Jeff Steiner

And I know what it would cost to do the same thing in AWS.

So make up your own mind.

It costs less, it works better.

And someday that will change.

And

Honestly, I look forward to that.

I could actually foresee a day where we're not even needing to make hardware anymore because the storage capabilities and the compute capabilities in the clouds will be so fast that we can get ONTAP in the cloud serving any workload that you want to throw at it.

But we're not there yet.

It's not going to work to move these workloads into the cloud, so why try?

Yes, but most of what I've seen so far has been with SQL Server.

Microsoft SQL Server databases tend to be quite a bit smaller than these critical Oracle databases.

And they fit nicely within various platforms.

cloud platforms you don't usually run into a 10 terabyte sql database not that they don't exist but yeah you don't usually run into that and that's a great time where you can clone away use it for disaster recovery there's lots of options there

On the Oracle side, there are certainly some Oracle databases that are on the smaller side that will fit.

I know one customer that reported a lot of success with Oracle in AWS by leveraging Oracle's in-memory feature.

So those customers will be paying a little more for RAM inside of their AWS instances.

but that overcomes the relatively limited storage capabilities within AWS.

So that was an interesting use case.

But when the success of cloud, I think you have to look at it from a different perspective.

What cloud really ought to mean to customers is paying for things as a service.