interface easily and efficiently with many different projects/platforms/applications.

Mike Waas: Indeed, flexibility is what most enterprises are looking for nowadays when it comes to data warehousing. The business needs to be able to tap data quickly and effectively. However, in today’s world we see an enormous access problem with application stacks that are tightly bonded with the underlying database infrastructure. Instead of maintaining large and carefully curated data silos, data warehousing in the next decade will be all about using analytical applications from a quickly evolving application ecosystem with any and all data sources in the enterprise: in short, any application on any database. I believe data warehouses remain the most valuable of databases, therefore, cracking the access problem there will be hugely important from an economic point of view.

Q2. How is open source affecting the Data Warehouse market?

Jacque Istok: The traditional data warehouse market is having its lunch eaten by open source. Whether it’s one of the Hadoop distributions, one of the up and coming new NoSQL engines, or companies like Pivotal making large bets and open source production proven alternatives like Greenplum. What I ask prospective customers is if they were starting a new organization today, what platforms, databases, or languages would you choose that weren’t open source? The answer is almost always none. Open source software comes with a promise, and that promise is not about looking at the code, rather it’s about avoiding vendor lock-in.

Mike Waas: Whenever a technology stack gets disrupted by open source, it’s usually a sign that the technology has reached a certain maturity and customers have begun doubting the advantage of proprietary solutions. For the longest time, analytical processing was considered too advanced and too far-reaching in scope for an open source project. Greenplum Database is a great example for breaking through this ceiling: it’s the first open source database system with a query optimizer not only worth that title but setting a new standard, and a whole array of other goodies previously only available in proprietary systems.

Q3. Are databases an obstacle to adopting Cloud-Native Technology?

Jacque Istok: I believe quite the contrary, databases are a requirement for Cloud-Native Technology. Any applications that are created need to leverage data in some way. I think where the technology is going is to make it easier for developers to leverage whichever database or datastore makes the most sense for them or they have the most experience with – essentially leveraging the right tool for the right job, instead of the tool “blessed” by IT or Operations for general use. And they are doing this by automating the day 0, day 1, and day 2 operations of those databases. Making it easy to instantiate and use these platforms for anyone, which has never really been the case.

Mike Waas: In fact, a cloud-first strategy is incomplete unless it includes the data assets, i.e., the databases. Now, databases have always been one of the hardest things to move or replatform, and, naturally, it’s the ultimate challenge when moving to the cloud: firing up any new instance in the cloud is easy as 1-2-3 but what to do with the 10s of years of investment in application development? I would say it’s actually not the database that’s the obstacle but the applications and their dependencies.

Q4. What are the pros and cons of moving enterprise data to the cloud?

Jacque Istok: I think there are plenty of pros to moving enterprise data to the cloud, the extent of that list will really depend on the enterprise you’re talking to and the vertical that they are in. But cons? The only cons would be using these incredible tools incorrectly, at which point you might find yourself spending more money and feeling that things are slower or less flexible. Treating the cloud as a virtual data center, and simply moving things there without changing how they are architected or how they are used would be akin to taking

Mike Waas: I second that. A few years ago enterprises were still concerned about security, completeness of offering, and maturity of the stack. But now, the cloud has out-paced the data center by far and we should expect to see the entire database market being replatformed into the cloud within the next 5-10 years. This is going to be the biggest revolution in the database industry since the relational model with great opportunities for vendors and customers alike.

Q5. How do you quantify when is appropriate for an enterprise to move their data management to a new platform?

Jacque Istok: It’s pretty easy from my perspective, when any enterprise is done spending exorbitant amounts of money it might be time to move to a new platform. When you are coming up on a renewal or an upgrade of a legacy and/or expensive system it might be time to move to a new platform. When you have new initiatives to start it might be time to move to a new platform. When you are ready to compete with your competitors, both known and unknown (aka startups), it might be time to move to a new platform. The move doesn’t have to be scary either, as some products are designed to be a bridge to a modern a data platform.

Mike Waas: Traditionally, enterprises have held off from replatforming for too long: the switching cost has deterred them from adopting new and highly superior technology with the result that they have been unable to cut costs or gain true competitive advantage. Staying on an old platform is simply bad for business. Every organization needs to ask themselves constantly the question whether their business can benefit from adopting new technology. At Datometry, we make it easy for enterprises to move their analytics — so easy, in fact, the standard reaction to our technology is, “this is too good to be true.”

Q6. What is the biggest problem when enterprises want to move part or all of their data management to the cloud?

Jacque Istok: I think the biggest problem tends to be not architecting for the cloud itself, but instead treating the cloud like their virtual data center. Leveraging the same techniques, the same processes, and the same architectures will not lead to the cost or scalability efficiencies that you were hoping for.

Mike Waas: As Jacque points out, you really need to change your approach. However, the temptation is to use the move to the cloud as a trigger event to rework everything else at the same time. This quickly leads to projects that spiral out of control, run long, go over budget, or fail altogether. Being able to replatform quickly and separate the housekeeping from the actual move is, therefore, critical.
However, when it comes to databases, trouble runs deeper as applications and their dependencies on specific databases are the biggest obstacle. SQL code is embedded in thousands of applications and, probably most surprising, even third-party products that promise portability between databases get naturally contaminated with system-specific configuration and SQL extensions. We see roughly 90% of third-party systems (ETL, BI tools, and so forth) having been so customized to the underlying database that moving them to a different system requires substantial effort, time, and money.

Q7. How does an enterprise move the data management to a new platform without having to re-write all of the applications that rely on the database?

Mike Waas: At Datometry, we looked very carefully at this problem and, with what I said above, identified the need to rewrite applications each time new technology is adopted as the number one problem in the modern enterprise. Using Adaptive Data Virtualization (ADV) technology, this will quickly become a problem of the past! Systems like Datometry Hyper-Q let existing applications run natively and instantly on a new database without requiring any changes to the application. What would otherwise be a multi-year migration project and run into the millions, is now reduced in time, cost, and risk to a fraction of the conventional approach. “VMware for databases” is a great mental model that has worked really well for our customers.

Q8. What is Adaptive Data Virtualization technology, and how can it help adopting Cloud-Native Technology?

Mike Waas: Adaptive Data Virtualization is the simple, yet incredibly powerful, abstraction of a database: by intercepting the communication between application and database, ADV is able to translate in real-time and dynamically between the existing application and the new database. With ADV, we are drawing on decades of database research and solving what is essentially a compatibility problem between programming languages and systems with an elegant and highly effective approach. This is a space that has traditionally been served by consultants and manual migrations which are incredibly labor-intensive and expensive undertaking.
Through ADV, adopting cloud technology becomes orders of magnitude simpler as it takes away the compatibility challenges that hamper any replatforming initiative.

Q9. Can you quantify what are the reduced time, cost, and risk when virtualizing the data warehouse?

Jacque Istok: In the past, virtualizing the data warehouse meant sacrificing performance in order to get some of the common benefits of virtualization (reduced time for experimentation, maximizing resources, relative ease to readjust the architecture, etc). What we have found recently is that virtualization, when done correctly, actually provides no sacrifices in terms of performance, and the only question becomes whether or not the capital cost expenditure of bare metal versus the opex cost structure of virtual is something that makes sense for your organisation.

Mike Waas: I’d like to take it a step further and include ADV into this context too: instead of a 3-5 year migration, employing 100+ consultants, and rewriting millions of lines of application code, ADV lets you leverage new technology in weeks, with no re-writing of applications. Our customers can expect to save at least 85% of the transition cost.

Q10. What is the massively parallel processing (MPP) Scatter/Gather Streaming™ technology, and what is it useful for?

Jacque Istok: This is arguably one of the most powerful features of Pivotal Greenplum and it allows for the fastest loading of data in the industry. Effectively we scatter data into the Greenplum data cluster as fast as possible with no care in the world to where it will ultimately end up. Terabytes of data per hour, basically as much as you can feed down the wires, is sent to each of the workers within the cluster. The data is therefore disseminated to the cluster in the fastest physical way possible. At that point, each of the workers gathers the data that is pertinent to them according to the architecture you have chosen for the layout of those particular data elements, allowing for a physical optimization to be leveraged during interrogation of the data after it has been loaded.

Q11. How Datometry Hyper-Q & Pivotal Greenplum data warehouse work together?

Jacque Istok: Pivotal Greenplum is the world’s only true open source, production proven MPP data platform that provides out of the box ANSI compliant SQL capabilities along with Machine Learning, AI, Graph, Text, and Spatial analytics all in one. When combined with Datometry Hyper-Q, you can transparently and seamlessly take any Teradata application and, without changing a single line of code or a single piece of SQL, run it and stop paying the outrageous Teradata tax that you have been bearing all this time. Once you’re able to take out your legacy and expensive Teradata system, without a long investment to rewrite anything, you’ll be able to leverage this software platform to really start to analyze the data you have. And that analysis can be either on premise or in the cloud, giving you a truly hybrid and cross-cloud proven platform.

Mike Waas: I’d like to share a use case featuring Datometry Hyper-Q and Pivotal Greenplum featuring a Fortune 100 Global Financial Institution needing to scale their business intelligence application, built using 2000-plus stored procedures. The customer’s analysis showed that replacing their existing data warehouse footprint was prohibitively expensive and rewriting the business applications to a more cost-effective and modern data warehouse posed significant expense and business risk. Hyper-Q allowed the customer to transfer the stored procedures in days without refactoring the logic of the application and implement various control-flow primitives, a time-consuming and expensive proposition.

Qx. Anything else you wish to add?

Jacque Istok: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. We have found that there has never been a more valid time than right now for customers to stop paying their heavy Teradata tax and the combination of Pivotal Greenplum and Datometry Hyper-Q allows them to do that right now, with no risk, and immediate ROI. On top of that, they are then able to find themselves on a modern data platform – one that allows them to grow into more advanced features as they are able. Pivotal Greenplum becomes their bridge to transforming your organization by offering the advanced analytics you need but giving you traditional, production proven capabilities immediately. At the end of the day, there isn’t a single Teradata customer that I’ve spoken to that doesn’t want Teradata-like capabilities at Hadoop-like prices and you get all this and more with Pivotal Greenplum.

Mike Waas: Thank you for this great opportunity to speak with you. We, at Datometry, believe that data is the key that will unlock competitive advantage for enterprises and without adopting modern data management technologies, it is not possible to unlock value. According to the leading industry group, TDWI, “today’s consensus says that the primary path to big data’s business value is through the use of so-called ‘advanced’ forms of analytics based on technologies for mining, predictions, statistics, and natural language processing (NLP). Each analytic technology has unique data requirements, and DWs must modernize to satisfy all of them.”
We believe virtualizing the data warehouse is the cornerstone of any cloud-first strategy because data warehouse migration is one of the most risk-laden and most expensive initiatives that a company can embark on during their journey to to the cloud.
Interestingly, the cost of migration is primarily the cost of process and not technology and this is where Datometry comes in with its data warehouse virtualization technology.
We are the key that unlocks the power of new technology for enterprises to take advantage of the latest technology and gain competitive advantage.

Jacque Istok serves as the Head of Data Technical Field for Pivotal, responsible for setting both data strategy and execution of pre and post sales activities for data engineering and data science. Prior to that, he was Field CTO helping customers architect and understand how the entire Pivotal portfolio could be leveraged appropriately.
A hands on technologist, Mr. Istok has been implementing and advising customers in the architecture of big data applications and back end infrastructure the majority of his career.

Prior to Pivotal, Mr. Istok co-founded Professional Innovations, Inc. in 1999, a leading consulting services provider in the business intelligence, data warehousing, and enterprise performance management space, and served as its President and Chairman. Mr. Istok is on the board of several emerging startup companies and serves as their strategic technical advisor.

Mike Waas Datometry 1
Mike Waas, CEO Datometry, Inc.
Mike Waas founded Datometry after having spent over 20 years in database research and commercial database development. Prior to Datometry, Mike was Sr. Director of Engineering at Pivotal, heading up Greenplum’s Advanced R&Dteam. He is also the founder and architect of Greenplum’s ORCA query optimizer initiative. Mike has held senior engineering positions at Microsoft, Amazon, Greenplum, EMC, and Pivotal, and was a researcher at Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica (CWI), Netherlands, and at Humboldt University, Berlin.

Mike received his M.S. in Computer Science from University of Passau, Germany, and his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. He has authored or co-authored 36 publications on the science of databases and has 24 patents to his credit.


Datometry Releases Hyper-Q Data Warehouse Virtualization Software Version 3.0. AUGUST 11, 2017

Replatforming Custom Business Intelligence | Use Case, ODBMS.org, NOVEMBER 7, 2017

Disaster Recovery Cloud Data Warehouse | Use Case. ODBMS.org, NOVEMBER 3, 2017

– Scaling Business Intelligence in the Cloud | Use Case. ODBMS.org · NOVEMBER 3, 2017

– Re-Platforming Data Warehouses – Without Costly Migration Of Applications. ODBMS.org · NOVEMBER 3, 2017

– Meet Greenplum 5: The World’s First Open-Source, Multi-Cloud Data Platform Built for Advanced Analytics. ODBMS.org · SEPTEMBER 21, 2017

Related Posts

– On Open Source Databases. Interview with Peter ZaitsevODBMS Industry Watch, Published on 2017-09-06

– On Apache Ignite, Apache Spark and MySQL. Interview with Nikita Ivanov , ODBMS Industry Watch, Published on 2017-06-30

– On the new developments in Apache Spark and Hadoop. Interview with Amr AwadallahODBMS Industry Watch, Published on 2017-03-13

Follow us on Twitter: @odbmsorg


http://www.odbms.org/blog/2017/11/on-the-future-of-data-warehousing-interview-with-jacque-istok-and-mike-waas/feed/ 0
On Open Source Databases. Interview with Peter Zaitsev http://www.odbms.org/blog/2017/09/on-open-source-databases-interview-with-peter-zaitsev/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2017/09/on-open-source-databases-interview-with-peter-zaitsev/#comments Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:49:18 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=4448

“To be competitive with non-open-source cloud deployment options, open source databases need to invest in “ease-of-use.” There is no tolerance for complexity in many development teams as we move to “ops-less” deployment models.” –Peter Zaitsev

I have interviewed Peter Zaitsev, Co-Founder and CEO of Percona.
In this interview, Peter talks about the Open Source Databases market; the Cloud; the scalability challenges at Facebook; compares MySQL, MariaDB, and MongoDB; and presents Percona’s contribution to the MySQL and MongoDB ecosystems.


Q1. What are the main technical challenges in obtaining application scaling?

Peter Zaitsev: When it comes to scaling, there are different types. There is a Facebook/Google/Alibaba/Amazon scale: these giants are pushing boundaries, and usually are solving very complicated engineering problems at a scale where solutions aren’t easy or known. This often means finding edge cases that break things like hardware, operating system kernels and the database. As such, these companies not only need to build a very large-scale infrastructures, with a high level of automation, but also ensure it is robust enough to handle these kinds of issues with limited user impact. A great deal of hardware and software deployment practices must to be in place for such installations.

While these “extreme-scale” applications are very interesting and get a lot of publicity at tech events and in tech publications, this is a very small portion of all the scenarios out there. The vast majority of applications are running at the medium to high scale, where implementing best practices gets you the scalability you need.

When it comes to MySQL, perhaps the most important question is when you need to “shard.” Sharding — while used by every application at extreme scale — isn’t a simple “out-of-the-box” feature in MySQL. It often requires a lot of engineering effort to correctly implement it.

While sharding is sometimes required, you should really examine whether it is necessary for your application. A single MySQL instance can easily handle hundreds of thousands per second (or more) of moderately complicated queries, and Terabytes of data. Pair that with MemcacheD or Redis caching, MySQL Replication or more advanced solutions such as Percona XtraDB Cluster or Amazon Aurora, and you can cover the transactional (operational) database needs for applications of a very significant scale.

Besides making such high-level architecture choices, you of course need to also ensure that you exercise basic database hygiene. Ensure that you’re using the correct hardware (or cloud instance type), the right MySQL and operating system version and configuration, have a well-designed schema and good indexes. You also want to ensure good capacity planning, so that when you want to take your system to the next scale and begin to thoroughly look at it you’re not caught by surprise.

Q2. Why did Facebook create MyRocks, a new flash-optimized transactional storage engine on top of RocksDB storage engine for MySQL?

Peter Zaitsev: The Facebook Team is the most qualified to answer this question. However, I imagine that at Facebook scale being efficient is very important because it helps to drive the costs down. If your hot data is in the cache when it is important, your database is efficient at handling writes — thus you want a “write-optimized engine.”
If you use Flash storage, you also care about two things:

      – A high level of compression since Flash storage is much more expensive than spinning disk.

– You are also interested in writing as little to the storage as possible, as the more you write the faster it wears out (and needs to be replaced).

RocksDB and MyRocks are able to achieve all of these goals. As an LSM-based storage engine, writes (especially Inserts) are very fast — even for giant data sizes. They’re also much better suited for achieving high levels of compression than InnoDB.

This Blog Post by Mark Callaghan has many interesting details, including this table which shows MyRocks having better performance, write amplification and compression for Facebook’s workload than InnoDB.

Q3. Beringei is Facebook’s open source, in-memory time series database. According to Facebook, large-scale monitoring systems cannot handle large-scale analysis in real time because the query performance is too slow. What is your take on this?

Peter Zaitsev: Facebook operates at extreme scale, so it is no surprise the conventional systems don’t scale well enough or aren’t efficient enough for Facebook’s needs.

I’m very excited Facebook has released Beringei as open source. Beringei itself is a relatively low-end storage engine that is hard to use for a majority of users, but I hope it gets integrated with other open source projects and provides a full-blown high-performance monitoring solution. Integrating it with Prometheus would be a great fit for solutions with extreme data ingestion rates and very high metric cardinality.

Q4. How do you see the market for open source databases evolving?

Peter Zaitsev: The last decade has seen a lot of open source database engines built, offering a lot of different data models, persistence options, high availability options, etc. Some of them were build as open source from scratch, while others were released as open source after years of being proprietary engines — with the most recent example being CMDB2 by Bloomberg. I think this heavy competition is great for pushing innovation forward, and is very exciting! For example, I think if that if MongoDB hadn’t shown how many developers love a document-oriented data model, we might never of seen MySQL Document Store in the MySQL ecosystem.

With all this variety, I think there will be a lot of consolidation and only a small fraction of these new technologies really getting wide adoption. Many will either have niche deployments, or will be an idea breeding ground that gets incorporated into more popular database technologies.

I do not think SQL will “die” anytime soon, even though it is many decades old. But I also don’t think we will see it being the dominant “database” language, as it has been since the turn of millennia.

The interesting disruptive force for open source technologies is the cloud. It will be very interesting for me to see how things evolve. With pay-for-use models of the cloud, the “free” (as in beer) part of open source does not apply in the same way. This reduces incentives to move to open source databases.

To be competitive with non-open-source cloud deployment options, open source databases need to invest in “ease-of-use.” There is no tolerance for complexity in many development teams as we move to “ops-less” deployment models.

Q5. In your opinion what are the pros and cons of MySQL vs. MariaDB?

Peter Zaitsev: While tracing it roots to MySQL, MariaDB is quickly becoming a very different database.
It implements some features MySQL doesn’t, but also leaves out others (MySQL Document Store and Group Replication) or implements them in a different way (JSON support and Replication GTIDs).

From the MySQL side, we have Oracle’s financial backing and engineering. You might dislike Oracle, but I think you agree they know a thing or two about database engineering. MySQL is also far more popular, and as such more battle-tested than MariaDB.

MySQL is developed by a single company (Oracle) and does not have as many external contributors compared to MariaDB — which has its own pluses and minuses.

MySQL is “open core,” meaning some components are available only in the proprietary version, such as Enterprise Authentication, Enterprise Scalability, and others. Alternatives for a number of these features are available in Percona Server for MySQL though (which is completely open source). MariaDB Server itself is completely open source, through there are other components that aren’t that you might need to build a full solution — namely MaxScale.

Another thing MariaDB has going for it is that it is included in a number of Linux distributions. Many new users will be getting their first “MySQL” experience with MariaDB.

For additional insight into MariaDB, MySQL and Percona Server for MySQL, you can check out this recent article

Q6. What’s new in the MySQL and MongoDB ecosystem?

Peter Zaitsev: This could be its own and rather large article! With MySQL, we’re very excited to see what is coming in MySQL 8. There should be a lot of great changes in pretty much every area, ranging from the optimizer to retiring a lot of architectural debt (some of it 20 years old). MySQL Group Replication and MySQL InnoDB Cluster, while still early in their maturity, are very interesting products.

For MongoDB we’re very excited about MongoDB 3.4, which has been taking steps to be a more enterprise ready database with features like collation support and high-performance sharding. A number of these features are only available in the Enterprise version of MongoDB, such as external authentication, auditing and log redaction. This is where Percona Server for MongoDB 3.4 comes in handy, by providing open source alternatives for the most valuable Enterprise-only features.

For both MySQL and MongoDB, we’re very excited about RocksDB-based storage engines. MyRocks and MongoRocks both offer outstanding performance and efficiency for certain workloads.

Q7. Anything else you wish to add?

Peter Zaitsev: I would like to use this opportunity to highlight Percona’s contribution to the MySQL and MongoDB ecosystems by mentioning two of our open source products that I’m very excited about.

First, Percona XtraDB Cluster 5.7.
While this has been around for about a year, we just completed a major performance improvement effort that allowed us to increase performance up to 10x. I’m not talking about improving some very exotic workloads: these performance improvements are achieved in very typical high-concurrency environments!

I’m also very excited about our Percona Monitoring and Management product, which is unique in being the only fully packaged open source monitoring solution specifically built for MySQL and MongoDB. It is a newer product that has been available for less than a year, but we’re seeing great momentum in adoption in the community. We are focusing many of our resources to improving it and making it more effective.


Peter Zaitsev_Percona

Peter Zaitsev co-founded Percona and assumed the role of CEO in 2006. As one of the foremost experts on MySQL strategy and optimization, Peter leveraged both his technical vision and entrepreneurial skills to grow Percona from a two-person shop to one of the most respected open source companies in the business. With more than 150 professionals in 29 countries, Peter’s venture now serves over 3000 customers – including the “who’s who” of Internet giants, large enterprises and many exciting startups. Percona was named to the Inc. 5000 in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Peter was an early employee at MySQL AB, eventually leading the company’s High Performance Group. A serial entrepreneur, Peter co-founded his first startup while attending Moscow State University where he majored in Computer Science. Peter is a co-author of High Performance MySQL: Optimization, Backups, and Replication, one of the most popular books on MySQL performance. Peter frequently speaks as an expert lecturer at MySQL and related conferences, and regularly posts on the Percona Data Performance Blog. He has also been tapped as a contributor to Fortune and DZone, and his recent ebook Practical MySQL Performance Optimization Volume 1 is one of percona.com’s most popular downloads.


Percona, in collaboration with Facebook, announced the first experimental release of MyRocks in Percona Server for MySQL 5.7, with packages. September 6, 2017

eBook, “Practical MySQL Performance Optimization,” by Percona CEO Peter Zaitsev and Principal Consultant Alexander Rubin. (LINK to DOWNLOAD, registration required)

MySQL vs MongoDB – When to Use Which Technology. Peter Zaitsev, June 22, 2017

Percona Live Open Source Database Conference Europe, Dublin, Ireland. September 25 – 27, 2017

Percona Monitoring and Management (PMM) Graphs Explained: MongoDB with RocksDB, By Tim Vaillancourt,JUNE 18, 2017

Related Posts

On Apache Ignite, Apache Spark and MySQL. Interview with Nikita Ivanov. ODBMS Industry Watch, 2017-06-30

On the new developments in Apache Spark and Hadoop. Interview with Amr Awadallah. ODBMS Industry Watch,2017-03-13

On in-memory, key-value data stores. Ofer Bengal and Yiftach Shoolman. ODBMS Industry Watch, 2017-02-13

follow us on Twitter: @odbmsorg


http://www.odbms.org/blog/2017/09/on-open-source-databases-interview-with-peter-zaitsev/feed/ 0
On the Challenges and Opportunities of IoT. Interview with Steve Graves http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/07/on-the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-iot-interview-with-steve-graves/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/07/on-the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-iot-interview-with-steve-graves/#comments Wed, 06 Jul 2016 09:00:29 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=4172

“Assembling a team with the wide range of skills needed for a successful IoT project presents an entirely different set of challenges. The skills needed to build a ‘thing’ are markedly different than the skills needed to implement the data analytics in the cloud.”–Steve Graves.

I have interviewed, Steve Graves, co-founder and CEO of McObject. Main topic of the interview is the Internet of Things and how it relates to databases.


Q1. What are in your opinion the main Challenges and Opportunities of the Internet of Things (IoT) seen from the perspective of a database vendor?

Steve Graves: Let’s start with the opportunities.

When we started McObject in 2001, we chose “eXtremeDB, the embedded database for intelligent, connected devices” as our tagline. eXtremeDB was designed from the get-go to live in the “things” comprising what the industry now calls the Internet of Things. The popularization of this term has created a lot of visibility and, more importantly, excitement and buzz for what was previously viewed as the relatively boring “embedded systems.” And that creates a lot of opportunities.

A lot of really smart, creative people are thinking of innovative ways to improve our health, our workplace, our environment, our infrastructure, and more. That means new opportunities for vendors of every component of the technology stack.
The challenges are manifold, and I can’t begin to address all of them. The media is largely fixated on security, which itself is multi-dimensional.
We can talk about protecting IoT-enabled devices (e.g. your car) from being hacked. We can talk about protecting the privacy of your data at rest. And we can talk about protecting the privacy of data in motion.
Every vendor needs recognize the importance of security. But, it isn’t enough for a vendor, like McObject, to provide the features to secure the target system; the developer that assembles the stack along with their own proprietary technology to create an IoT solution needs to use available security features, and use them correctly.

After security, scaling IoT systems is the next big challenge. It’s easy enough to prototype something.
But careful planning is needed to leap from prototype to full-blown deployment. Obvious decisions have to be made about connectivity and necessary bandwidth, how many things per gateway, one tier of gateways or more, and how much compute capacity is needed in the cloud. Beyond that, there are less obvious decisions to be made that will affect scalability, like making sure the DBMS used on devices and/or gateways is able to handle the workload (e.g. that the gateway DBMS can scale from 10 input streams to 100 input streams); determining how to divide the analytics workload between gateways and the cloud; and ensuring that the gateway, its DBMS and its communication stack can stream data to the cloud while simultaneously processing its own input streams and analytics.
Assembling a team with the wide range of skills needed for a successful IoT project presents an entirely different set of challenges. The skills needed to build a ‘thing’ are markedly different than the skills needed to implement the data analytics in the cloud. In fact, ‘things’ are usually very much like good ol’ embedded systems, and system engineers that know their way around real-time/embedded operating systems, JTAG debuggers, and so on, have always been at a premium.

Q2. Data management for the IoT: What are the main differences between data management in field-deployed devices and at aggregation points?

Steve Graves: Quite simply: scale. A field-deployed device (or a gateway to field-deployed devices that do not, themselves, have any data management need or capability) has to manage a modest amount of data. But an aggregation point (the cloud being the most obvious example) has to manage many times more data – possibly orders of magnitude more.
At the same time, I have to say that they might not be all that different. Some IoT systems are going to be closed, meaning the nature of the things making up the system is known, and these won’t require much scaling. For example, a building automation system for a small- to mid-size building would have perhaps 100s of sensors and 10s of gateways, and may (or may not) push data up to a central aggregation point. If there are just 10s of gateways, we can create a UI that connects to the database on each gateway where each database is one shard of a single logical database, and execute analytics against that logical database without any need of a central aggregation point. We can extend this hypothetical case to a campus of buildings, or to a landlord with many buildings in a metropolitan area, and then a central aggregation point makes sense.

But the database system would not necessarily be different, only the organization of the physical and logical databases.
The gateways of each building would stream to a database server in the cloud. In the case of 10 buildings, we could have 10 database servers in the cloud that represent 10 shards of that logical database in the cloud. This architecture allows for great scalability. The landlord acquires another building? Great, stand up another database server and the UI connects to 11 shards instead of 10. In this scenario, database servers are software, not hardware. For the numbers we’re talking about (10 or 11 buildings), it could easily be handled by a single hardware server of modest ability.

At the other end of the scale (pun intended) are IoT systems that are wide open. By that, I mean the creators are not able to anticipate the universe of “things” that could be connected, or their quantity. In the first case, the database system should be able to ingest data that was heretofore unknown. This argues for a NoSQL database system, i.e. a database system that is schema-less. In this scenario, the database system on field-deployed devices is probably radically different from the database system in the cloud. Field-deployed devices are purpose-specific, so A) they don’t need and wouldn’t benefit from a NoSQL database system, and B) most NoSQL database systems are too resource-hungry to reside on embedded device nodes.

Q3. If we look at the characteristics of a database system for managing device-based data in the IoT, how do they differ from the characteristics of a database system (typically deployed on a server) for analyzing the “big data” generated by myriad devices?

Steve Graves: Again, let’s recognize that field-deployed devices in the IoT are classic embedded systems. In practical terms, that means relatively modest hardware like an ARM, MIPS, PowerPC or Atom processor running at 100s of megahertz, or perhaps 1 ghz if we’re lucky, and with only enough memory to perform its function. Further, it may require a real-time operating system, or at least an embedded operating system that is less resource hungry than a full-on Linux distro. So, for a database system to run in this environment, it will need to have been designed to run in this environment. It isn’t practical to try to shoehorn in a database system that was written on the assumption that CPU cycles and memory are abundant. It may also be the case that the device has little-to-no persistent storage, which mandates an in-memory database.

So a database system for a field-deployed device is going to
1. have a small code size
2. use little stack
3. preferably, allocate no heap memory
4. have no, or minimal, external dependencies (e.g. not link in an extra 1 MB of code from the C run-time library)
5. have built-in ability to replicate data (to a gateway or directly to the cloud)
a. Replication should be “open”, meaning be able to replicate to a different database system
6. Have built-in security features

7. Nice to have:
a. built-in analytics to aggregate data prior to replicating it
b. ability to define the schema
c. ability to operate entirely in memory

A database system for the cloud might benefit from being schema-less, as described previously. It should certainly have pretty elastic scalability. Servers in the cloud are going to have ample resources and robust operating systems. So a database system for the cloud doesn’t need to have a small code size, use a small amount of stack memory, or worry about external dependencies such as the C run-time library. On the contrary, a database system for the cloud is expected to do much more (handle data at scale, execute analytics, etc.) and will, therefore, need ample resources. In fact, this database system should be able to take maximum advantage of the resources available, including being able to scale horizontally (across cores, CPUs, and servers).
In summary, the edge (device-based) DBMS needs to operate in a constrained environment. A cloud DBMS needs to be able to effectively and efficiently utilize the ample resources available to it.

Q4. Why is the ability to define a database schema important (versus a schema-less DBMS, aka NoSQL) for field-deployed devices?

Steve Graves: Field-deployed devices will normally perform a few specific functions (sometimes, just one function). For example, a building automation system manages HVAC, lighting, etc. A livestock management system manages feed, output, and so on. In such systems, the data requirements are well known. The hallmark NoSQL advantage of being able to store data without predefining its structure is unwarranted. The other purported hallmark of NoSQL is horizontal scalability, but this is not a need for field-deployed devices.
Walking away from the relational database model (and its implicit use of a database schema) has serious implications.
A great deal of scientific knowledge has been amassed around the relational database model over the last few decades, and without it developers are completely on their own with respect to enforcing sound data management practices.

In the NoSQL sphere, there is nothing comparable to the relational model (e.g. E.F. Codd’s work) and the mathematical foundation (relational calculus) underpinning it.
There should be overwhelming justification for a decision to not use relational.
In my experience, that justification is absent for data management of field-deployed devices.
A database system that “knows” the data design (via a schema) can more intelligently manage the data. For example, it can manage constraints, domain dependencies, events and much more. And some of the purported inflexibility imposed by a schema can be eliminated if the DBMS supports dynamic DDL (see more details on this in the answer to question Q6, below).

Q5. In your opinion, do IoT aggregation points resemble data lakes?

Steve Graves: The term data lake was originally conceived in the context of Hadoop and map-reduce functionality. In more recent times, the meaning of the term has morphed to become synonymous with big data, and that is how I use the term. Insofar as a gateway can also be an aggregation point, I would not say ‘aggregation points resemble data lakes’ because gateway aggregation points, in all likelihood, will not manage Big Data.

Q6. What are the main technical challenges for database systems used to accommodate new and unforeseen data, for example when a new type of device begins streaming data?

Steve Graves: The obvious challenges are
1. The ability to ingest new data that has a previously unknown structure
2. The ability to execute analytics on #1
3. The ability to integrate analytics on #1 with analytics on previously known data

#1 is handled well by NoSQL DBMSs. But, it might also be handled well by an RDBMS via “dynamic DDL” (dynamic data definition language), e.g. the ability to execute CREATE TABLE, ALTER TABLE, and/or CREATE INDEX statements against an existing database.
To efficiently execute analytics against any data, the structure of the data must eventually be understood.
RDBMS handle this through the database dictionary (the binary equivalent of the data definition language).
But some NoSQL DBMSs handle this through different meta data. For example, the MarkLogic DBMS uses JSON metadata to understand the structure of documents in its document store.
NoSQL DBMSs with no meta data whatsoever put the entire burden on the developers. In other words, since the data is opaque to the DBMS, the application code must read and interpret the content.

Q7. Client/server DBMS architecture vs. in-process DBMSs: which one is more suitable for IoT?

Steve Graves: For edge DBMSs (on constrained devices), an in-process architecture will be more suitable. It requires fewer resources than client/server architecture, and imposes less latency through elimination of inter-process communication. For cloud DBMSs, a client/server architecture will be more suitable. In the cloud environment, resources are not scarce, and the the advantage of being able to scale horizontally will outweigh the added latency associated with client/server.

Qx Anything else you wish to add?

Steve Graves: We feel that eXtremeDB is uniquely positioned for the Internet of Things. Not only have devices and gateways been in eXtremeDB’s wheelhouse for 15 years with over 25 million real world deployments, but the scalability, time series data management, and analytics built into the eXtremeDB server (big data) offering make it an attractive cloud database solution as well. Being able to leverage a single DBMS across devices, gateways and the cloud has obvious synergistic advantages.

Steve Graves is co-founder and CEO of McObject, a company specializing in embedded Database Management System (DBMS) software. Prior to McObject, Steve was president and chairman of Centura Solutions Corporation and vice president of worldwide consulting for Centura Software Corporation.


Big Data, Analytics, and the Internet of Things, by Mohak Shah, analytics leader and research scientist at Bosch Research, USA.ODBMS.org APRIL 6, 2015

 Privacy considerations & responsibilities in the era of Big Data & Internet of Things, by Ramkumar Ravichandran, Director, Analytics, Visa Inc. ODBMS.org January 8, 2015.

 Securing Your Largest USB-Connected Device: Your Car,BY Shomit Ghose, General Partner, ONSET Ventures, ODBMs.org MARCH 31, 2016.

 eXtremeDB Financial Edition DBMS Sweeps Records in Big Data Benchmark,ODBMS.org JULY 2, 2016

 eXtremeDB in-memory database

 User Experience Design for the Internet of Things

Related Posts

On the Internet of Things. Interview with Colin MahonyODBMS Industry Watch, Published on 2016-03-14

A Grand Tour of Big Data. Interview with Alan MorrisonODBMS Industry Watch, Published on 2016-02-25

On the Industrial Internet of Things. Interview with Leon Guzenda, ODBMS Industry Watch,  January 28, 2016

Follow us on Twitter: @odbmsorg


http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/07/on-the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-iot-interview-with-steve-graves/feed/ 0
On the Internet of Things. Interview with Colin Mahony http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/03/on-the-internet-of-things-interview-with-colin-mahony/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/03/on-the-internet-of-things-interview-with-colin-mahony/#comments Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:45:56 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=4101

“Frankly, manufacturers are terrified to flood their data centers with these unprecedented volumes of sensor and network data.”– Colin Mahony

I have interviewed Colin Mahony, SVP & General Manager, HPE Big Data Platform. Topics of the interview are: The challenges of the Internet of Things, the opportunities for Data Analytics, the positioning of HPE Vertica and HPE Cloud Strategy.


Q1. Gartner says 6.4 billion connected “things” will be in use in 2016, up 30 percent from 2015.  How do you see the global Internet of Things (IoT) market developing in the next years?

Colin Mahony: As manufacturers connect more of their “things,” they have an increased need for analytics to derive insight from massive volumes of sensor or machine data. I see these manufacturers, particularly manufacturers of commodity equipment, with a need to provide more value-added services based on their ability to provide higher levels of service and overall customer satisfaction. Data analytics platforms are key to making that happen. Also, we could see entirely new analytical applications emerge, driven by what consumers want to know about their devices and combine that data with, say, their exercise regimens, health vitals, social activities, and even driving behavior, for full personal insight.
Ultimately, the Internet of Things will drive a need for the Analyzer of Things, and that is our mission.

Q2. What Challenges and Opportunities bring the Internet of Things (IoT)? 

Colin Mahony: Frankly, manufacturers are terrified to flood their data centers with these unprecedented volumes of sensor and network data. The reason? Traditional data warehouses were designed well before the Internet of Things, or, at least before OT (operational technology) like medical devices, industrial equipment, cars, and more were connected to the Internet. So, having an analytical platform to provide the scale and performance required to handle these volumes is important, but customers are taking more of a two- or three-tier approach that involves some sort of analytical processing at the edge before data is sent to an analytical data store. Apache Kafka is also becoming an important tier in this architecture, serving as a message bus, to collect and push that data from the edge in streams to the appropriate database, CRM system, or analytical platform for, as an example, correlation of fault data over months or even years to predict and prevent part failure and optimize inventory levels.

Q3. Big Data: In your opinion, what are the current main demands/needs in the market?

Colin Mahony: All organizations want – and need – to become data-driven organizations. I mean, who wants to make such critical decisions based on half answers and anecdotal data? That said, traditional companies with data stores and systems going back 30-40 years don’t have the same level playing field as the next market disruptor that just received their series B funding and only knows that analytics is the life blood of their business and all their critical decisions.
The good news is that whether you are a 100-year old insurance company or the next Uber or Facebook, you can become a data-driven organization by taking an open platform approach that uses the best tool for the job and can incorporate emerging technologies like Kafka and Spark without having to bolt on or buy all of that technology from a single vendor and get locked in.  Understanding the difference between an open platform with a rich ecosystem and open source software as one very important part of that ecosystem has been a differentiator for our customers.

Beyond technology, we have customers that establish analytical centers of excellence that actually work with the data consumers – often business analysts – that run ad-hoc queries using their preferred data visualization tool to get the insight need for their business unit or department. If the data analysts struggle, then this center of excellence, which happens to report up through IT, collaborates with them to understand and help them get to the analytical insight – rather than simply halting the queries with no guidance on how to improve.

Q4. How do you embed analytics and why is it useful? 

Colin Mahony: OEM software vendors, particularly, see the value of embedding analytics in their commercial software products or software as a service (SaaS) offerings.  They profit by creating analytic data management features or entirely new applications that put customers on a faster path to better, data-driven decision making. Offering such analytics capabilities enables them to not only keep a larger share of their customer’s budget, but at the same time greatly improve customer satisfaction. To offer such capabilities, many embedded software providers are attempting unorthodox fixes with row-oriented OLTP databases, document stores, and Hadoop variations that were never designed for heavy analytic workloads at the volume, velocity, and variety of today’s enterprise. Alternatively, some companies are attempting to build their own big data management systems. But such custom database solutions can take thousands of hours of research and development, require specialized support and training, and may not be as adaptable to continuous enhancement as a pure-play analytics platform. Both approaches are costly and often outside the core competency of businesses that are looking to bring solutions to market quickly.

Because it’s specifically designed for analytic workloads, HPE Vertica is quite different from other commercial alternatives. Vertica differs from OLTP DBMS and proprietary appliances (which typically embed row-store DBMSs) by grouping data together on disk by column rather than by row (that is, so that the next piece of data read off disk is the next attribute in a column, not the next attribute in a row). This enables Vertica to read only the columns referenced by the query, instead of scanning the whole table as row-oriented databases must do. This speeds up query processing dramatically by reducing disk I/O.

You’ll find Vertica as the core analytical engine behind some popular products, including Lancope, Empirix, Good Data, and others as well as many HPE offerings like HPE Operations Analytics, HPE Application Defender, and HPE App Pulse Mobile, and more.

Q5. How do you make a decision when it is more appropriate to “consume and deploy” Big Data on premise, in the cloud, on demand and on Hadoop?

Colin Mahony: The best part is that you don’t need to choose with HPE. Unlike most emerging data warehouses as a service where your data is trapped in their databases when your priorities or IT policies change, HPE offers the most complete range of deployment and consumption models. If you want to spin up your analytical initiative on the cloud for a proof-of-concept or during the holiday shopping season for e-retailers, you can do that easily with HPE Vertica OnDemand.
If your organization finds that due to security or confidentiality or privacy concerns you need to bring your analytical initiative back in house, then you can use HPE Vertica Enterprise on-premises without losing any customizations or disruption to your business. Have petabyte volumes of largely unstructured data where the value is unknown? Use HPE Vertica for SQL on Hadoop, deployed natively on your Hadoop cluster, regardless of the distribution you have chosen. Each consumption model, available in the cloud, on-premise, on-demand, or using reference architectures for HPE servers, is available to you with that same trusted underlying core.

Q6. What are the new class of infrastructures called “composable”? Are they relevant for Big Data?

Colin Mahony: HPE believes that a new architecture is needed for Big Data – one that is designed to power innovation and value creation for the new breed of applications while running traditional workloads more efficiently.
We call this new architectural approach Composable Infrastructure. HPE has a well-established track record of infrastructure innovation and success. HPE Converged Infrastructure, software-defined management, and hyper-converged systems have consistently proven to reduce costs and increase operational efficiency by eliminating silos and freeing available compute, storage, and networking resources. Building on our converged infrastructure knowledge and experience, we have designed a new architecture that can meet the growing demands for a faster, more open, and continuous infrastructure.

Q7. What is HPE Cloud Strategy? 

Colin Mahony: Hybrid cloud adoption is continuing to grow at a rapid rate and a majority of our customers recognize that they simply can’t achieve the full measure of their business goals by consuming only one kind of cloud.
HPE Helion not only offers private cloud deployments and managed private cloud services, but we have created the HPE Helion Network, a global ecosystem of service providers, ISVs, and VARs dedicated to delivering open standards-based hybrid cloud services to enterprise customers. Through our ecosystem, our customers gain access to an expanded set of cloud services and improve their abilities to meet country-specific data regulations.

In addition to the private cloud offerings, we have a strategic and close alliance with Microsoft Azure, which enables many of our offerings, including Haven OnDemand, in the public cloud. We also work closely with Amazon because our strategy is not to limit our customers, but to ensure that they have the choices they need and the services and support they can depend upon.

Q8. What are the advantages of an offering like Vertica in this space?

Colin Mahony: More and more companies are exploring the possibility of moving their data analytics operations to the cloud. We offer HPE Vertica OnDemand, our data warehouse as a service, for organizations that need high-performance enterprise class data analytics for all of their data to make better business decisions now. Built by design to drastically improve query performance over traditional relational database systems, HPE Vertica OnDemand is engineered from the same technology that powers the HPE Vertica Analytics Platform. For organizations that want to select Amazon hardware and still maintain the control over the installation, configuration, and overall maintenance of Vertica for ultimate performance and control, we offer Vertica AMI (Amazon Machine Image). The Vertica AMI is a bring-your-own-license model that is ideal for organizations that want the same experience as on-premise installations, only without procuring and setting up hardware. Regardless of which deployment model to choose, we have you covered for “on demand” or “enterprise cloud” options.

Q9. What is HPE Vertica Community Edition?

Colin Mahony: We have had tens of thousands of downloads of the HPE Vertica Community Edition, a freemium edition of HPE Vertica with all of the core features and functionality that you experience with our core enterprise offering. It’s completely free for up to 1 TB of data storage across three nodes. Companies of all sizes prefer the Community Edition to download, install, set-up, and configure Vertica very quickly on x86 hardware or use our Amazon Machine Image (AMI) for a bring-your-own-license approach to the cloud.

Q10. Can you tell us how Kiva.org, a non-profit organization, uses on-demand cloud analytics to leverage the internet and a worldwide network of microfinance institutions to help fight poverty? 

Colin Mahony: HPE is a major supporter of Kiva.org, a non-profit organization with a mission to connect people through lending to alleviate poverty. Kiva.org uses the internet and a worldwide network of microfinance institutions to enable individuals lend as little as $25 to help create opportunity around the world. When the opportunity arose to help support Kiva.org with an analytical platform to further the cause, we jumped at the opportunity. Kiva.org relies on Vertica OnDemand to reduce capital costs, leverage the SaaS delivery model to adapt more quickly to changing business requirements, and work with over a million lenders, hundreds of field partners and volunteers, across the world. To see a recorded Webinar with HPE and Kiva.org, see here.

Qx Anything else you wish to add?

Colin Mahony: We appreciate the opportunity to share the features and benefits of HPE Vertica as well as the bright market outlook for data-driven organizations. However, I always recommend that any organization that is struggling with how to get started with their analytics initiative to speak and meet with peers to learn best practices and avoid potential pitfalls. The best way to do that, in my opinion, is to visit with the more than 1,000 Big Data experts in Boston from August 29 – September 1st at the HPE Big Data Conference. Click here to learn more and join us for 40+ technical deep-dive sessions.


Colin Mahony, SVP & General Manager, HPE Big Data Platform

Colin Mahony leads the Hewlett Packard Enterprise Big Data Platform business group, which is responsible for the industry leading Vertica Advanced Analytics portfolio, the IDOL Enterprise software that provides context and analysis of unstructured data, and Haven OnDemand, a platform for developers to leverage APIs and on demand services for their applications.
In 2011, Colin joined Hewlett Packard as part of the highly successful acquisition of Vertica, and took on the responsibility of VP and General Manager for HP Vertica, where he guided the business to remarkable annual growth and recognized industry leadership. Colin brings a unique combination of technical knowledge, market intelligence, customer relationships, and strategic partnerships to one of the fastest growing and most exciting segments of HP Software.

Prior to Vertica, Colin was a Vice President at Bessemer Venture Partners focused on investments primarily in enterprise software, telecommunications, and digital media. He established a great network and reputation for assisting in the creation and ongoing operations of companies through his knowledge of technology, markets and general management in both small startups and larger companies. Prior to Bessemer, Colin worked at Lazard Technology Partners in a similar investor capacity.

Prior to his venture capital experience, Colin was a Senior Analyst at the Yankee Group serving as an industry analyst and consultant covering databases, BI, middleware, application servers and ERP systems. Colin helped build the ERP and Internet Computing Strategies practice at Yankee in the late nineties.

Colin earned an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and a bachelor’s degrees in Economics with a minor in Computer Science from Georgetown University.  He is an active volunteer with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Massachusetts Bay and the Joey Fund for Cystic Fibrosis.


What’s in store for Big Data analytics in 2016, Steve Sarsfield, Hewlett Packard Enterprise. ODBMS.org, 3 FEB, 2016

What’s New in Vertica 7.2?: Apache Kafka Integration!, HPE, last edited February 2, 2016

Gartner Says 6.4 Billion Connected “Things” Will Be in Use in 2016, Up 30 Percent From 2015, Press release, November 10, 2015

The Benefits of HP Vertica for SQL on Hadoop, HPE, July 13, 2015

Uplevel Big Data Analytics with Graph in Vertica – Part 5: Putting graph to work for your business , Walter Maguire, Chief Field Technologist, HP Big Data Group, ODBMS.org, 2 Nov, 2015

HP Distributed R ,ODBMS.org,  19 FEB, 2015.

Understanding ROS and WOS: A Hybrid Data Storage Model, HPE, October 7, 2015

Related Posts

On Big Data Analytics. Interview with Shilpa LawandeSource: ODBMS Industry Watch, Published on December 10, 2015

On HP Distributed R. Interview with Walter Maguire and Indrajit RoySource: ODBMS Industry Watch, Published on April 9, 2015

Follow us on Twitter: @odbmsorg


http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/03/on-the-internet-of-things-interview-with-colin-mahony/feed/ 0
A Grand Tour of Big Data. Interview with Alan Morrison http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/02/a-grand-tour-of-big-data-interview-with-alan-morrison/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/02/a-grand-tour-of-big-data-interview-with-alan-morrison/#comments Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:52:44 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=4087

“Leading enterprises have a firm grasp of the technology edge that’s relevant to them. Better data analysis and disambiguation through semantics is central to how they gain competitive advantage today.”–Alan Morrison.

I have interviewed Alan Morrison, senior research fellow at PwC, Center for Technology and Innovation.
Main topic of the interview is how the Big Data market is evolving.


Q1. How do you see the Big Data market evolving? 

Alan Morrison: We should note first of all how true Big Data and analytics methods emerged and what has been disruptive. Over the course of a decade, web companies have donated IP and millions of lines of code that serves as the foundation for what’s being built on top.  In the process, they’ve built an open source culture that is currently driving most big data-related innovation. As you mentioned to me last year, Roberto, a lot of database innovation was the result of people outside the world of databases changing what they thought needed to be fixed, people who really weren’t versed in the database technologies to begin with.

Enterprises and the database and analytics systems vendors who serve them have to constantly adjust to the innovation that’s being pushed into the open source big data analytics pipeline. Open source machine learning is becoming the icing on top of that layer cake.

Q2. In your opinion what are the challenges of using Big Data technologies in the enterprise?

Alan Morrison: Traditional enterprise developers were thrown for a loop back in the late 2000s when it comes to open source software, and they’re still adjusting. The severity of the problem differs depending on the age of the enterprise. In our 2012 issue of the Forecast on DevOps, we made clear distinctions between three age classes of companies: legacy mainstream enterprises, pre-cloud enterprises and cloud natives. Legacy enterprises could have systems that are 50 years old or more still in place and have simply added to those. Pre-cloud enterprises are fighting with legacy that’s up to 20 years old. Cloud natives don’t have to fight legacy and can start from scratch with current tech.

DevOps (dev + ops) is an evolution of agile development that focuses on closer collaboration between developers and operations personnel. It’s a successor to agile development, a methodology that enables multiple daily updates to operational codebases and feedback-response loop tuning by making small code changes and see how those change user experience and behaviour. The linked article makes a distinction between legacy, pre-cloud and cloud native enterprises in terms of their inherent level of agility:

 Most enterprises are in the legacy mainstream group, and the technology adoption challenges they face are the same regardless of the technology. To build feedback-response loops for a data-driven enterprise in a legacy environment is more complicated in older enterprises. But you can create guerilla teams to kickstart the innovation process.

Q3. Is the Hadoop ecosystem now ready for enterprise deployment at large scale? 

Alan MorrisonHadoop is ten years old at this point, and Yahoo, a very large mature enterprise, has been running Hadoop on 10,000 nodes for years now. Back in 2010, we profiled a legacy mainstream media company who was doing logfile analysis from all of its numerous web properties on a Hadoop cluster quite effectively. Hadoop is to the point where people in their dens and garages are putting it on Raspberry Pi systems. Lots of companies are storing data in or staging it from HDFS. HDFS is a given. MapReduce, on the other hand, has given way to Spark.

HDFS preserves files in their original format immutably, and that’s important. That innovation was crucial to data-driven application development a decade ago. But Hadoop isn’t the end state for distributed storage, and NoSQL databases aren’t either. It’s best to keep in mind that alternatives to Hadoop and its ecosystem are emerging.

I find it fascinating what folks like LinkedIn and Metamarkets are doing data architecture wise with the Kappa architecture–essentially a stream processing architecture that also works for batch analytics, a system where operational and analytical data are one and the same. That’s appropriate for fully online, all-digital businesses.  You can use HDFS, S3, GlusterFS or some other file system along with a database such as Druid. On the transactional side of things, the nascent IPFS (the Interplanetary File System) anticipates both peer-to-peer and the use of blockchains in environments that are more and more distributed. Here’s a diagram we published last year that describes this evolution to date:

From PWC Technology Forecast 2015

People shouldn’t be focused on Hadoop, but what Hadoop has cleared a path for that comes next.

Q4. What are in your opinion the most innovative Big Data technologies?

Alan Morrison: The rise of immutable data stores (HDFS, Datomic, Couchbase and other comparable databases, as well as blockchains) was significant because it was an acknowledgement that data history and permanence matters, the technology is mature enough and the cost is low enough to eliminate the need to overwrite. These data stores also established that eliminating overwrites also eliminates a cause of contention. We’re moving toward native cloud and eventually the P2P fog (localized, more truly distributed computing) that will extend the footprint of the cloud for the Internet of things.

Unsupervised machine learning has made significant strides in the past year or two, and it has become possible to extract facts from unstructured data, building on the success of entity and relationship extraction. What this advance implies is the ability to put humans in feedback loops with machines, where they let machines discover the data models and facts and then tune or verify those data models and facts.

In other words, large enterprises now have the capability to build their own industry- and organization-specific knowledge graphs and begin to develop cognitive or intelligent apps on top those knowledge graphs, along the lines of what Cirrus Shakeri of Inventurist envisions.


From Cirrus Shakeri, “From Big Data to Intelligent Applications,”  post, January 2015 

At the core of computable semantic graphs (Shakeri’s term for knowledge graphs or computable knowledge bases) is logically consistent semantic metadata. A machine-assisted process can help with entity and relationship extraction and then also ontology generation.

Computability = machine readability. Semantic metadata–the kind of metadata cognitive computing apps use–can be generated with the help of a well-designed and updated ontology. More and more, these ontologies are uncovered in text rather than hand built, but again, there’s no substitute for humans in the loop. Think of the process of cognitive app development as a continual feedback-response loop process. The use of agents can facilitate the construction of these feedback loops.

Q5. In a recent note Carl Olofson, Research Vice President, Data Management Software Research, IDC, predicted the RIP of “Big Data” as a concept. What is your view on this?

Alan Morrison: I agree the term is nebulous and can be misleading, and we’ve had our fill of it. But that doesn’t mean it won’t continue to be used. Here’s how we defined it back in 2009:

Big Data is not a precise term; rather, it is a characterization of the never-ending accumulation of all kinds of data, most of it unstructured. It describes data sets that are growing exponentially and that are too large, too raw, or too unstructured for analysis using relational database techniques. Whether terabytes or petabytes, the precise amount is less the issue than where the data ends up and how it is used. (See https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology-forecast/assets/pwc-tech-forecast-issue3-2010.pdf, pg. 6.)

For that issue of the Forecast, we focused on how Hadoop was being piloted in enterprises and the ecosystem that was developing around it. Hadoop was the primary disruptive technology, as well as NoSQL databases. It helps to consider the data challenge of the 2000s and how relational databases and enterprise data warehousing techniques were falling short at that point.  Hadoop has reduced the cost of analyzing data by an order of magnitude and allows processing of very large unstructured datasets. NoSQL has made it possible to move away from rigid data models and standard ETL.

“Big Data” can continue to be shorthand for petabytes of unruly, less structured data. But why not talk about the system instead of just the data? I like the term that George Gilbert of Wikibon latched on to last year. I don’t know if he originated it, but he refers to the System of Intelligence. That term gets us beyond the legacy, pre-web “business intelligence” term, more into actionable knowledge outputs that go beyond traditional reporting and into the realm of big data, machine learning and more distributed systems. The Hadoop ecosystem, other distributed file systems, NoSQL databases and the new analytics capabilities that rely on them are really at the heart of a System of Intelligence.

Q6. How many enterprise IT systems do you think we will need to interoperate in the future? 

Alan Morrison: I like Geoffrey Moore‘s observations about a System of Engagement that emerged after the System of Record, and just last year George Gilbert was adding to that taxonomy with a System of Intelligence. But you could add further to that with a System of Collection that we still need to build. Just to be consistent, the System of Collection articulates how the Internet of Things at scale would function on the input side. The System of Engagement would allow distribution of the outputs. For the outputs of the System of Collection to be useful, that system will need to interoperate in various ways with the other systems.

To summarize, there will actually be four enterprise IT systems that will need to interoperate, ultimately. Three of these exist, and one still needs to be created.

The fuller picture will only emerge when this interoperation becomes possible.

Q7. What are the  requirements, heritage and legacy of such systems?

Alan Morrison: The System of Record (RDBMSes) still relies on databases and tech with their roots in the pre-web era. I’m not saying these systems haven’t been substantially evolved and refined, but they do still reflect a centralized, pre-web mentality. Bitcoin and Blockchain make it clear that the future of Systems of Record won’t always be centralized. In fact, microtransaction flows in the Internet of Things at scale will depend on the decentralized approaches,  algorithmic transaction validation, and immutable audit trail creation which blockchain inspires.

The Web is only an interim step in the distributed system evolution. P2P systems will eventually complemnt the web, but they’ll take a long time to kick in fully–well into the next decade. There’s always the S-curve of adoption that starts flat for years. P2P has ten years of an installed base of cloud tech, twenty years of web tech and fifty years plus of centralized computing to fight with. The bitcoin blockchain seems to have kicked P2P in gear finally, but progress will be slow through 2020.

The System of Engagement (requiring Web DBs) primarily relies on Web technnology (MySQL and NoSQL) in conjunction with traditional CRM and other customer-related structured databases.

The System of Intelligence (requiring Web file systems and less structured DBs) primarily relies on NoSQL, Hadoop, the Hadoop ecosystem and its successors, but is built around a core DW/DM RDBMS analytics environment with ETLed structured data from the System of Record and System of Engagement. The System of Intelligence will have to scale and evolve to accommodate input from the System of Collection.

The System of Collection (requiring distributed file systems and DBs) will rely on distributed file system successors to Hadoop and HTTP such as IPFS and the more distributed successors to MySQL+ NoSQL. Over the very long term, a peer-to-peer architecture will emerge that will become necessary to extend the footprint of the internet of things and allow it to scale.

Q8. Do you already have the piece parts to begin to build out a 2020+ intersystem vision now?

Alan Morrison: Contextual, ubiquitous computing is the vision of the 2020s, but to get to that, we need an intersystem approach. Without interoperation of the four systems I’ve alluded to, enterprises won’t be able to deliver the context required for competitive advantage. Without sufficient entity and relationship disambiguation via machine learning in machine/human feedback loops, enterprises won’t be able to deliver the relevance for competitive advantage.

We do have the piece parts to begin to build out an intersystem vision now. For example, interoperation is a primary stumbling block that can be overcome now. Middleware has been overly complex and inadequate to the current-day task, but middleware platforms such as EnterpriseWeb are emerging that can reach out as an integration fabric for all systems, up and down the stack. Here’s how the integration fabric becomes an essential enabler for the intersystem approach:

PwC, 2015

A lot of what EnterpriseWeb (full disclosure: a JBR partner of PwC) does hinges on the creation and use of agents and semantic metadata that enable the data/logic virtualization. That’s what makes the desiloing possible. One of the things about the EnterpriseWeb platform is that it’s a full stack virtual integration and application platform, using methods that have data layer granularity, but process layer impact. Enterprise architects can tune their models and update operational processes at the same time. The result: every change is model-driven and near real-time. Stacks can all be simplified down to uniform, virtualized composable entities using enabling technologies that work at the data layer. Here’s how they work:

PwC, 2015

So basically you can do process refinement across these systems, and intersystem analytics views thus also become possible.

Qx anything else you wish to add? 

Alan Morrison: We always quote science fiction writer William Gibson, who said,

“The future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed.”

Enterprises would do best to remind themselves what’s possible now and start working with it. You’ve got to grab onto that technology edge and let it pull you forward. If you don’t understand what’s possible, most relevant to your future business success and how to use it, you’ll never make progress and you’ll always be reacting to crises. Leading enterprises have a firm grasp of the technology edge that’s relevant to them. Better data analysis and disambiguation through semantics is central to how they gain competitive advantage today.

We do a ton of research to get to the big picture and find the real edge, where tech could actually have a major business impact. And we try to think about what the business impact will be, rather than just thinking about the tech. Most folks who are down in the trenches are dismissive of the big picture, but the fact is they aren’t seeing enough of the horizon to make an informed judgement. They are trying to use tools they’re familiar with to address problems the tools weren’t designed for. Alongside them should be some informed contrarians and innovators to provide balance and get to a happy medium.

That’s how you counter groupthink in an enterprise. Executives need to clear a path for innovation and foster a healthy, forward-looking, positive and tolerant mentality. If the workforce is cynical, that’s an indication that they lack a sense of purpose or are facing systemic or organizational problems they can’t overcome on their own.

Alan Morrison (@AlanMorrison) is a senior research fellow at PwC, a longtime technology trends analyst and an issue editor of the firm’s Technology Forecast


Data-driven payments. How financial institutions can win in a networked economy, BY, Mark Flamme, Partner; Kevin Grieve, Partner;  Mike Horvath, Principal Strategy&. FEBRUARY 4, 2016, ODBMS.org

The rise of immutable data stores, By Alan Morrison, Senior Manager, PwC Center for technology and innovation (CTI), OCTOBER 9, 2015, ODBMS.org

The enterprise data lake: Better integration and deeper analytics, By Brian Stein and Alan Morrison, PwC, AUGUST 20, 2014 ODBMS.org

Related Posts

On the Industrial Internet of Things. Interview with Leon Guzenda , ODBMS Industry Watch, January 28, 2016

On Big Data and Society. Interview with Viktor Mayer-Schönberger , ODBMS Industry Watch, January 8, 2016

On Big Data Analytics. Interview with Shilpa Lawande , ODBMS Industry Watch, December 10, 2015

On Dark Data. Interview with Gideon Goldin , ODBMS Industry Watch, November 16, 2015

Follow us on Twitter: @odbmsorg


http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/02/a-grand-tour-of-big-data-interview-with-alan-morrison/feed/ 0
On Database Resilience. Interview with Seth Proctor http://www.odbms.org/blog/2015/03/interview-seth-proctor/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2015/03/interview-seth-proctor/#comments Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:11:55 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=3845

“In normal English usage the word resilience is taken to mean the power to resume original shape after compression; in the context of data base management the term data base resilience is defined as the ability to return to a previous state after the occurrence of some event or action which may have changed that state.
from “P. A Dearnley, School of Computing Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ , 1975

On the topic database resilience, I have interviewed Seth Proctor, Chief Technology Officer at NuoDB.


Q1. When is a database truly resilient?

Seth Proctor: That is a great question, and the quotation above is a good place to start. In general, resiliency is about flexibility. It’s kind of the view that you should bend but not break. Individual failures (server crashes, disk wear, tripping over power cables) are inevitable but don’t have to result in systemic outages.
In some cases that means reacting to failure in a way that’s non-disruptive to the overall system.
The redundant networks in modern airplanes are a great example of this model. Other systems take a deeper view, watching global state to proactively re-route activity or replace components that may be failing. This is the model that keeps modern telecom networks running reliably. There are many views applied in the database world, but to me a resilient database is one that can react automatically to likely or active failures so that applications continue operating with full access to their data even as failures occur.

Q2. Is database resilience the same as disaster recovery?

Seth Proctor: I don’t believe it is. In traditional systems there is a primary site where the database is “active” and updates are replicated from there to other sites. In the case of failure to the primary site, one of the replicas can take over. Maintaining that replica (or replicas) is usually the key part of Disaster Recovery.
Sometimes that replica is missing the latest changes, and usually the act of “failing over” to a replica involves some window where the database is unavailable. This leads to operational terms like “hot stand-by” where failing over is faster but still delayed, complicated and failure-prone.

True resiliency, in my opinion, comes from systems that are designed to always be available even as some components fail. Reacting to failure efficiently is a key requirement, as is survival in case of complete site loss, so replicating data to multiple locations is critical to resiliency. At a minimum, however, a resilient data management solution cannot lose data (sort of “primum non nocere” for servers) and must be able to provide access to all data even as servers fail. Typical Disaster Recovery solutions on their own are not sufficient. A resilient solution should also be able to continue operations in the face of expected failures: hardware and software upgrades, network updates and service migration.
This is especially true as we push out to hybrid cloud deployments.

Q3. What are the database resilience requirements and challenges, especially in this era of Big Data?

Seth Proctor: There is no one set of requirements since each application has different goals with different resiliency needs. Big Data is often more about speeds and volume while in the operational space correctness, latency and availability are key. For instance, if you’re handling high-value bank transactions you have different needs than something doing weekly trend-analysis on Internet memes. The great thing about “the cloud” is the democratization of features and the new systems that have evolved around scale-out architectures. Things like transactional consistency were originally designed to make failures simpler and systems more resilient; as consistent data solutions scale out in cloud models it’s simpler to make any application resilient without sacrificing performance or increasing complexity.

That said, I look for a couple of key criteria when designing with resiliency in mind. The first is a distributed architecture, the foundation for any system to survive individual failure but remain globally available.
Ideally this provides a model where an application can continue operating even as arbitrary components fail. Second is the need for simple provisioning & monitoring. Without this, it’s hard to react to failures in an automatic or efficient fashion, and it’s almost impossible to orchestrate normal upgrade processes without down-time. Finally, a database needs to have a clear model for how the same data is kept in multiple locations and what the failure modes are that could result in any loss. These requirements also highlight a key challenge: what I’ve just described are what we expect from cloud infrastructure, but are pushing the limits of what most shared-nothing, sharded or vertically-scaled data architectures offer.

Q4. What is the real risk if the database goes offline?

Seth Proctor: Obviously one risk is the ripple effect it has to other services or applications.
When a database fails it can take with it core services, applications or even customers. That can mean lost revenue or opportunity and it almost certainly means disruption across an organization. Depending on how a database goes offline, the risk may also extend to data loss, corruption, or both. Most databases have to trade-off certain elements of latency against guaranteed durability, and it’s on failure that you pay for that choice. Sometimes you can’t even sort out what information was lost. Perhaps most dangerous, modern deployments typically create the illusion of a data management service by using multiple databases for DR, scale-out etc. When a single database goes offline you’re left with a global service in an unknown state with gaps in its capabilities. Orchestrating recovery is often expensive, time-consuming and disruptive to applications.

Q5. How are customers solving the continuous availability problem today?

Seth Proctor: Broadly, database availability is tackled in one of two fashions. The first is by running with many redundant, individual, replicated servers so that any given server can fail or be taken offline for maintenance as needed. Putting aside the complexity of operating so many independent services and the high infrastructure costs, there is no single view of the system. Data is constantly moving between services that weren’t designed with this kind of coordination in mind so you have to pay close attention to latencies, backup strategies and visibility rules for your applications. The other approach is to use a database that has forgone consistency, making a lot of these pieces appear simpler but placing the burden that might be handled by the database on the application instead. In this model each application needs to be written to understand the specifics of the availability model and in exchange has a service designed with redundancy.

Q6. Now that we are in the Cloud era, is there a better way?

Seth Proctor: For many pieces of the stack cloud architectures result in much easier availability models. For the database specifically, however, there are still some challenges. That said, I think there are a few great things we get from the cloud design mentality that are rapidly improving database availability models. The first is an assumption about on-demand resources and simplicity of spinning up servers or storage as needed. That makes reacting to failure so much easier, and much more cost-effective, as long as the database can take advantage of it. Next is the move towards commodity infrastructure. The economics certainly make it easier to run redundantly, but commodity components are likely to fail more frequently. This is pushing systems design, making failure tests critical and generally putting more people into the defensive mind-set that’s needed to build for availability. Finally, of course, cloud architectures have forced all of us to step back and re-think how we build core services, and that’s leading to new tools designed from the start with this point of view. Obviously that’s one of the most basic elements that drives us at NuoDB towards building a new kind of database architecture.

Q7. Can you share methodologies for avoiding single points of failure?

Seth Proctor: For sure! The first thing I’d say is to focus on layering & abstraction.
Failures will happen all the time, at every level, and in ways you never expect. Assume that you won’t test all of them ahead of time and focus on making each little piece of your system clear about how it can fail and what it needs from its peers to be successful. Maybe it’s obvious, but to avoid single points of failure you need components that are independent and able to stand-in for each other. Often that means replicating data at lower-levels and using DNS or load-balancers at a higher-level to have one name or endpoint map to those independent components. Oh, also, decouple your application logic as much as possible from your operational model. I know that goes against some trends, but really, if your application has deep knowledge of how some service is deployed and running it makes it really hard to roll with failures or changes to that service.

Q8. What’s new at NuoDB?

Seth Proctor: There are too many new things to capture it all here!
For anyone who hasn’t looked at us, NuoDB is a relational database build against a fundamentally new, distributed architecture. The result is ACID semantics, support for standard SQL (joins, indexes, etc.) and a logical view of a single database (no sharding or active/passive models) designed for resiliency from the start.
Rather than talk about the details here I’d point people at a white paper (Note of the Editor: registration required) we’ve just published on the topic.
Right now we’re heavily focused on a few key challenges that our enterprise customers need to solve: migrating from vertical scale to cloud architectures, retaining consistency and availability and designing for on-demand scale and hybrid deployments. Really important is the need for global scale, where a database scales to multiple data centers and multiple geographies. That brings with it all kinds of important requirements around latencies, failure, throughput, security and residency. It’s really neat stuff.

Q9- How does it differentiate with respect to other NoSQL and NewSQL databases?

Seth Proctor: The obvious difference to most NoSQL solutions is that NuoDB supports standard SQL, transactional consistency and all the other things you’d associate with an RDBMS.
Also, given our focus on enterprise use-cases, another key difference is the strong baseline with security, backup, analysis etc. In the NewSQL space there are several databases that run in-memory, scale-out and provide some kind of SQL support. Running in-memory often means placing all data in-memory, however, which is expensive and can lead to single points of failure and delays on recovery. Also, there are few that really support the arbitrary SQL that enterprises need. For instance, we have customers running 12-way joins or transactions that last hours and run thousands of statements.
These kinds of general-purpose capabilities are very hard to scale on-demand but they are the requirement for getting client-server architectures into the cloud, which is why we’ve spent so long focused on a new architectural view.
One other key difference is our focus on global operations. There are very few people trying to take a single, logical database and distribute it to multiple geographies without impacting consistency, latency or security.

Qx Anything else you wish to add?

Seth Proctor: Only that this was a great set of questions, and exactly the direction I encourage everyone to think about right now. We’re in a really exciting time between public clouds, new software and amazing capacity from commodity infrastructure. The hard part is stepping back and sorting out all the ways that systems can fail.
Architecting with resiliency as a goal is going to get more commonplace as the right foundational services mature.
Asking yourself what that means, what failures you can tolerate and whether you’re building systems that can grow alongside those core services is the right place to be today. What I love about working in this space today is that concepts like resilient design, until recently a rarefied approach, are accessible to everyone.
Anyone trying to build even the simplest application today should be asking these questions and designing from the start with concepts like resiliency front and center.

Seth Proctor, Chief Technology Officer, NuoDB

Seth has 15+ years of experience in the research, design and implementation of scalable systems. That experience includes work on distributed computing, networks, security, languages, operating systems and databases all of which are integral to NuoDB. His particular focus is on how to make technology scale and how to make users scale effectively with their systems.

Prior to NuoDB Seth worked at Nokia on their private cloud architecture. Before that he was at Sun Microsystems Laboratories and collaborated with several product groups and universities. His previous work includes contributions to the Java security framework, the Solaris operating system and several open source projects, in addition to the design of new distributed security and resource management systems. Seth developed new ways of looking at distributed transactions, caching, resource management and profiling in his contributions to Project Darkstar. Darkstar was a key effort at Sun which provided greater insights into how to distribute databases.

Seth holds eight patents for his cutting edge work across several technical disciplines. He has several additional patents awaiting approval related to achieving greater database efficiency and end-user agility.


– Hybrid Transaction and Analytical Processing with NuoDB

– NuoDB Larks Release 2.2 

Various Resources on NuoDB.

Related Posts

Follow ODBMS.org on Twitter: @odbmsorg


http://www.odbms.org/blog/2015/03/interview-seth-proctor/feed/ 0
What are the challenges for modern Data Centers? Interview with David Gorbet. http://www.odbms.org/blog/2014/03/data-centers-challenges-interview-david-gorbet/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2014/03/data-centers-challenges-interview-david-gorbet/#comments Tue, 25 Mar 2014 07:51:55 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=3127

“The real problem here is the word “silo.” To answer today’s data challenges requires a holistic approach. Your storage, network and compute need to work together.”–David Gorbet.

What are the challenges for modern data centers? On this topic I have interviewed David Gorbet, Vice President of Engineering at MarkLogic.

Q1. Data centers are evolving to meet the demands and complexities imposed by increasing business requirements. What are the main challenges?

David Gorbet: The biggest business challenge is the rapid pace of change in both available data and business requirements. It’s no longer acceptable to spend years designing a data application, or the infrastructure to run it. You have to be able to iterate on functionality quickly. This means that your applications need to be developed in a much more agile manner, but you also need to be able to reallocate your infrastructure dynamically to the most pressing needs. In the era of Big Data this problem is exacerbated. The increasing volume and complexity of data under management is stressing both existing technologies and IT budgets. It’s not just a matter of scale, although traditional “scale-up” technologies do become very expensive as data volumes grow. It’s also a matter of complexity of data. Today a lot of data has a mix of structured and unstructured components, and the traditional solution to this problem is to split the structured components into an RDBMS, and use a search technology for the unstructured components. This creates additional complexity in the infrastructure, as different technology stacks are required for what really should be components of the same data.

Traditional technologies for data management are not agile. You have to spend an inordinate amount of time designing schemas and planning indexing strategies, both of which require pretty-much full knowledge of the data and query patterns you need to provide the application value. This has to be done before you can even load data. On the infrastructure side, even if you’ve embraced cloud technologies like virtualization, it’s unlikely you’re able to make good use of them at the data layer. Most database technologies are not architected to allow elastic expansion or contraction of capacity or compute power, which makes it hard to achieve many of the benefits (and cost savings) of cloud technologies.

To solve these problems you need to start thinking differently about your data center strategy. You need to be thinking about a data-centered data center, versus today’s more application-centered model.

Q2. You talked about a “data-centered” data center? What is it? and what is the difference with respect to a classical Data-Warehouse?

David Gorbet: To understand what I mean by “data-centered” data center, you have to think about the alternative, which is more application-centered. Today, if you have data that’s useful, you build an application or put it in a data warehouse to unlock its value. These are database applications, so you need to build out a database to power them. This database needs a schema, and that schema is optimized for the application. To build this schema, you need to understand both the data you’ll be using, and the queries that the application requires.
So you have to know in advance everything the application is going to do before you can build anything. What’s more, you then have to ETL this data from wherever it lives into the application-specific database.

Now, if you want another application, you have to do the same thing. Pretty soon, you have hundreds of data stores with data duplicated all over the place. Actually, it’s not really duplicated, it’s data derived from other data, because as you ETL the data you change its form losing some of the context and combining what’s left with bits of data from other sources. That’s even worse than straight-up duplication because provenance is seldom retained through this process, so it’s really hard to tell where data came from and trace it back to its source. Now imagine that you have to correct some data.
Can you be sure that the correction flowed through to every downstream system? Or what if you have to delete data due to a privacy issue, or change security permissions on data? Even with “small data” this is complicated, but it’s much harder and costlier with high volumes of data.

A “data-centered” data center is one that is focused on the data, its use, and its governance through its lifecycle as the primary consideration. It’s architected to allow a single management and governance model, and to bring the applications to the data, rather than copying data to the applications. With the right technologies, you can build a data-centered data center that minimizes all the data duplication, gives you consistent data governance, enables flexibility both in application development over the data and in scaling up and down capacity to match demand, allowing you to manage your data securely and cost-effectively throughout its lifecycle.

Q3. Data center resources are typically stored in three silos: compute, storage and network: is this a problem?

David Gorbet: It depends on your technology choices. Some data management technologies require direct-attached storage (DAS), so obviously you can’t manage storage separately with that kind of technology. Others can make use of either DAS or shared storage like SAN or NAS.
With the right technology, it’s not necessarily a problem to have storage managed independently from compute.
The real problem here is the word “silo.” To answer today’s data challenges requires a holistic approach. Your storage, network and compute need to work together.

Your question could also apply to application architectures. Traditionally, applications are built in a three-tiered architecture, with a DBMS for data management, an application server for business logic, and a front-end client where the UI lives. There are very good reasons for this architecture, and I believe it’s likely to be the predominant model for years to come. But even though business logic is supposed to reside in the app server, every enterprise DBMS supports stored procedures, and these are commonly used to leverage compute power near the data for cases where it would be too slow and inefficient to move data to the middle tier. Increasingly, enterprise DBMSes also have sophisticated built-in functions (and in many cases user-defined functions) to make it easy to do things that are most efficiently done right where the data lives. Analytic aggregate calculations are a good example of this. Compute doesn’t just reside in the middle tier.

This is nothing new, so why am I bringing it up? Because as data volumes grow larger, the problem of moving data out of the DBMS to do something with it is going to get a lot worse. Consider for example the problem faced by the National Cancer Institute. The current model for institutions wanting to do research based on genomic data is to download a data set and analyze it. But by the end of 2014, the Cancer Genome Atlas is expected to have grown from less than 500 TB to 2.5 PB. Just downloading 2.5 PB, even over 10-gigabit network would take almost a month.

The solution? Bring more compute to the data. The implication? Twofold: First, methods for narrowing down data sets prior to acting on them are critical. This is why search technology is fast becoming a key feature of a next-generation DBMS. Search is the query language for unstructured data, and if you have complex data with a mix of structured and unstructured components, you need to be able to mix search and query seamlessly. Second, DBMS technologies need to become much more powerful so that they can execute sophisticated programs and computations efficiently where the data lives, scoped in real-time to a search that can narrow the input set down significantly. That’s the only way this stuff is going to get fast enough to happen in real-time. Another way of putting this is that the “M” in DBMS is going to increase in scope. It’s not enough just to store and retrieve data. Modern DBMS technology needs to be able to do complex, useful computations on it as well.

Q4. How do you build such a “data-centered” data center?

David Gorbet: First you need to change your mindset. Think about the data as the center of everything. Think about managing your data in one place, and bringing the application to the data by exposing data services off your DBMS. The implications for how you architect your systems are significant. Think service-oriented architectures and continuous deployment models.

Next, you need the right technology stack. One that can provide application functionality for transactions, search and discovery, analytics, and batch computation with a single governance and scale model. You need a storage system that gives great SLAs on high-value data and great TCO on lower-value data, without ETL. You need the ability to expand and contract compute power to serve the application needs in real time without downtime, and to run this infrastructure on premises or in the cloud.

You need the ability to manage data throughout its lifecycle, to take it offline for cost savings while leaving it available for batch analytics, and to bring it back online for real-time search, discovery or analytics within minutes if necessary. To power applications, you need the ability to create powerful, performant and secure data services and expose them right from where the data lives, providing the data in the format needed by your application on the fly.
We call this “schema on read.”

Of course all this has to be enterprise class, with high availability, disaster recovery, security, and all the enterprise functionality your data deserves, and it has to fit in your shrinking IT budget. Sounds impossible, but the technology exists today to make this happen.

Q5. For what kind of mission critical apps is such a “data-centered” data center useful?

David Gorbet: If you have a specific application that uses specific data, and you won’t need to incorporate new data sources to that application or use that data for another application, then you don’t need a data-centered data center. Unfortunately, I’m having a hard time thinking of such an application. Even the dull line of business apps don’t stand alone anymore. The data they create and maintain is sent to a data warehouse for analysis.
The new mindset is that all data is potentially valuable, and that isn’t just restricted to data created in-house.
More and more data comes from outside the organization, whether in the form of reference data, social media, linked data, sensor data, log data… the list is endless.

A data-centered data center strategy isn’t about a specific application or application type. It’s about the way you have to think about your data in this new era.

Q6. How Hadoop fits into this “data-centered” data center?

David Gorbet: Hadoop is a key enabling technology for the data-centered data center. HDFS is a great file system for storing loads of data cheaply.
I think of it as the new shared storage infrastructure for “big data.” Now HDFS isn’t fast, so if you need speed, you may need NAS, SAN, or even DAS or SSD. But if you have a lot of data, it’s going to be much cheaper to store it in HDFS than in traditional data center storage technologies. Hadoop MapReduce is a great technology for batch analytics. If you want to comb through a lot of data and do some pretty sophisticated stuff to it, this is a good way to do it. The downside to MapReduce is that it’s for batch jobs. It’s not real-time.

So Hadoop is an enabling technology for a data-centered data center, but it needs to be complemented with high-performance storage technologies for data that needs this kind of SLA, and more powerful analytic technologies for real-time search, discovery and analysis. Hadoop is not a DBMS, so you also need a DBMS with Hadoop to manage transactions, security, real-time query, etc.

Q7. What are the main challenges when designing an ETL strategy?

David Gorbet: ETL is hard to get right, but the biggest challenge is maintaining it. Every app has a v2, and usually this means new queries that require new data that needs a new schema and revised ETL. ETL also just fundamentally adds complexity to a solution.
It adds latency since many ETL jobs are designed to run in batches. It’s hard to track provenance of data through ETL, and it’s hard to apply data security and lifecycle management rules through ETL. This isn’t the fault of ETL or ETL tools.
It’s just that the model is fundamentally complex.

Q8. With Big Data analytics you don’t know in advance what data you’re going to need (or get in the future). What is the solution to this problem?

David Gorbet: This is a big problem for relational technologies, where you need to design a schema that can fit all your data up front.
The best approach here is to use a technology that does not require a predefined schema, and that allows you to store different entities with different schemas (or no schema) together in the same database and analyze them together.
A document database, which is a type of NoSQL database, is great for this, but be careful which one you choose because some NoSQL databases don’t do transactions and some don’t have the indexing capability you need to search and query the data effectively.
Another trend is to use Semantic Web technology. This involves modeling data as triples, which represent assertions with a subject, a predicate, and an object.
Like “This derivative (subject) is based on (predicate) this underlying instrument (object).”
It turns out you can model pretty much any data that way, and you can invent new relationships (predicates) on the fly as you need them.
No schema required. It’s also easy to relate data entities together, since triples are ideal for modeling relationships. The challenge with this approach is that there’s still quite a bit of thought required to figure out the best way to represent your data as triples. To really make it work, you need to define rules about what predicates you’re going to allow and what they mean so that data is modeled consistently.

Q9. What is the cost to analyze a terabyte of data?

David Gorbet: That depends on what technologies you’re using, and what SLAs are required on that data.
If you’re ingesting new data as you analyze, and you need to feed some of the results of the analysis back to the data in real time, for example if you’re analyzing risk on derivatives trades before confirming them, and executing business rules based on that, then you need fast disk, a fair amount of compute power, replicas of your data for HA failover, and additional replicas for DR. Including compute, this could cost you about $25,000/TB.
If your data is read-only and your analysis does not require high-availability, for example a compliance application to search those aforementioned derivatives transactions, you can probably use cheaper, more tightly packed storage and less powerful compute, and get by with about $4,000/TB. If you’re doing mostly batch analytics and can use HDFS as your storage, you can do this for as low as $1,500/TB.

This wide disparity in prices is exactly why you need a technology stack that can provide real-time capability for data that needs it, but can also provide great TCO for the data that doesn’t. There aren’t many technologies that can work across all these data tiers, which is why so many organizations have to ETL their data out of their transactional system to an analytic or archive system to get the cost savings they need. The best solution is to have a technology that can work across all these storage tiers and can manage migration of data through its lifecycle across these tiers seamlessly.
Again, this is achievable today with the right technology choices.

David Gorbet, Vice President, Engineering, MarkLogic.
David brings two decades of experience bringing to market some of the highest-volume applications and enterprise software in the world. David has shipped dozens of releases of business and consumer applications, server products and services ranging from open source to large-scale online services for businesses, and twice has helped start and grow billion-dollar software products.

Prior to MarkLogic, David helped pioneer Microsoft’s business online services strategy by founding and leading the SharePoint Online team. In addition to SharePoint Online, David has held a number of positions at Microsoft and elsewhere with a number of products, including Microsoft Office, Extricity B2Bi server software, and numerous incubation products.

David holds a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Systems Design Engineering with an additional major in Psychology from the University of Waterloo, and an MBA from the University of Washington Foster School of Business.

Related Posts

On Linked Data. Interview with John Goodwin. ODBMS Industry September 1, 2013

On NoSQL. Interview with Rick Cattell. ODBMS Industry Watch August 19, 2013


Got Loss? Get zOVN!
Authors: Daniel Crisan, Robert Birke, Gilles Cressier, Cyriel Minkenberg and Mitch Gusat. IBM Research – Zurich Research Laboratory.
Abstract: Datacenter networking is currently dominated by two major trends. One aims toward lossless, flat layer-2 fabrics based on Converged Enhanced Ethernet or InfiniBand, with ben- efits in efficiency and performance.

F1: A Distributed SQL Database That Scales
Authors: Jeff Shute, Radek Vingralek, Eric Rollins, Stephan Ellner, Traian Stancescu, Bart Samwel, Mircea Oancea, John Cieslewicz, Himani Apte, Ben Handy, Kyle Littlefield, Ian Rae*. Google, Inc., *University of Wisconsin-Madison
Abstract: F1 is a distributed relational database system built at Google to support the AdWords business.


David Gorbet will be speaking at MarkLogic World in San Francisco from April 7-10, 2014.

ODBMS.org on Twitter: @odbmsorg

http://www.odbms.org/blog/2014/03/data-centers-challenges-interview-david-gorbet/feed/ 0
On SQL and NoSQL. Interview with Dave Rosenthal http://www.odbms.org/blog/2014/03/dave-rosenthal/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2014/03/dave-rosenthal/#comments Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:04:45 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=2932

“Despite the obvious shared word ‘transaction’ and the canonical example of a database transaction which modifies multiple bank accounts, I don’t think that database transactions are particularly relevant to financial applications.”–Dave Rosenthal.

On SQL and NoSQL, I have interviewed Dave Rosenthal CEO of FoundationDB.


Q1. What are the suggested criteria for users when they need to choose between durability for lower latency, higher throughput and write availability?

Dave Rosenthal: There is a tradeoff in available between commit latency and durability–especially in distributed databases. At one extreme a database client can just report success immediately (without even talking to the database server) and buffer the writes in the background. Obviously, that hides latency well, but you could lose a suffix of transactions. At the other extreme, you can replicate writes across multiple machines, fsync them on each of the machines, and only then report success to the client.

FoundationDB is optimized to provide good performance in its default setting, which is the safest end of that tradeoff.

Usually, if you want some reasonable amount of durability guarantee, you are talking about a commit latency of small constant factor times the network latency. So, the real latency issues come with databases spanning multiple data centers. In that case FoundationDB users are able to choose whether or not they want durability guarantees in all data centers before commit (increasing commitment latencies), which is our default setting, or whether they would like to relax durability guarantees by returning a commit when the data is fsync’d to disk in just one datacenter.

All that said, in general, we think that the application is usually a more appropriate place to try to hide latency than the database.

Q2. Justin Sheehy of Basho in an interview said [1] “I would most certainly include updates to my bank account as applications for which eventual consistency is a good design choice. In fact, bankers have understood and used eventual consistency for far longer than there have been computers in the modern sense”. What is your opinion on this?

Dave Rosenthal: Yes, we totally agree with Justin. Despite the obvious shared word ‘transaction’ and the canonical example of a database transaction which modifies multiple bank accounts, I don’t think that database transactions are particularly relevant to financial applications. In fact, true ACID transactions are way more broadly important than that. They give you the ability to build abstractions and systems that you can provide guarantees about.
As Michael Cahill says in his thesis which became the SIGMOD paper of the year: “Serializable isolation enables the development of a complex system by composing modules, after verifying that each module maintains consistency in isolation.” It’s this incredibly important ability to compose that makes a system with transactions special.

Q3. FoundationDB claim to provide full ACID transactions. How do you do that?

Dave Rosenthal: In the same basic way as many other transactional databases do. We use a few strategies that tend to work well in distributed system such as optimistic concurrency and MVCC. We also, of course, have had to solve some of the fundamental challenges associated with distributed systems and all of the crazy things that can happen in them. Honestly, it’s not very hard to build a distributed transactional database. The hard part is making it work gracefully through failure scenarios and to run fast.

Q4. Is this similar to Oracle NoSQL?

Dave Rosenthal: Not really. Both Oracle NoSQL and FoundationDB provide an automatically-partitioned key-value store with fault tolerance. Both also have a concept of ordering keys (for efficient range operations) though Oracle NoSQL only provides ordering “within a Major Key set”. So, those are the similarities, but there are a bunch of other NoSQL systems with all those properties. The huge difference is that FoundationDB provides for ACID transactions over arbitrary keys and ranges, while Oracle NoSQL does not.

Q5. How would you compare your product offering with respect to NoSQL data stores, such as CouchDB, MongoDB, Cassandra and Riak, and NewSQL such as NuoDB and VoltDB?

Dave Rosenthal: The most obvious response for the NoSQL data stores would be “we have ACID transactions, they don’t”, but the more important difference is in philosophy and strategy.

Each of those products expose a single data model and interface. Maybe two. We are pursuing a fundamentally different strategy.
We are building a storage substrate that can be adapted, via layers, to provide a variety of data models, APIs, and true flexibility.
We can do that because of our transactional capabilities. CouchDB, MongoDB, Cassandra and Riak all have different APIs and we talk to companies that run all of those products side-by-side. The NewSQL database players are also offering a single data model, albeit a very popular one, SQL. FoundationDB is offering an ever increasing number of data models through its “layers”, currently including several popular NoSQL data models and with SQL being the next big one to hit. Our philosophy is that you shouldn’t have to increase the complexity of your architecture by adopting a new NoSQL database each time your engineers need access to a new data model.

Q6. Cloud computing and open source: How does it relate to FoundationDB?

Dave Rosenthal: Cloud computing: FoundationDB has been designed from the beginning to run well in cloud environments that make use of large numbers of commodity machines connected through a network. Probably the most important aspect of a distributed database designed for cloud deployment is exceptional fault tolerance under very harsh and strange failure conditions – the kind of exceptionally unlikely things that can only happen when you have many machines working together with components failing unpredictably. We have put a huge amount of effort into testing FoundationDB in these grueling scenarios, and feel very confident in our ability to perform well in these types of environments. In particular, we have users running FoundationDB successfully on many different cloud providers, and we’ve seen the system keep its guarantees under real-world hardware and network failure conditions experienced by our users.

Open source: Although FoundationDB’s core data storage engine is closed source, our layer ecosystem is open source. Although the core data storage engine has a very simple feature set, and is very difficult to properly modify while maintaining correctness, layers are very feature rich and because they are stateless, are much easier to create and modify which makes them well suited to third-party contributions.

Q7 Pls give some examples of use cases where FoundationDB is currently in use. Is FoundationDB in use for analyzing Big Data as well?

Dave Rosenthal: Some examples: User data, meta data, user social graphs, geo data, via ORMs using the SQL layer, metrics collection, etc.

We’ve mostly focused on operational systems, but a few of our customers have built what I would call “big data” applications, which I think of as analytics-focused. The most common use case has been for collecting and analyzing time-series data. FoundationDB is strongest in big data applications that call for lots of random reads and writes, not just big table scans—which many systems can do well.

Q8. Rick Cattel said in an recent interview [2] “there aren’t enough open source contributors to keep projects competitive in features and performance, and the companies supporting the open source offerings will have trouble making enough money to keep the products competitive themselves”. What is your opinion on this?

Dave Rosenthal: People have great ideas for databases all the time. New data models, new query languages, etc.
If nothing else, this NoSQL experiment that we’ve all been a part of the past few years has shown us all the appetite for data models suited to specific problems. They would love to be able to build these tools, open source them, etc.
The problem is that the checklist of practical considerations for a database is huge: Fault tolerance, scalability, a backup solution, management and monitoring, ACID transactions, etc. Add those together and even the simplest concept sounds like a huge project.

Our vision at FoundationDB is that we have done the hard work to build a storage substrate that simultaneously solves all those tricky practical problems. Our engine can be used to quickly build a database layer for any particular application that inherits all of those solutions and their benefits, like scalability, fault tolerance and ACID compliance.

Q9. Nick Heudecker of Gartner, predicts that [3] “going forward, we see the bifurcation between relational and NoSQL DBMS markets diminishing over time” . What is your take on this?

Dave Rosenthal: I do think that the lines between SQL and NoSQL will start to blur and I believe that we are leading that charge.We acquired another database startup last year called Akiban that builds an amazing SQL database engine.
In 2014 we’ll be bringing that engine to market as a layer running on top of FoundationDB. That will be a true ANSI SQL database operating as a module directly on top of a transactional “NoSQL” engine, inheriting the operational benefits of our core storage engine – scalability, fault tolerance, ease of operation.

When you run multiple of the SQL layer modules, you can point many of them at the same key-space in FoundationDB and it’s as if they are all part of the same database, with ACID transactions enforced across the separate SQL layer processes.
It’s very cool. Of course, you can even run the SQL layer on a FoundationDB cluster that’s also supporting other data models, like graph or document. That’s about as blurry as it gets.

Dave Rosenthal is CEO of FoundationDB. Dave started his career in games, building a 3D real-time strategy game with a team of high-school friends that won the 1st annual Independent Games Festival. Previously, Dave was CTO at Visual Sciences, a pioneering web-analytics company that is now part of Adobe. Dave has a degree in theoretical computer science from MIT.

Related Posts
Operational Database Management Systems. Interview with Nick Heudecker, ODBMS Industry Watch December 16, 2013

Follow ODBMS.org on Twitter: @odbmsorg


http://www.odbms.org/blog/2014/03/dave-rosenthal/feed/ 0
Challenges and Opportunities for Big Data. Interview with Mike Hoskins http://www.odbms.org/blog/2013/12/challenges-and-opportunities-for-big-data-interview-with-mike-hoskins/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2013/12/challenges-and-opportunities-for-big-data-interview-with-mike-hoskins/#comments Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:52:01 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=2821

“We are facing an imminent torrent of machine generated data, creating volumes that will break the back of conventional hardware and software architectures. It is no longer be feasible to move the data to the compute process – the compute process has to be moved to the data” –Mike Hoskins.

On the topic, Challenges and Opportunities for Big Data, I have interviewed Mike Hoskins, Actian Chief Technology Officer.


Q1. What are in your opinion the most interesting opportunities in Big Data?

Mike Hoskins: Until recently, most data projects were solely focused on preparation. Seminal developments in the big data landscape, including Hortonworks Data Platform (HDP) 2.0 and the arrival of YARN (Yet Another Resource Negotiator) – which takes Hadoop’s capabilities in data processing beyond the limitations of the highly regimented and restrictive MapReduce programming model – provides an opportunity to move beyond the initial hype of big data and instead towards the more high-value work of predictive analytics.
As more big data applications are built on the Hadoop platform customized by industry and business needs, we’ll really begin to see organizations leveraging predictive analytics across the enterprise – not just in a sandbox or in the domain of the data scientists, but in the hands of the business users. At that point, more immediate action can be taken on insights.

Q2. What are the most interesting challenges in Big Data?

Mike Hoskins: We are facing an imminent torrent of machine generated data, creating volumes that will break the back of conventional hardware and software architectures. It is no longer be feasible to move the data to the compute process – the compute process has to be moved to the data. Companies need to rethink their static and rigid business intelligence and analytic software architectures in order to continue working at the speed of business. It’s clear that time has become the new gold standard – you can’t produce more of it; you can only increase the speed at which things happen.
Software vendors with the capacity to survive and thrive in this environment will keep pace with the competition by offering a unified platform, underpinned by engineering innovation, completeness of solution and the service integrity and customer support that is essential to market staying power.

Q3. Steve Shine, CEO and President, Actian Corporation, said in a recent interview (*) that “the synergies in data management come not from how the systems connect but how the data is used to derive business value”. Actian has completed a number of acquisitions this year. So, what is your strategy for Big Data at Actian?

Mike Hoskins: Actian has placed its bets on a completely modern unified platform that is designed to deliver on the opportunities presented by the Age of Data. Our technology assets bring a level of maturity and innovation to the space that no other technology vendor can provide – with 30+ years of expertise in ‘all things data’ and over $1M investment in innovation. Our mission is to arm organizations with solutions that irreversibly shift the price/performance curve beyond the reach of traditional legacy stack players, allowing them to get a leg up on the competition, retain customers, detect fraud, predict business trends and effectively use data as their most important asset.

Q4. What are the products synergies related to such a strategy?

Mike Hoskins: Through the acquisition of Pervasive Software (a provider of big data analytics and cloud-based and on-premises data management and integration), Versant (an industry leader in specialized data management), and ParAccel (a leader in high-performance analytics), Actian has compiled a unified end-to-end platform with capabilities to connect, prep, optimize and analyze data natively on Hadoop, and then offer it to the necessary reporting and analytics environments to meet virtually any business need. All the while, operating on commodity hardware at a much lower cost than legacy software can ever evolve to.

Q5. What else still need to be done at Actian to fully deploy this strategy?

Mike Hoskins: There are definitely opportunities to continue integrating the platform experience and improve the user experience overall. Our world-class database technology can be brought closer to Hadoop, and we will continue innovating on analytic techniques to grow our stack upward.
Our development team is working diligently to create a common user interface across all of our platforms, as we bring out technology together. We have the opportunity to create a true first-class SQL engine running natively Hadoop, and to more fully exploit market leading cooperative computing with our On-Demand Integration (ODI) capabilities. I would also like to raise the awareness of the power and speed of our offerings as a general paradigm for analytic applications.

We don’t know what new challenges the Age of Data will bring, but we will continue to look to the future and build out a technology infrastructure to help organizations deal with the only constant – change.

Q6. What about elastic computing in the Cloud? How does it relate to Big Data Analytics?

Mike Hoskins: Elastic cloud computing is a convulsive game changer in the marketplace. It’s positive; if not where you do full production, at the very least it allows people to test, adopt and experiment with their data in a way that they couldn’t before. For cases where data is born in the cloud, using a 100% cloud model makes sense. However, much data is highly distributed in cloud and on-premises systems and applications, so it’s vital to have technology that can run and connect to either environments via a hybrid model.

We will soon see more organizations utilizing cloud platforms to run analytic processes, if that is where their data is born and lives.

Q7. How is your Cloud technology helping Amazon`s Redshift?

Mike Hoskins: Amazon Redshift leverages our high-performance analytics database technology to help users get the most out of their cloud investment. Amazon selected our technology over all other database and data warehouse technologies available in the marketplace because of the incredible performance, extreme scalability, and flexibility.

Q8. Hadoop is still quite new for many enterprises, and different enterprises are at different stages in their Hadoop journey.
When you speak with your customers what are the typical use cases and requirements they have?

Mike Hoskins: A recent survey of data architects and CIOs by Sand Hill Group revealed that the top challenge of Hadoop adoption was knowledge and experience with the Hadoop platform, followed by the availability of Hadoop and big data skills, and finally the amount of technology development required to implement a Hadoop-based solution. This just goes to show how little we have actually begun to fully leverage the capabilities of Hadoop. Businesses are really only just starting to dip their toe in the analytic water. Although it’s still very early, the majority of use cases that we have seen are centered around data prep and ETL.

Q9. What do you think is still needed for big data analytics to be really useful for the enterprise?

Mike Hoskins: If we look at the complete end-to-end data pipeline, there are several things that are still needed for enterprises to take advantage of the opportunities. This includes high productivity, performant integration layers, and analytics that move beyond the sphere of data science and into mainstream business usage, with discovery analytics through a simple UI studio or an analytics-as-a-service offering. Analytics need to be made more available in the critical discovery phase, to bring out the outcomes, patterns, models, discoveries, etc. and begin applying them to business processes.

Qx. Anything else you wish to add?

Mike Hoskins: These kinds of highly disruptive periods are, frankly, unnerving for the marketplace and businesses. Organizations cannot rely on traditional big stack vendors, who are unprepared for the tectonic shift caused by big data, and therefore are not agile enough to rapidly adjust their platforms to deliver on the opportunities. Organizations are forced to embark on new paths and become their own System Integrators (SIs).

On the other hand, organizations cannot tie their future to the vast number of startups, throwing darts to find the one vendor that will prevail. Instead, they need a technology partner somewhere in the middle that understands data in-and-out, and has invested completely and wholly as a dedicated stack to help solve the challenge.

Although it’s uncomfortable, it is urgent that organizations look at modern architectures, next-generation vendors and innovative technology that will allow them to succeed and stay competitive in the Age of Data.

Mike Hoskins, Actian Chief Technology Officer
Actian CTO Michael Hoskins directs Actian’s technology innovation strategies and evangelizes accelerating trends in big data, and cloud-based and on-premises data management and integration. Mike, a Distinguished and Centennial Alumnus of Ohio’s Bowling Green State University, is a respected technology thought leader who has been featured in TechCrunch, Forbes.com, Datanami, The Register and Scobleizer. Mike has been a featured speaker at events worldwide, including Strata NY + Hadoop World 2013, the keynoter at DeployCon 2012, the “Open Standards and Cloud Computing” panel at the Annual Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, the “Scaling the Database in the Cloud” panel at Structure 2010, and the “Many Faces of Map Reduce – Hadoop and Beyond” panel at Structure Big Data 2011. Mike received the AITP Austin chapter’s 2007 Information Technologist of the Year Award for his leadership in developing Actian DataRush, a highly parallelized framework to leverage multicore. Follow Mike on Twitter: @MikeHSays.

Related Posts

Big Data Analytics at Thomson Reuters. Interview with Jochen L. Leidner. November 15, 2013

On Big Data. Interview with Adam Kocoloski. November 5, 2013

Data Analytics at NBCUniversal. Interview with Matthew Eric Bassett. September 23, 2013

(*) Acquiring Versant –Interview with Steve Shine. March 6, 2013


“Do You Hadoop? A Survey of Big Data Practitioners”, Bradley Graham M. R. Rangaswami, SandHill Group, October 29, 2013 (.PDF)

ActianVectorwise 3.0: Fast Analytics and Answers from Hadoop. Actian Corporation
Paper | Technical | English | DOWNLOAD(PDF)| May 2013|

http://www.odbms.org/blog/2013/12/challenges-and-opportunities-for-big-data-interview-with-mike-hoskins/feed/ 1
On Big Data and NoSQL. Interview with Renat Khasanshyn. http://www.odbms.org/blog/2013/10/on-big-data-and-nosql-interview-with-renat-khasanshyn/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2013/10/on-big-data-and-nosql-interview-with-renat-khasanshyn/#comments Mon, 07 Oct 2013 19:50:27 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=2636

“The most important thing is to focus on a task you need to solve instead of a technology” –Renat Khasanshyn.

I have interviewed Renat Khasanshyn, Founder and Chairman of Altoros.
Renat is a NoSQL and Big Data specialist.


Q1. In your opinion, what are the most popular players in the NoSQL market?

Khasanshyn: I think, MongoDB is definitely one of the key players of the NoSQL market. This database has a long history, I mean for this kind of products, and a good commercial support. For many people this database became the first mass market NoSQL store. I can assume that MongoDB is going to become something like MySQL for the field of relational databases. The second position I would give to Cassandra. It has a great architecture and enables building clusters with geographically dispersed nodes. For me it seems absolutely amazing. In addition, this database is often chosen by big companies that need a large highly available cluster.

Q2. How do you evaluate and compare different NoSQL Databases?

Khasanshyn: Thank you for an interesting question. How to choose a database? Which one is the best? These are the main questions for any company that wants to try a NoSQL solution. Definitely, for some cases it may be quite easy to select a suitable NoSQL store. However, very often it is not enough just to know customer’s business goals. When we suggest a particular database we take into consideration the following factors: the business issues a NoSQL store should solve, database reading/writing speed, availability, scalability, and many other important indicators. Sometimes we use a hybrid solution that may include several NoSQL databases.
Or we can see that a relational database will be a good match for a case. The most important thing is to focus on a task you need to solve instead of a technology.

We think that a good scalability, performance, and ease of administration are the most important criteria for choosing a NoSQL database. These are the key factors that we take into consideration. Of course, there are some additional criteria that sometimes may be even more important than those mentioned above. To somehow simplify a choice of a database for our engineers and for many other people, for two years, we carry out independent tests that evaluate performance of different NoSQL databases. Although aimed at comparing performance, these investigations also touch consistency, scalability, and configuration issues. You can take a look at our most recent article on this subject on Network World. Some new researches on this subject are to be published in a couple of months.

Q3. Which NoSQL databases did you evaluate so far, and what are the results did you obtain?

Khasanshyn: We used a great variety of NoSQL databases, for instance, Cassandra, HBase, MongoDB, Riak, Couchbase Server, Redis, etc. for our researches and real-life projects. From this experience, we learned that one should be very careful when choosing a database. It is better to spend more time on architecture design and make some changes to the project in the beginning rather than come across a serious issue in the future.

Q4. For which projects did use NoSQL databases and for what kind of problems?

Khasanshyn: It is hardly possible to name a project for which a NoSQL database would be useless, except for a blog or a home page. As the main use cases for NoSQL stores I would mention the following tasks:

● collecting and analyzing large volumes of data
● scaling large historical databases
● building interactive applications for which performance and fast response time to users’ actions are crucial

The major “drawback” of NoSQL architecture is the absence of ACID engine that provides a verification of transaction. It means that financial operations or user registration should be better performed by RDBMS like Oracle or MS SQL. However, absence of ACID allows for significant acceleration and decentralization of NoSQL databases which are their major advantages. The bottom line, non-relational databases are much faster in general, and they pay for it with a fraction of their reliability. Is it a good tradeoff? Depends on the task.

Q5. What do you see happening with NoSQL, going forward?

Khasanshyn: It’s quite difficult to make any predictions, but we guess that NoSQL and relational databases will become closer. For instance, NewSQL solutions took good scalability from NoSQL and a query language from the SQL products.
Probably, a kind of a standard query language based on SQL or SQL-like language will soon appear for NoSQL stores. We are also looking forward to improved consistency, or to be more precise, better predictability of NoSQL databases. In other words, NoSQL solutions should become more mature. We will also see some market consolidation. Smaller players will form alliances or quit the game. Leaders will take bigger part of the market. We will most likely see a couple of acquisitions. Overall, it will be easier to work with NoSQL and to choose a right solution out of the available options.

Q6. What what do you think is still needed for big data analytics to be really useful for the enterprise?

Khasanshyn: It is all about people and their skills. Storage is relatively cheap and available. Variety of databases is enormous and it helps solving virtually any task. Hadoop is stable. Majority of software is open source-based, or at least doesn’t cost a fortune. But all these components are useless without data scientists who can do modeling and simulations on the existing data. As well as without engineers who can efficiently employ the toolset. As well as without managers who understand the outcomes of data handling revolution that happened just recently. When we have these three types of people in place, then we will say that enterprises are fully equipped for making an edge in big data analytics.

Q7. Hadoop is still quite new for many enterprises, and different enterprises are at different stages in their Hadoop journey. When you speak with your customers what are the typical use cases and requirements they have?

Khasanshyn: I agree with you. Some customers just make their first steps with Hadoop while others need to know how to optimize their Hadoop-based systems. Unfortunately, the second group of customers is much smaller. I can name the following typical tasks our customers have:

● To process historical data that has been collected for a long period of time. Some time ago, users were unable to process large volumes of unstructured data due to some financial and technical limitations. Now Hadoop can do it at a moderate cost and for reasonable time.

● To develop a system for data analysis based on Hadoop. Once an hour, the system builds patterns on a typical user behavior on a Web site. These patterns help to react to users’ actions in the real-time mode, for instance, allow doing something or temporary block some actions because they are not typical of this user. The data is collected continuously and is analyzed at the same time. So, the system can rapidly respond to the changes in the user behavior.

● To optimize data storage. It is interesting that in some cases HDFS can replace a database, especially when the database was used for storing raw input data. Such projects do not need an additional database level.

I should say that our customers have similar requirements. Apart from solving a particular business task, they need a certain level of performance and data consistency.

Q8. In your opinion is Hadoop replacing the role of OLAP (online analytical processing) in preparing data to answer specific questions?

Khasanshyn: In a few words, my answer is yes. Some specific features of Hadoop enable to prepare data for future analysis fast and at a moderate cost. In addition, this technology can work with unstructured data. However, I do not think it will happen very soon. There are many OLAP systems and they solve their tasks, doing it better or worse. In general enterprises are very reluctant to change something. In addition, replacing the OLAP tools requires additional investments. The good news is that we don’t have to choose one or another. Hadoop can be used as a pre-processor of the data for OLAP analysis. And analysts can work with the familiar tools.

Q9. How do you categorize the various stages of the Hadoop usage in the enterprises?

Khasanshyn: I would name the following stages of Hadoop usage:

1. Development of prototypes to check out whether Hadoop is suitable for their tasks
2. Using Hadoop in combination with other tools for storing and processing data of some business units
3. Implementation of a centralized enterprise data storage system and gradual integration of all business units into it

Q10. Data Warehouse vs Big “Data Lake”. What are the similarities and what are the differences?

Khasanshyn: Even though Big “Data Lake” is a metaphor, I do not really like it.
This name highlights that it is something limited, isolated from other systems. I would better call this concept a “Big Data Ocean”, because the data added to the system can interact with the surrounding systems. In my opinion, data warehouses are a bit outdated. At the earlier stage, such systems enabled companies to aggregate a lot of data in one central storage and arrange this data. All this was done with the acceptable speed. Now there are a lot of cheap storage solutions, so we can keep enormous volumes of data and process it much faster than with data warehouses.

The possibility to store large volumes of data is a common feature of data warehouses and a Big “Data Lake”. With a flexible architectures and broad capabilities for data analysis and discovery, a Big “Data Lake” provides a wider range of business opportunities. A modern company should adjust to changes very fast. The structure that was good yesterday may become a limitation today.

Q11. In your opinion, is there a technology which is best suited to build a Big Data Analytics Data Platform? If yes, which one?

Khasanshyn: As I have already said, there is no “magic bullet” that can cure every disease. There is no “Universal Big Data Analytics Data Platform” fitting each size; everything depends on the requirements of a particular business. A system of this kind should have the following features:

● A Hadoop-based system for storing and processing data
● An operational database that contains the most recent data, it can be raw data, that should be analyzed.
A NoSQL solution can be used for this case.
● A database for storing predicted indicators. Most probably, it should be a relational data store.
● A system that allows for creating data analysis algorithms. The R language can be used to complete this task.
● A report building system that provides access to data. For instance, there such good options like Tableau or Pentaho.

Q12. What about elastic computing in the Cloud? How does it relate to Big Data Analytics?

Khasanshyn: In my opinion, cloud computing became the force that raised a Big Data wave. Elastic computing enabled us to use the amount of computation resources we need and also reduced the cost of maintaining a large infrastructure.

There is a connection between elastic computing and big data analytics. For us it is quite a typical case that we have to process data from time to time, for instance, once a day. To solve this task, we can deploy a new cluster or just scale up an existing Hadoop cluster in the cloud environment. We can temporary increase the speed of data processing by scaling a Hadoop cluster. The task will be executed faster and after that we can stop the Hadoop cluster or reduce its size. I can even say, that cloud technologies is a must have component for a Big Data analysis system.


Renat Khasanshyn, Founder and Chairman, Altoros.
Renat is founder & CEO of Altoros, and Venture Partner at Runa Capital. Renat helps define Altoros’s strategic vision, and its role in Big Data, Cloud Computing, and PaaS ecosystem. Renat is a frequent conference and meetup speaker on this topic.
Under his supervision Altoros has been servicing such innovative companies as Couchbase, RightScale, Canonical, DataStax, Joyent, Nephoscale, and NuoDB.
In the past, Renat has been selected as finalist for the Emerging Executive of the Year award by the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council and once won an IBM Business Mashup Challenge. Prior to founding Altoros, Renat was VP of Engineering for Tampa-based insurance company PriMed. Renat is also founder of Apatar, an open source data integration toolset, founder of Silicon Valley NewSQL User Group and co-founder of the Belarusian Java User Group.

Related Posts

On NoSQL. Interview with Rick Cattell. August 19, 2013

On Oracle NoSQL Database –Interview with Dave Segleau. July 2, 2013

On Big Data and Hadoop. Interview with Paul C. Zikopoulos. June 10, 2013


Evaluating NoSQL Performance, Sergey Bushik, Altoros (Slideshare)

“A Vendor-independent Comparison of NoSQL Databases: Cassandra, HBase, MongoDB, Riak”. Altoros (registration required)

ODBMS.org free resources on Big Data and Analytical Data Platforms:
Blog Posts | Free Software| Articles | Lecture Notes | PhD and Master Thesis|

ODBMS.org free resources on NoSQL Data Stores:
Blog Posts | Free Software | Articles, Papers, Presentations| Documentations, Tutorials, Lecture Notes | PhD and Master Thesis

ODBMS.org free resources on Cloud Data Stores:
Blog Posts | Lecture Notes| Articles and Presentations| PhD and Master Thesis|


Follow ODBMS.org on Twitter: @odbmsorg


http://www.odbms.org/blog/2013/10/on-big-data-and-nosql-interview-with-renat-khasanshyn/feed/ 1