I was a Sherwood Partners client in 2010. Oracle bought our startup, DataScaler. However, they bought the core assets of the company, not the corporate entity. That's a fairly common strategy for acquiring early-stage companies. The buyer gets the parts they want (in our case: the team, code, and patents) without any of the hassle or liabilities of the corporate entity or any assets that they don't want or need.
That left us needing to wind down the DataScaler corporate entity. This is a fairly technical process and not something you do casually. We hired Sherwood Partners to do the wind down. They filed the appropriate paperwork with Delaware and California, since we were a Delaware C corp based in Cupertino. They stored our corporate files (lots of paper back then) in their warehouse for 7 years in case of any litigation, tax disputes, etc. The offered to connect us with a liquidator to sell off our desks, chairs, phones, etc. They don't actually do the liquidation themselves. Perhaps most importantly, they were legally the "Stockholder Representative" and ensured that the stockholders were properly taken care of, etc.
We used Sherwood exclusively for the corporate wind-down part, as we already had a buyer. They also can help companies find buyers and they have lots of contacts in the valley.
It's interesting how his moniker is "Undertaker of Silicon Valley", and the process you describe really does have the calm, comforting, and efficient feel of a funeral.
Did the entire team continue to work for Oracle? I suppose that people work for a startup for a reason, and once that reason is gone, it might make more sense to move on.
All the engineers went to work for Oracle and were given large incentives to stay for 2 years. Most stayed and got their incentive payouts, though they all eventually left later on. I think the longest tenure at Oracle there ~8 years.
I am also a happy UTOPIA user. I have a full symmetric gigabit pipe to my house for less than $100 per month. There are huge benefits to open choice networks.
I think that at the rates Twitter is writing counter data (Many TBs per day denormalized, ~0.5TB normalized), a RAM-based solution like VoltDB would be prohibitively expensive. Rainbird allows Twitter to use cheap disk-based storage but still get acceptable (sub-second) latency.
Perhaps, but it really depends on what you want to do exactly. You can probably store a lot less and get the same throughput.
- VoltDB isn't log-structured, so you really only have to store the state. How fast you can mutate it isn't limited by RAM amounts. We see use cases with utter firehoses of data that update just tens or hundreds of gigabytes of state.
- Beyond normalization, you can probably reduce the number of redundant counters, e.g. use SQL to count which URLs start with "amazon". This would be painful in many systems, but depending on the query, can often be done at scale in VoltDB.
- The byte overhead per counter is also likely much lower in an ACID/Relational store.
Finally, VoltDB is designed to migrate data to disk based stores (such as Hadoop or an OLAP store) as memory fills up. This is a feature we're working very hard on see as a big differentiator. It adds complexity if you need to query across stores, but you get a best-of-both-worlds feature set.
How about just going with the disk-based line if the candidate goes there? On-disk data structures is a rich area for exploration. I think you're getting people a little riled up here because you seem to want to discuss Bloom filters no matter what. You seem to grok that this should be about thinking skills, data structures, and algorithms. That's great. Forcing the candidate to go where you have a particular interest is not so great.
Unfortunately I myself am not too familiar with on-disk data structures and wouldn't be too comfortable interviewing based on that. It probably is something I should brush up on but for the specific role I've been interviewing for it doesn't seem to be a big need.
