Downloaded 47 times
Uploaded byKyle Hailey
Delphix and Pure Storage partner
The document discusses the advantages of supercharged performance and cost efficiency in storage solutions featuring Pure Storage and Delphix, highlighting their combined capabilities for optimizing Oracle database performance. It emphasizes significant metrics such as a 79 NPS score, a 30% reduction in Oracle TCO, and the ability to handle data operations with greater speed and flexibility. The partnership promotes a self-service approach, reducing build times and improving data quality for development and testing environments.
More Related Content
![Oracle Open World 2014: Lies, Damned Lies, and I/O Statistics [ CON3671]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/thursday115ionfs-141107125307-conversion-gate02-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Similar to Delphix and Pure Storage partner
Delphix and Pure Storage partner
- 1. Supercharged Performance at afraction of the price Kyle Hailey & Avi Nayak
- 2. Presenters Kyle Hailey @virtdata •Technical Evangelist at Delphix • Oracle ACE director, member of the OakTable Network Avi Nayak @pure_avi • Solutions Marketing at Pure Storage • Previously at Cisco, PayPal and Vmware.
- 3. A Uniquely Talented, SuperiorTeam 1,100+PURITANS STRONG TOP TALENT FROM ENGINEERING GO-TO-MARKET WEBSCALE STORAGE +
- 4. PLATFORM FOR STORAGE INNOVATION Our FoundingVision 2.91” 5.27” -9.85 ° SIMPLEFLASH + CLOUD SOFTWARE + HARDWARE BUSINESS MODEL DATA IS FOREVE R 8.18”+
- 5. 5 Leadership Driven byCustomer Success 50+ 0 TO 1,100+ CUSTOMERS IN 3 YEARS Source: Gartner Magic Quadrant for Solid State Arrays June 2015. This graphic was published byGartner, Inc. as part of a larger research document and should be evaluated in the context of the entire document. Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner's research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact.Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Magic Quadrant Solid State Arrays June 2015 $1 $5.50 For every $1 of initial product purchase, our top 25 customers on average spent $5.50 on new product purchases in the first 12 months following their initial purchase 79 NPS SCORE CERTIFIED BY
- 6. Accelerate Business Apps BoostOracle performance by 3X- no tuning required Lower Cost of Oracle Deployments Best in class data reduction for Oracle – reduces the size of Oracle footprint Shorten tedious activity like back up recovery of DB by up to 10X. Eliminate time spent on constantly modifying SQL statements to boost performance Eliminate storage IO wait times and deliver consistent sub-millisecond response times for DB/Apps Eliminate the need to license Oracle compression and encryption. Reduce over all Oracle TCO by 30% Free up DBA time to further strategic efforts Evergreen Storage model eliminates forklift upgrade related cost, time, and risk to data and business applications . Drive Simplicity and Agility
- 7. Oracle On PureStorage: Flexibility Without Compromise Any Block Size Any File System Few Big Many Small OR Any Number of LUNs Easily Resize LUNs RAID - 3D TM Redo DB OS No More RAID Pain
- 8. About Delphix Over 30%of Global 100 Run Faster With DaaS • Founded in 2008, launched in 2010 • CEO Jedidiah Yueh (founder of Avamar: >$1B revenue)) • Based in Silicon Valley, Global Operations
- 10. 10 PROD DEV DEV TestTest UAT DBA Sys Admin Storage Admin Legacy Data Movement: Slow & expensive ?
- 11. 11 PROD DEV DEV TestTest UAT Data as a Service : fast, elastic, secure Self Service
- 12. 12 Automation Jenkins Team CityTravis Virtual Data Configurati on Chef Puppet Ansible Vagrant Virtual Machine Vmware OpenStack Docker OVM ?
- 13. Clone 1 Clone3Clone 2 99% of blocks are identical
- 14. Clone 1 Clone2 Clone 3 Thin Clone
- 15. 15 Automation Jenkins Team CityTravis Virtual Data Configurati on Chef Puppet Ansible Vagrant Virtual Machines Vmware OpenStack Docker OVM Delphix
- 16. What We’ve SeenWith Out Delphix 1. Slow builds: delays, culture of no 2. Subset data: bugs 3. Expensive QA: high cost, low utilization
- 17. Physical Data: sharedbottlenecks Frustration Waiting
- 18. Physical Data: bugsbecause of old data Old Unrepresentative Data
- 19. Physical Data: subsetshard & lead to bugs False Negatives False Positives Bugs in Production
- 20.
- 21. Dev QA UATproduction Physical Data : late stage bugs 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cost Dev QA UAT Software Engineering Economics – Barry Boehm (1981) Production
- 22. companies unaware Developer orAnalystBoss, Storage Admin, DBA
- 23. Bureaucracy Developer Asks forDB Get Access Manager approves DBA Request system Setup DB System Admin Request storage Setup machine Storage Admin Allocate storage (take snapshot)
- 24.
- 25. Virtual Data: Easy Source Clone1 Clone 2 Clone 3
- 26. Virtual Data: Parallelize gifby Steve Karam
- 27.
- 28. Physical Data :find bugs fast Dev QA UAT production Dev QA UAT Production 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cost
- 29. Virtual Data: SelfService Self Service
- 30. What We’ve SeenWith Delphix 1. Fast Builds: Fast Dev, Culture of Yes 2. Full DB : Less Bugs 3. Efficient QA: Low cost, high utilization
- 31.
- 32. Benchmark Software: Swingbench Workload: SalesOrder Entry (SOE) - TPC-C like Size: 1TB Compare 1. Standard spinning disk vs. 2. Delphix with Pure Storage
- 33. Without Delphix &Pure Source 15 x 15K RPM disks 35,000 TPM 2,500 IOPS 512GB RAM 8GB SGA 4GB Buffer cache 1 TB SOE data
- 34. With Delphix &Pure Source Target
- 35. ESX1 910,000 TPM total ESX2 ESX3 Buffercache= 0.05 GB 26 Virtual databases 35,000 TPM Per DB
- 36. Benchmark Summary • 1/10ththe Price of Traditional Spinning Disk • 900K Transactions Per Minute • 1/25th the Physical Space • Plenty room for Other Databases, Applications
- 37. Q&A Kyle Hailey @virtdata Delphix:kyle@delphix.com Chas Dye @purechas • Database Solutions Architect at Pure Storage • Oracle DBA since Version 5, Author of multiple O’Reilly Books
- 38. Thanks! Kyle Hailey @kylehhailey Delphix:delphix.com Chas Dye @purechas Pure Storage: purestorage.com
Editor's Notes
- #4 In founding Pure, we attracted best and brightest from Web-scale and storage Founding thesis from Coz (the former Chief Architect of VERITAS) was the epiphany that all of the storage software optimized for disk was wrong for flash and lacked the simplicity essential for cloud On our team we have individuals that lead the Apple iPod transition from disk to flash As well as principals from the Google infrastructure team --- Google was deploying flash at scale in their data centers before Apple made that transition Our go to market team has great storage experience EMC in fact accused us of devastating them by hiring their top 1% talent. Our response---let us know if we slip out of the top 5% It is that combination of talent that allowed us to delver both the all-flash and cloud transitions at once and to make it plug compatible with the existing storage infrastructure At the same time, we have built a very strong culture and esprit de corp Best places to work in Silicon Valley last year Missionary zeal of changing the world to the benefit of our customers and partners And doing the right thing for the long term Team bleeds orange (because big storage is blue) Now my pleasure to pass the baton to one of those very talent Puritans Tim Riitters, who saw hyper-growth in heading up Google’s FP&A
- #5 6 years ago Pure brought together a profoundly gifted team that was profoundly dissatisfied with the current state of storage, and who had had a front row seat to the impact of flash and cloud on the data center Together we crafted a new storage platform that was the first mover for several essential innovations All flash for every workload 100% flash below the cost of fast disk, combined with Compatibility out of the box with existing storage infrastructure Simplicity – Our platform sheds decades of accumulated complexity, bringing a consumer tech-like experience to storage for the first time And we rethought the technology and business model to focus on data rather than storage arrays With Pure, data stays in place while the containing hardware and software non-disruptively evolves around it, as it does within the cloud Under traditional storage, the data is subordinate to the array, meaning access is disrupted and migrations required to rev the storage
- #6 Our disruptive platform and business model has achieved phenomenal success in 3 years in the market We have over 1100 customers, ranging from 1 to about 40 arrays We have 50 of the Fortune 500 But to give you a since of scale, we have single customers that run more than 1000 VMAXes today Gartner has named us to their Leaders Magic Quadrant We have the strongest vision, increasing our lead over EMC in the past year We have the greatest ability to execute relative to all except EMC In a fragmented market, a two horse between Pure and EMC is a good outcome for EMC, But a great outcome for Pure We are very close to 6 9’s across 1000s of arrays Our dedication to customer satisfaction has been born out by an NPS score of 80 Traditional big storage has done a very poor job serving customers Their NPS scores are in the low forties down to the teens Pure’s score is among the best in tech, and nearly double that of our closest big storage competitor You can see that customer satisfaction in our land and expand of $1 generating another $5 in their next 12 months!
- #17 Presbyterian when from 10 hour builds to 10 minute builds, 99% resource utlization for QA For example Stubhub went from 5 copies of production in development to 120 Stubhub estimated a 20% reduction in bugs that made it to production Stubhub - 2 x as many releases a year + 20% less bugs Macys 4000 hours/year cloning to 8 hours/year KLA-Tencor , Iridium, Informatica have all doubled, tripled development team outputs It’s like taking 100 person development team and getting the out put from a 200 person development team
- #18 Not sure if you’ve run into this but I have personally experience the following When I was talking to one group at Ebay, in that development group they Shared a single copy of the production database between the developers on that team. What this sharing of a single copy of production meant, is that whenever a Developer wanted to modified that database, they had to submit their changes to code Review and that code review took 1 to 2 weeks. I don’t know about you, but that kind of delay would stifle my motivation And I have direct experience with the kind of disgruntlement it can cause. When I was last a DBA, all schema changes went through me. It took me about half a day to process schema changes. That delay was too much so it was unilaterally decided by They developers to go to an EAV schema. Or entity attribute value schema Which mean that developers could add new fields without consulting me and without stepping on each others feat. It also mean that SQL code as unreadable and performance was atrocious. Besides creating developer frustration, sharing a database also makes refreshing the data difficult as it takes a while to refresh the full copy And it takes even longer to coordinate a time when everyone stops using the copy to make the refresh All this means is that the copy rarely gets refreshed and the data gets old and unreliable
- #19 Not sure if you’ve run into this but I have personally experience the following When I was talking to one group at Ebay, in that development group they Shared a single copy of the production database between the developers on that team. What this sharing of a single copy of production meant, is that whenever a Developer wanted to modified that database, they had to submit their changes to code Review and that code review took 1 to 2 weeks. I don’t know about you, but that kind of delay would stifle my motivation And I have direct experience with the kind of disgruntlement it can cause. When I was last a DBA, all schema changes went through me. It took me about half a day to process schema changes. That delay was too much so it was unilaterally decided by They developers to go to an EAV schema. Or entity attribute value schema Which mean that developers could add new fields without consulting me and without stepping on each others feat. It also mean that SQL code as unreadable and performance was atrocious. Besides creating developer frustration, sharing a database also makes refreshing the data difficult as it takes a while to refresh the full copy And it takes even longer to coordinate a time when everyone stops using the copy to make the refresh All this means is that the copy rarely gets refreshed and the data gets old and unreliable
- #20 To circumvent the problems of sharing a single copy of production Many shops we talk to create subsets. One company we talked to , spends 50% of time copying databases have to subset because not enough storage subsetting process constantly needs fixing modification Now What happens when developers use subsets -- ****** -----
- #22 We talked to Presbyterian Healthcare And they told us that they spend 96% of their QA cycle time building the QA environment And only 4% actually running the QA suite This happens for every QA suite meaning For every dollar spent on QA there was only 4 cents of actual QA value And that 96% cost is infrastructure time and overhead
- #23 Due to the constraints of building clone copy database environments one ends up in the “culture of no” Where developers stop asking for a copy of a production database because the answer is “no” If the developers need to debug an anomaly seen on production or if they need to write a custom module which requires a copy of production they know not to even ask and just give up.
- #27 For example Stubhub went from 5 copies of production in development to 120 Giving each developer their own copy
- #28 Stubhub estimated a 20% reduction in bugs that made it to production
- #29 We talked to Presbyterian Healthcare And they told us that they spend 96% of their QA cycle time building the QA environment And only 4% actually running the QA suite This happens for every QA suite meaning For every dollar spent on QA there was only 4 cents of actual QA value And that 96% cost is infrastructure time and overhead
- #31 Presbyterian when from 10 hour builds to 10 minute builds, 99% resource utlization for QA For example Stubhub went from 5 copies of production in development to 120 Stubhub estimated a 20% reduction in bugs that made it to production Stubhub - 2 x as many releases a year + 20% less bugs Macys 4000 hours/year cloning to 8 hours/year KLA-Tencor , Iridium, Informatica have all doubled, tripled development team outputs It’s like taking 100 person development team and getting the out put from a 200 person development team