Apple buys flexible, fast database software firm FoundationDB with eye on the cloud

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 50
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

     

     

    Wow, how convenient. Do you  REALLY miss Bento? So not only did you love and use Bento, you loved and used Apple Works before that? Which gives you a nice little segway to shit on this news, by trolling about a hypothetical scenario that sane minds know will never happen..as it's obvious that Apple is not planning to develop any consumer level database software, but to adopt these technologies for their cloud backend. But hey, that scenario sounds a little too boring and rational for the likes of you, so you invest a ridiculous scenario while lying about missing unrelated products so you can troll. I can't imagine what use an un-employed, full time Apple-hating troll like you would have for database software. 

     

    You do realize everyone here knows you're full of shit, right? Don't you get embarrassed of lying so consistently, for no higher purpose than trolling?




    Done't forget to vote:)

  • Reply 22 of 50
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,088member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    Better to just use the link as a reply to his ridiculous comments. That way it is in context for new users.




    Yeah... that's what I'm doing.

  • Reply 23 of 50
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post





    Please go away. You add no value



    And you do?



    Bento was an absolutely brilliant database if you knew how to use it correctly. While it wasn't able to do a lot of what FMPro is able to do it was a consumer grade database capable of doing some pretty amazing things.

  • Reply 24 of 50
    konqerror wrote: »
    Bad idea. The development cost of Oracle is amortized over tens of thousands of corporate users. This product would be amortized over one. This means that Oracle can afford to spend, nearly, 10,000x more resources than Apple can. Key point with software: it costs nearly the same to build no matter how many copies you sell.

    This is, by the way, why Amazon and Microsoft and Google rent out their cloud infrastructure.
    Oracle needs to add lots of features that some customers don't need.
    Apple only has to develop the features they need.

    Considering 30% of every AppStore and iTunes purchase goes to Apple, thousands of developers and companies are funding the development of Apple's cloud infrastructure.
    In addition Apple is making a pretty penny selling iCloud storage. All the more reason for Apple to invest in tech that will drive down costs and increase control of key technologies.
  • Reply 25 of 50
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,381member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brucemc View Post

     



    Done't forget to vote:)


     

    Done and done. Already 30 members are asking BF to be banned. If that isn't reason enough for the mods, I don't know what is. 

  • Reply 26 of 50
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,024member

    Since AI site operators have refused to act on multiple requests by me to suspend/ban user Benjamin Frost, I've decided that it is time to leave.

     

    Goodbye.

  • Reply 27 of 50
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member

    I hope so.  They may use it in iCloud since developers use iCloud for data storage but I sure hope they release this for local use as well.

    Apple already has what they call "Core Data" API that currently uses an Apple customized version of SQLite as a DB store or XML or Raw.
    FoundationDB is essentially that Apple customized SQLite on steroid.

    Here is Core Data being used to create simple demo Application in Apple's new Swift language.
    So FoundationDB would essentially replace SQLite in this case to facilitate larger more scalable DBs in iCloud or locally.

    <iframe width="640" height="385" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3IDfgATVqHw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
     

    Thanks for the insight.
  • Reply 28 of 50

    So the database backend runs on Mac OS X, Linux and Windows.

    Apple should definitely release these for private clouds.

    System requirements


    • One of the following 64-bit operating systems:


      • A supported Linux distribution:

      • Or, an unsupported Linux distribution with:

        • Kernel version between 2.6.33 and 3.0.x (inclusive) or 3.7 or greater

        • Works with .deb or .rpm packages


      • Or, Windows XP or later (but see Platform Issues for Windows)

      • Or, Mac OS X 10.7 or later

      The Mac OS X version of the FoundationDB server is intended for use on locally accessible development machines only. Other uses are not supported.



    • 4GB ECC RAM (per fdbserver process)


    • Storage


      • SSDs are required when storing data sets larger than memory (using the ssd storage engine).

      • HDDs are OK when storing data sets smaller than memory (using the memory storage engine).

      • For more information, see Configuring the storage subsystem.


    For a description of issues on particular platforms that affect the operation of FoundationDB, see Platform Issues.

  • Reply 29 of 50
    vuduvudu Posts: 28member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mpantone

    There's a good chance that Apple doesn't intend to release this as an end-user product. They may be looking at it as a replacement for Oracle. Looking at the blog and brief descriptions, FoundationDB does not appear to be a consumer-grade database.

    Quote:
    Bad idea. The development cost of Oracle is amortized over tens of thousands of corporate users. This product would be amortized over one. This means that Oracle can afford to spend, nearly, 10,000x more resources than Apple can. Key point with software: it costs nearly the same to build no matter how many copies you sell.

    This is, by the way, why Amazon and Microsoft and Google rent out their cloud infrastructure.
    ____

    OK. Conclusion jumping aside - this reason
    is why we are all running Windows software today, correct? Amortization due to market share.
  • Reply 30 of 50
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 629member
    konqerror wrote: »
    Bad idea. The development cost of Oracle is amortized over tens of thousands of corporate users. This product would be amortized over one. This means that Oracle can afford to spend, nearly, 10,000x more resources than Apple can. Key point with software: it costs nearly the same to build no matter how many copies you sell.

    This is, by the way, why Amazon and Microsoft and Google rent out their cloud infrastructure.
    "
    "Not everything that can be counted, counts. And not everything that counts can be counted." - Einstein

    Plus, like Apple is worried about costs.
  • Reply 31 of 50
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 629member
    ....Plus, as others have pointed out, Oracle is vested in the past. Apple is vested in the future.
  • Reply 32 of 50
    mstone wrote: »
    mpantone wrote: »
     
    There's a good chance that Apple doesn't intend to release this as an end-user product. 
    It is without doubt a "big data" move. The main attribute of ACID compliance is for transactions. I wonder if they plan on ditching Webobjects and go with a Swift-based  platform to connect to this new DB.

    You see this as a product rather than purely for in-house use then?


    I hope so.  They may use it in iCloud since developers use iCloud for data storage but I sure hope they release this for local use as well.

    Apple already has what they call "Core Data" API that currently uses an Apple customized version of SQLite as a DB store or XML or Raw.
    FoundationDB is essentially that Apple customized SQLite on steroid.

    Here is Core Data being used to create simple demo Application in Apple's new Swift language.
    So FoundationDB would essentially replace SQLite in this case to facilitate larger more scalable DBs in iCloud or locally.

    I think you're both onto something!

    Modern Language + Modern DB + Modern UI == My Happiness!

    My Happiness == it's easy to keep track of my stuff!


    I suspect, rather than extend CoreData -- Apple will replace it with a scalable FoundationDB -- and the constructs will be built into Swift and Storyboards.

    KV pairs (hashes/dictionaries) are integral to OSX and iOS (Xcode) -- tho, some of the implementation is kludgey and showing its age.

    Here, Apple has the opportunity to address a more modern and efficient approach to things like KVO (undo/redo), natural integration of programming, data management, data presentation ...

    Ohhh ... can hardly wait for WWDC!
  • Reply 33 of 50
    So the database backend runs on Mac OS X, Linux and Windows.
    Apple should definitely release these for private clouds.
    <div id="user_system-requirements" style="border:0px;color:rgb(9,48,61);list-style:none;padding-top:4em;vertical-align:baseline;">
    <h2 style="border-bottom-color:rgb(238,238,238);border-bottom-style:solid;border-width:0px 0px 1px;list-style:none;margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:0px;padding-bottom:.5em;vertical-align:baseline;">System requirements</h2>

    <ul style="border:0px;list-style-type:none;margin-left:1.5em;vertical-align:baseline;"><li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">
    <p style="border:0px;list-style:none;margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;">One of the following 64-bit operating systems:</p>

    <ul style="border:0px;list-style-type:none;margin-left:1.5em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;"><li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">A supported Linux distribution:
    <ul style="border:0px;list-style-type:none;margin-left:1.5em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;"><li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">RHEL/CentOS 6.x</li>

    <li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Ubuntu 12.04 or later (but see Platform Issues for Ubuntu 12.x)</li>

    </ul>
    </li>

    <li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Or, an unsupported Linux distribution with:
    <ul style="border:0px;list-style-type:none;margin-left:1.5em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;"><li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Kernel version between 2.6.33 and 3.0.x (inclusive) or 3.7 or greater</li>

    <li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Works with .deb or .rpm packages</li>

    </ul>
    </li>

    <li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Or, Windows XP or later (but see Platform Issues for Windows)</li>

    <li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Or, Mac OS X 10.7 or later</li>

    </ul>
    <div style="border:1px solid;list-style:none;margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;padding:.2em .6em;vertical-align:baseline;">
    <p style="border:0px;list-style:none;vertical-align:baseline;">The Mac OS X version of the FoundationDB server is intended for use on locally accessible development machines only. Other uses are not supported.</p>

    </div>

    </li>

    <li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">
    <p style="border:0px;list-style:none;margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;">4GB <strong style="border:0px;list-style:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">ECC</strong>
     RAM (per fdbserver process)</p>

    </li>

    <li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">
    <p style="border:0px;list-style:none;margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;">Storage</p>

    <ul style="border:0px;list-style-type:none;margin-left:1.5em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;"><li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">SSDs are required when storing data sets larger than memory (using the <span style="border:0px;list-style:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">ssd</span>
     storage engine).</li>

    <li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">HDDs are OK when storing data sets smaller than memory (using the <span style="border:0px;list-style:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">memory</span>
     storage engine).</li>

    <li style="border:0px;list-style:disc;margin-bottom:1em;padding-top:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">For more information, see Configuring the storage subsystem.</li>

    </ul>
    </li>

    </ul>
    <p style="border:0px;list-style:none;margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;">For a description of issues on particular platforms that affect the operation of FoundationDB, see <span style="border:0px;list-style:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">Platform Issues</span>
    .</p>

    </div>


    Mmm ...

    There is a rather obvious missing platform ,,, 64-bit iOS.

    I suspect we'll see iOS devices, real soon now, that meet the hardware requirements * -- Apple TV/Hub/Home Server and iPad Pro come to mind.

    * and that there will be a scaled [down] version for smaller iDevices.
  • Reply 34 of 50
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    or Apple could be using this for they own search engine technology
  • Reply 35 of 50
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

     



    Boom Baby!  

    Client / Server backend for Core Data coming up!

     

    This architecture fits perfectly with Apple's Core Data.

    You get direct key-value store access or an SQL layer.

    If it is as fast as they claim, I say go for it.

     

    https://foundationdb.com

     

     

    Can't wait for WWDC June 8-12 2015

     

    Go Apple! Go! Go! Go!




    There is no way that they would incorporate this as fast as all that. I too would prefer that CoreData didn't use sqlite if thats what is up. Most people use it for object graph persistence, not anything relational.

  • Reply 36 of 50
    asdasd wrote: »
     


    Boom Baby!  
    Client / Server backend for Core Data coming up!

    This architecture fits perfectly with Apple's Core Data.
    You get direct key-value store access or an SQL layer.
    If it is as fast as they claim, I say go for it.

    https://foundationdb.com

    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="56987" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/56987/width/350/height/700/flags/LL" style="; width: 350px; height: 318px">


    Can't wait for WWDC June 8-12 2015

    Go Apple! Go! Go! Go!


    There is no way that they would incorporate this as fast as all that. I too would prefer that CoreData didn't use sqlite if thats what is up. Most people use it for object graph persistence, not anything relational.

    Except, Apple could leave CoreData as is -- and Implement FoundationDB alongside it -- ala Obj-C and Swift.

    Also, I suspect that Apple has been looking to acquire a modern db and has been experimenting with FoundationDB for a while now:
    The FoundationDB Alpha program began in January 2012 and concluded on March 4, 2013 with their public Beta release.[5] Their 1.0 version was released for general availability on August 20, 2013. The latest stable version, 3.0.2, was released on December 10, 2014.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoundationDB


    Apple could certainly implement shadow FoundationDBs of whatever they use internally for production. Then, it can be a rather rigorous, but straight-forward process to stress test, validate and cutover/fallback the operational components.


    Who can say, but the following may be a thing of the past at the next iPhone announcement:


    1000
  • Reply 37 of 50
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    ^ I always thought that the Apple Store goes down for dramatic effect rather than any technical reason.
  • Reply 38 of 50
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

     

    And you do?


     

    without even knowing Red Oak's posting history, i can guarantee he adds more value than BF. trolls detract from value, they do not add it.

  • Reply 39 of 50
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     

     

    without even knowing Red Oak's posting history, i can guarantee he adds more value than BF. trolls detract from value, they do not add it.




    I never realised the first person was trolling. I happen to love Bento because it fulfilled my needs so brilliantly and to be honest because I'm still learning FMPro I still haven't managed to build the database I built in Bento in FMPro. That really says something about Bento.

     

    I'm currently using TapForms to make up for the loss of Bento but I really want Bento back.

  • Reply 40 of 50
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post



    or Apple could be using this for they own search engine technology

     

    It is possible that the AppleWatch+Siri could displace the Google homepage as the primary means of search for many people in the not to distant future.  

     

    Apple is in lots of BIG DATA areas.

    Health

    Maps

    AppStore

    iTunes Store

    iBooks Store

    iCloud Drive

    iCloud Photo Library

    Retail

    AppleCare

    Supply Chain Management

    and the list goes on and on...

     

    It will not get attention like the Beats acquisition did but I have a feeling this is going to be one of the most significant acquisitions they have made as it will touch almost everything Apple does operationally.

Sign In or Register to comment.