I immediately recognized the Exadata Storage Server as a "me too" product, copying the idea from IBM's [InfoSphere Balanced Warehouse]which combines IBM servers, IBM storage and IBM's DB2 database software to accomplish this, but from a singlevendor, rather than a collaboration of two vendors.The Balanced Warehouse has been around for a while. I even blogged about this last year, in my post[IBMCombo trounces HP and Sun] when IBM announced its latest E7100 model. IBM offers three different sizes: C-class for smaller SMB workloads, D-class for moderate size workloads, and E-class for large enterprise workloads.
One would think that since IBM and Oracle are the top two database software vendors, and IBM and HP are the toptwo storage hardware vendors, that IBM would be upset or nervous on this announcement. We're not. I would gladlyrecommend comparing IBM offerings with anything HP and Oracle have to offer. And with IBM's acquisition of Cognos,IBM has made a bold statement that it is serious about competing in the DW/BI market space.
But apparently, it struck a nerve over at EMC.
Fellow blogger Chuck Hollis from EMC went on the attack, and Oracle blogger Kevin Closson went on the defensive.For those readers who do not follow either, here is the latest chain of events:
- Kevin: [Oracle Exadata Storage Server - Part I, andPart II]
- Chuck: [Oracle Does Hardware]
- Kevin: [A Black Box with No Statistics, and
No Magic in an Imperfect World]
- Kevin: [PessimisticFeelings about New Technology]
- Chuck: [I annoy Kevin Closson at Oracle]
When it comes to blog fights like these, there are no clear winners or losers, but hopefully, if done respectfully,can benefit everyone involved, giving readers insight to the products as well as the company cultures that produce them.Let's see how each side fared:
Chuck implies that HP doesn't understand databases and Oracle doesn't understand server and storage hardware, socobbling together a solution based on this two-vendor collaboration doesn't make sense to him. The few I know who work at HP and Oracle are smart people, so I suspect this is more a claim againsteach company's "core strengths". Few would associate HP with database knowledge, or Oracle with hardware expertise,so I give Chuck a point on this one.
Of course, Chuck doesn't have deep, inside knowledge of this new offering, nor do I for that matter, and Kevin is patient enough to correct all of Chuck's mistaken assumptions and assertions. Kevin understands that EMC's "core strengths" isn't in servers or databases, so he explains things in simple enough terms that EMC employees can understand, so I give Kevin a point on this one.
So, what does Chuck propose as the preferred alternative: a three-way collaboration! EMC's counter-proposal is to cobble together [Dell servers, EMC storage, and Oracle software].
If two is bad, then three is worse! How much bubble gum and bailing wire do you need in your data center? The better option is to go to the one company that offers it all and brings it together into a single solution: IBM InfoSphere Balanced Warehouse.