Greenplum vs Redshift comparison details

[Nilkanth Patel]

Hello,

Can some one point me references for GreenPlum vs Redshift comparison, I need to understand where Greenplum excels comparing Redshift, If someone outline top 4-5 points that would be great help.

Looking forward to hear from community.

Thanks

Nilkanth.

[Greg Spiegelberg]

Start with db-engines comparison. 

https://db-engines.com/en/system/Amazon+Redshift%3BGreenplum

My major beef with Redshift is lack of procedural languages and Greenplum has mapreduce applications.

-Greg

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Greenplum Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gpdb-users+...@greenplum.org.
To post to this group, send email to gpdb-...@greenplum.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/greenplum.org/group/gpdb-users/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/greenplum.org/d/optout.

[Viren Balaut]

This may also helpful

https://www.slideshare.net/syedhamin/greenplum-versus-redshift-and-actian-vectorwise-comparison-79582099

--

Regards,
Viren Balaut

+ 91-93 500 500 93

http://understandjava.blogspot.com/

[Jon Roberts]

I'm glad you asked!

Obviously, Greenplum runs anywhere while Redshift runs only in AWS.

Redshift only uses instance types with ephemeral storage so if you stop the cluster, you lose the data. 

For instance types with ephemeral storage, you can't replace a disk.  Maybe Amazon does for Redshift instances but everyone else, they recommend to replace the node if you have a disk failure.

Redshift ds2.8xlarge instance type has 16TB of usable storage but the d2.8xlarge instance type has 12 2TB disks.  I'm guessing they are using RAID5 but why?  If they lose a disk, they will replace the entire node unless they do something special for Redshift.  

Greenplum running on d2.8xlarge uses RAID0 so you get denser storage and all 48TB.  If you lose a disk, the software HA kicks in and the mirror segments take over.  You can then shutdown the instance and the Self-Healing kicks in and replaces the node.  Self-Healing also rebalances the data and puts everything back to the original state.

Pivotal recommends to use the R4 series instance type with EBS ST1 storage.  R4.8xlarge with 48TB of EBS ST1 storage performs about the same as d2.8xlarge with 48TB of ephemeral storage.  The big benefit here is you get EBS storage.  You can stop the cluster without losing data (just need to disable the ASG so it doesn't replace nodes).  You get the durability of EBS too.  Lastly, you get snapshots!  Pivotal has "gpsnap" in the AWS Marketplace so you can quickly take a database backup that leverages EBS snapshots.  Redshift can't do this because they don't use EBS storage.

The largest instance type Redshift uses is ds2.8xlarge which has 36 vCPUs and 244GB or RAM.  This has a 10GB network too.  The largest instance type for Greenplum in AWS is r4.16xlarge which has 64 vCPUs and 488GB of RAM.  It also has a 25GB network.  This instance type is significantly faster than r4.8xlarge.

Greenplum in AWS vs Redshift:

- Greenplum is more durable

- Greenplum has denser storage

- Greenplum can take snapshot backups

- Greenplum can utilize faster instance types

- Greenplum can use a 2.5x faster network

There are other differences in the software too.  Greenplum is based on PostgreSQL 8.3 and that will get rebased to later versions while Redshift is a fork of PostgreSQL 8.0.  Greenplum is open source while Redshift isn't.  

And don't forget that if you get tired of Amazon or get better pricing elsewhere, you can run Greenplum anywhere.  Move to Azure or GCP if you want.  

Jon Roberts

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:10 AM, Viren Balaut <viren....@gmail.com> wrote:

This may also helpful

https://www.slideshare.net/syedhamin/greenplum-versus-redshift-and-actian-vectorwise-comparison-79582099

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:13 AM Greg Spiegelberg <gspieg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Start with db-engines comparison. 

https://db-engines.com/en/system/Amazon+Redshift%3BGreenplum

My major beef with Redshift is lack of procedural languages and Greenplum has mapreduce applications.

-Greg

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018, 5:52 AM Nilkanth Patel <nilkant...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

Can some one point me references for GreenPlum vs Redshift comparison, I need to understand where Greenplum excels comparing Redshift, If someone outline top 4-5 points that would be great help.

Looking forward to hear from community.

Thanks

Nilkanth.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Greenplum Users" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gpdb-users+unsubscribe@greenplum.org.

To post to this group, send email to gpdb-...@greenplum.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/greenplum.org/group/gpdb-users/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/greenplum.org/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Greenplum Users" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gpdb-users+unsubscribe@greenplum.org.

To post to this group, send email to gpdb-...@greenplum.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/greenplum.org/group/gpdb-users/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/greenplum.org/d/optout.

--

Regards,
Viren Balaut

+ 91-93 500 500 93

http://understandjava.blogspot.com/

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Greenplum Users" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gpdb-users+unsubscribe@greenplum.org.

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 08/01/2018 07:25 AM, Jon Roberts wrote:
> I'm glad you asked!

> Greenplum in AWS vs Redshift:
> - Greenplum is more durable
> - Greenplum has denser storage
> - Greenplum can take snapshot backups
> - Greenplum can utilize faster instance types
> - Greenplum can use a 2.5x faster network
>
> There are other differences in the software too.  Greenplum is based on
> PostgreSQL 8.3 and that will get rebased to later versions while
> Redshift is a fork of PostgreSQL 8.0.  Greenplum is open source while
> Redshift isn't.
>
> And don't forget that if you get tired of Amazon or get better pricing
> elsewhere, you can run Greenplum anywhere.  Move to Azure or GCP if you
> want.
>
> Jon Roberts

I would like to add to this:

* Greenplum is Open Source (yes this was stated but it is very important)

* Greenplum is actively developed. Production is currently based on
PostgreSQL 8.3 but development is on 9.0 and moving forward quickly.

https://greenplum.org/postgresql-9-0-oss-greenplum/

* Greenplum is actively developed in Production. They have things like
PL/Container etc...

https://greenplum.org/blog/

* Greenplum is developed by Pivotal which has contributors back to
PostgreSQL.Org (including at least one committer)

* Greenplum can run anywhere (mentioned) but this can't be stressed
enough. In the long run, you can save * A LOT * of money by hosting
on-prem or just in a colo.

JD




--
PostgresConf: The International Postgres Conference Series
Attend, Learn, Network: https://postgresconf.org/
Follow: @postgresconf | Advocate: @amplifypostgres
People, Postgres, Data

[Daniel Gustafsson]

> On 1 Aug 2018, at 17:33, Joshua D. Drake <j...@postgresconf.org> wrote:

> * Greenplum is actively developed. Production is currently based on PostgreSQL 8.3 but development is on 9.0 and moving forward quickly.

9.1 actually as of now, and with 9.2 going into master within days.

cheers ./daniel

[Joshua Drake]

Awesome!

JD

[Nilkanth Patel]

Thanks all for the details.

Nilkanth.