Re: help with site+database
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 11:38:58AM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> Could be worse though. CA software has install instructions that
> start with "type umask 0" because they want to create directories
> that are world writable for storing binaries (including binaries that
> are run as root from cron jobs). CA programmers are stupid enough to
> want to do that, and stupid enough to not know how to change the umask
> themselves!
this is either extremely sad or extremely funny...i'm not sure which.
> The only potentially compelling feature of Oracle is multi-master
> replication. According to the review published in the June 2001
> issue of Linux Magazine there is only one free database that supports
> replication, MySQL (which we agree has deficiencies). Also MySQL only
> supports single-master replication.
postgresql has some sort of replication add on. my understanding is that
it will be included in the main postgres release in a few versions.
it's by Postgresql Inc, the company formed by several of the postgres
developers...see http://www.pgsql.com/
the version for pg7.1 is downloadable from
http://www.pgsql.com/download/rserv-0.1-pg7.1.tar.gz
i haven't used it, so i have no idea how good it is.
hey, cool... i just noticed they have a mysql to postgresql conversion
tool at http://www.pgsql.com/download/mysql2pgsql.tar.gz
> So when things really went wrong you needed expertise on Sun
> clustering, Veritas, Oracle, and the mail server. That requires at
> least three people!!!
>
> The situation of requiring three people from different countries
> working together to solve a problem is not a nice one.
hooray for commercial support! it's really worth paying a fortune for,
isn't it?
> > as far as i can tell, oracle gets recommended by consultants
> > because it's a very recognised brand name, but mostly because
> > of the enormous kickbacks provided by oracle (only "discounts"
> > aka kickbacks greater than 95% have to be approved by senior
> > management...anything less can be just agreed to by the sales
> > consultant).
>
> You call them kickbacks. Does Oracle actually give cash to people who
> recommend it's use?
not as far as i know, and i doubt if that's what oracle calls them.
"discount", perhaps. or maybe "consultant's margin". technically
speaking, i guess they're not actually "kickbacks".
if the RRP of program "O" is $10,000 and the consultant buys it at 90%
discount (cost = $1000) but sells it to the customer at 10% discount
(price = $9000), then the consultant pockets $8000 and the customer
thinks he's got a good deal.
it may not actually BE a kickback, but it looks like one and smells like
one and the end-result is basically the same.
this seems to be fairly well known in the industry. just like when
buying cisco gear, anyone who pays anything close to retail price isn't
even trying.
craig
ps: you remember that reiserfs vs xfs benchmark i was going to do when i
got my replacement IBM drive? well, it arrived today.
Version 1.01b ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
XFS 1G 6335 99 37139 47 10786 15 6062 92 35832 26 137.5 1
XFS raid0 1G 6362 99 75009 80 27923 41 6131 95 71328 60 173.8 2
reiserfs 1G 5726 98 36807 94 12050 20 5988 93 36898 35 129.3 1
reiser raid0 1G 5734 99 38379 98 26326 49 6021 96 66503 70 148.1 2
barracuda 1G 5509 96 7114 20 2763 4 4932 77 7001 7 96.1 1
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files:max:min /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
XFS 16 2042 85 +++++ +++ 2005 75 2081 89 +++++ +++ 535 22
XFS raid0 16 2229 99 +++++ +++ 2119 98 2181 99 +++++ +++ 1024 55
reiserfs 16 5859 99 +++++ +++ 6519 99 5776 100 +++++ +++ 5735 97
reiser raid0 16 5364 98 +++++ +++ 5815 100 5403 97 +++++ +++ 5346 97
barracuda 16 4491 79 +++++ +++ 6165 99 4843 88 +++++ +++ 5637 100
the system is a dual P3-450 with 512MB RAM.
the barracuda lines are from a single ST19171W seagate barracuda scsi
drive (formatted with reiserfs), just for comparison purposes with my
current setup. they were good drives in their day, but i'll be glad to
get rid of the noisy old things.
the other lines are either a single IBM 40GB (60GXP IC35L040AVER07-0) or
a pair of them running with linux raid0, formatted as either reiserfs or
xfs.
my interpretation of the results is that reiserfs wins on lots of little
files, but xfs is better for sustained throughput on large files, and
xfs uses less CPU.
if i was running a news spool or a large Maildir/ spool, i think i'd
stick with reiserfs but this is my workstation, where i have lots of
large files (incl. huge mbox files) so i think i'll be switching to XFS.
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: