Re: Opinions on ext3 vs XFS vs reiserfs for LAMP server
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:47:13PM -0500, Neil Gunton wrote:
> Eh? I've been using replication for years now. It works out of the box,
> rock solid, and nothing special on the backend at all. Master produces
> binary log, which is replayed on the slave(s). Nothing "questionable"
> about it, it's used in many large scale installations. Again, more FUD.
Unless the two servers run in sync, then I don't consider it
replication. Better than what postgresql offers though (which is
currently no replication attemp of any kind).
> You can declare any feature to be "essential" and then denigrate other
> products that don't have it as "toys". Personally I've never missed
> subselects, which, to me, means they are not exactly essential. Of
> course, the riposte to that is to claim that I'm somehow not a "real"
> DBA, or not running a "real" database. Whatever evidence is presented to
> prove that MySQL is a perfectly cabable database manager, the PostgreSQL
> zealots then simply say "Well, that's not a real database application",
> or "Well, maybe it's ok for running a hobby website"... ok, whatever.
> You can't argue with people who have such a religious mindset that no
> amount of evidence or argument can change their viewpoint. From my end,
> I can happily accept that PostgreSQL has some cool features, it's no
> skin off my nose, though most of these features are such that I would
> never have actual cause to use them. Personally, I like to keep the
> database simple, and keep my logic in the application, not in the
> database. Amazingly, the world does not fall down around my ears as a
> result. In any case, MySQL does now support things like subqueries,
> views and stored procedure for those who want them. Transactions have
> been there for a long time now.
Well back when I was using databases quite a bit, I stuck with
postgresql. At the time mysql's license was a bit obnoxious, and it had
lousy locking (whole table at a time or nothing), so postgres was the
better fit. I also like the psql command line tool, for which I have
found no equivalant for mysql (mysqlcc isn't bad, but I am not a fan of
gui stuff in general). Today I only really have to deal slightly with
mysql since that is what bugzilla uses (and I did look into converting
it to postgres and found too much mysql specific code in use so I
decided it was too much work).
> Some people like to have business rules and logic embedded in the
> database; other people think it's a terrible idea and stay well away
> from it. As with many things, it's a matter of taste. You can declare
> something to be a toy all you like, but many large installations use
> MySQL for very large-scale, non-trivial tasks. Purists may like
> PostgreSQL, but people who are simply interested in getting the job done
> tend to do just fine with MySQL.
Certainly. I have personally always avoided logic in the database. I
find it leads to scaling problems, and also makes it difficult to move
to another database later. If you stick with just plain SQL and don't
use any advanced features like stored procedures, then you can pretty
much move between most decent databases.
> All of this patronizing parroting of the same tired dogma is so
> counter-productive and bitchy... it turns me right off.
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: