What is a Cloud-native Database?

Before this series is complete, I plan on defining in some detail what the various levels of Cloud-nativeness might be to allow readers to classify products based on architecture, not marketing. In this post, I’ll lay out some general concepts. First, let’s be real about cloud-things that are not cloud-native.

Any database that runs on physical hardware can run on virtual machines and, therefore, can run on virtual machines in the cloud. Databases with no cloud capabilities other than the ability to run on a VM on a cloud-provider are not cloud-native. Worse, there are lots of anecdotal stories that suggest that there are no meaningful savings to be had from moving a database from an on-premise server or VM to a cloud VM with no other change to take advantage of cloud elasticity.

So here are two general definitions for your consideration:

1) A cloud-native database will have one or more features that utilize capabilities found only on a cloud-computing platform, and

2) A cloud-native database will demonstrate economic benefits derived from those cloud-specific features.

Note that the way you pay for services via capital expenses (CapEx) or as operating expenses (OpEx) does not provide economic benefit. If the monetary costs of a subscription are more-or-less equal to the financial costs of a license, then savings are tied to tax law, not to economics. Beware of cloudy subscriptions that change how you pay without clearly adding beneficial cloudy features. It is these subscriptions that often are the source of the no-savings anecdotes mentioned above.

This next point is about the separation of storage from compute. Companies have long ago disconnected their databases from just-a-bunch-of-disks (JBOD) to shared storage such as SAN or S3. Any database today can use shared storage. It is not useful to say that any database that can use shared storage has separated storage from compute. Using the idea that there must be features, not marketing, that allow compute to scale separately and more-or-less dynamically from storage as the definition, we will be able to move forward in this area.

So:

3) For storage to be appropriately separated from Compute, it must be possible to scale Compute up and down dynamically.

Next, when compute scales, it scales at different granularity. An application or database that automatically adds and subtracts virtual machines provides different economics than a database that scales using containers. Apps that add and subtract containers have different economics than applications that use so-called serverless containers to scale. In this dimension, we will try to characterize granularity to account for the associated cloud economics. This topic will be covered in more detail later, so I’ll save the rule for that post.

Note that it is possible for database vendors to develop a granular architecture and to use the associated economics to their advantage. They may charge you for the time when any part of your database is running but be billed by their provider for smaller chunks. This is not an issue unless their overall costs become uncompetitive.

Last, and in some ways least, different products may charge for time in smaller or larger chunks. You might be charged by the hour, by the minute, by the second, or in smaller increments. Think about the scaling economics I suggested in the first posts of this thread. If you are charged by the hour, then there is no financial incentive to scale up to finish jobs to the minute. You will be charged the same for ten minutes or fifty minutes when you are charged by the hour. The rule:

4) Cloud databases that charge in smaller time increments are more economical than those that charge in larger increments.

The rationale here is probably obvious, but I’ll cover it in-depth in a later post.

With these concepts in place, we can discuss how architectural changes affect each aspect of the economics of databases in the cloud.

Note that this last sentence was written assuming that a British computer scientist with an erudite accent would speak it when they create the PBS series from these posts. Not.

By the way, a few posts from now, I am going to go back to some ideas I shared five years ago around the relationship between database processing and the underlying hardware platform. I’ll update this thinking with cloud computing in mind. You can find this thinking here which originally came from Jeff Dean and Peter Norvig (displayed in lots of places but here is one).

Thoughts on AWS Redshift…

English: In visible light, 4C 71.07 is less th...
English: In visible light, 4C 71.07 is less than impressive, just a distant speck of light. It’s in radio and in X-rays – and now, gamma rays – that this object really shines. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The shared-nothing architecture has, from the beginning, offered the promise of using hardware to solve performance problems rather than applying staff and tuning. By this I mean… if you can add nodes and scale out to improve query response then why not throw hardware at performance problems rather than build a fragile infrastructure of aggregate tables, cubes, pre-joined/de-normalized marts, materialized views, indexes, etc. Each of these performance workarounds are both expensive to build and expensive to operate.

There are several reasons, I think tuning has been more popular than scaling. Not in any particular order:

First, hardware vendors made it too hard to order/provision new nodes. You could not just press a button and buy capacity. Vendors wanted to charge you for terabytes when all you wanted might be CPU and Memory to fix the problem (see here, sigh). You had to negotiate a deal with a rep, work through your procurement group, wait weeks for delivery. Then, the hardware you have might not match the hardware for sale. New models could not be mixed with old nodes… so you had to consider a whole new cluster.¬†The process was so not-agile. There have been attempts to fix this… and some of them are credible… but none are popular.

Next, the process to install the new nodes was moderately difficult… not rocket science but not seamless to be sure. Data had to move. Backups had to be reconfigured and sometimes old backups could not be easily restored to the new configuration. There was no easy way to burn in the new hardware and if it failed early there were issues reversing the process. It just was not considered an everyday operational process… it was the exception and that made it tough. This process too has improved over time but it never became a no-brainer.

Finally, buying hardware is a capital expense (CAPEX). Even if you had to pay more in people costs to do the hard work of tuning those were operational expenses… and funding was easier to get.

Redshift changes the game here. Even if the Paraccel database is just OK (see here)… and if the overhead of running in the virtualized¬†AWS environment makes it worse… it is still OK. You can provision new hardware in a couple of minutes. If Teradata is 25% faster than Paraccel for your query set… so what? You can add 25% more Redshift for a fraction of the extra cost of Teradata. Need more performance? Dial it in. Need permission? No problem because it is all OPEX dollars.

Redshift will deliver the flexibility to make scale out less expensive than tune it out. The TCO reductions from running a simple system where hardware solves performance problems instead of ETL and staff will be significant. This is how it always should have been.

The issue for Redshift will be… given the trend to reduce the data latency from operations to BI… can you move significant amounts of data from on-premise into the cloud fast enough to meet service level agreements?

Do not overlook Redshift… Amazon could be a player in the EDW space… But look for other databases to make inroads here as well. In-memory databases could work well in the cloud as they avoid some of the hardware abstraction required to access disks.