|
| Featured Contents |
| Question of the Day |
| The Voice of the DBA |
The Costs of Multiple Platforms I ran into an interesting post that noted the modern data platform can have a bunch of different systems underlying it. The example might be that your "software" could use PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Cassandra, Clickhouse, and something NewSQL (Spanner, CockroachDB, etc,). Some of you might think that's not reality, but keep in mind that for a lot of your organizations, the "software" is what the customer uses. I'm sure my bank has multiple systems behind the mobile app I use to pay for things, move money, check balances, etc. I would guess there is some DB/2, SQL Server, and some analytics or No/NewSQL stuff in there. Hidden as different applications that make up the "app", but they are still in there from my perspective as a user of the app. No one intentionally designs software like this, but we still see it. They might not even have 5 or 6 platforms in their organization, but almost none of the customers I work with have less than 3. Somehow, somewhere, someone added a PostgreSQL server to an Oracle/SQL Server environment. MongoDB crept in when someone thought it was a better store than DB/2 or MySQL. An article written about how Facebook or Spotify or some other high tech company used Cassanda or Snowflake inspired a developer to add that to their toolbelt and build it into their application. And the ease with which the cloud makes experimentation quick and cheap causes a spread of your database estate. There's a cost to having all these systems. Either an organization hires separate sets of experts to manage Ops, or they try and train lots of individuals to run multiple systems. It can be done, but those lightly trained people who have to focus on remembering the differences between SQL Server, PostgreSQL, and MongoDB will work slower. They'll solve problems with a higher MTTR. Even if they have a single pain of glass, like Redgate Monitor, they still won't be as effective as the number of platforms grow. It's just human nature. And if you hire separate teams, that's a cost as well. Heck, I'm a pretty good DBA and a good volleyball coach, but I get confused. When I got voluntold to manage DB/2 systems in addition to SQL Server, I got less done every day. When I coached two volleyball teams at the same time, I was less effective with each. It's hard to keep focused on multiple similar things. Add in the complexity of not only separate paradigms, but different ways to manage things in the cloud or on-premises and the operational cost is high. I'm not sure it exceeds any licensing cost or the cost of limiting what platforms developers can use. I would argue only allowing 1-2 platforms just makes you more efficient and your staff more effective. However. That's not the world. Even if I mandated that, often some external even changes my world. Companies get bought and integrated. New COTS software is needed, and it will, of course, run only on a database platform we don't run. There's a serious operational cost to adding new platforms that few consider. Even if they did, I'm not sure anything would change. Steve Jones - SSC Editor Join the debate, and respond to today's editorial on the forums |
| Featured Contents |
