Slashdot Mirror
Are There Large RDBMS Using Linux?
Jason Perlow of Linux Magazine writes:"
With all of the recent computer press coverage of Amazon and Intel converting their
web servers and other front end application servers to Linux, many of these stories
neglect to mention that the back end systems these companies use still rely on
commercial Unixes like Solaris, AIX and HPUX to host their RDBMSes (Oracle, DB2,
Sybase, Informix) for their mission critical transactional applications and data
mining.
Are there any companies out there actively using Linux to host a mission-critical
RDBMS ? or looking to replace UNIX with Linux for this purpose?"
I dont think that any large companies can use them. The use of free (as in beer) appz looks bad on sharehodlers.
Plus, senior IT execs need reliable support and assurance that they got the best software in the market for the job, just in case things go wrong. Its a liabilities thing
Are there people stabbing themselves in their ears?
I like Linux, but on the scalabilty front, it's still got a ways to go. Moreover, since most Linux used by corps (at least here) is Intel based, you've got to deal with less mature hardware (backplanes, reduncancy, etc.). Plus the enterprise management tools required are only starting to appear for Linux.
*climbs into his asbestos underwear to wait for the inevitable jihad*
I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
On a related note, what are the largest installations of free software databases... especially the most popular, PostgreSQL and MySQL?
Any war stories?
How about building Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Database Hosts?
If you are running a very large Unix box, such as an E10000, the operating system is optimized for the hardware, and the release of Oracle you're running is optimized for the OS. Even so, they still don't work that well--there are many unexplained bugs and glitches, even with the latest stable releases of Solaris and Oracle. No one would want to introduce further instability with a new OS.
Furthermore, there are no potential cost savings. Solaris essentially 'comes with' an E1000, and all your administrators are trained in Solaris.
When Oracle first started producing their appliance products, they were based on Sun's microkernel.
That has since changed. They are now using Suse Linux for all of their appliances. They work fairly well for what they are designed to do, which is to provide an administratively simple appliance... you don't deal with the OS, ony the Oracle admin interfaces.
Looking at my client list, 4 out of 12 of them are running various Oracle instances in Production on Linux, both Suse (the only officially Oracle supported Linux distro, if I'm not mistaken) and Red Hat. 9 of those 12 run Linux in development environments.
While the Linux deployment has usually been in a development environment, I've seen the trend start to move into Production environments. I think this can be attributed to a number of factors; the maturity/stability of Linux, the cost (hardware and software), the feature set (journalling file systems without having to pay through the nose for Veritas), and the hardware availability.
That and the fact that Oracle offers support for Suse. That is HUGE.
While the bigger companies are still using Solaris and HP-UX for their Oracle needs due to the hardware involved (I have yet to see an E10K run Linux, never mind in production), most of the smaller companies I deal with are running Oracle on Linux in some part of their company.
Also, a number of Oracle's newer integrated development tools (JDeveloper, Enterprise Manager, etc.) are being ported to be 100% Java so that they will (and do) run on Linux.
$0.02 (CDN)
Aside from this, much of the main databases (including almost all the mission critical stuff) here are on HP systems. Despite HP's uncertain future (having ditched PA-RISC), I doubt they'll move from HP in the near future.
Now take this reluctance to move between mainstream Unix vendors and apply this to linux, the upstart on the block. Quite aside from the "free" nature of linux and perceived lack of accountability, there's a further issue. Even when sticking with mainstream ventors, there's a reluctance to mix vendors; i.e. there's a desire to use IBM software on an AIX box, simply to avoid the finger pointing that can ensue. IBM have even had ad campaigns based on this. There's a certain comfort factor in knowing that you can go to one vendor and say "fix this" which you don't get with linux on Intel. IBM, HP and Sun all make the hardware and OS; you don't get that with linux (with the potential exception of some IBM kit like the S/390).
To get over this, there need to be vendors willing to support the software and hardware side of a linux solution. Hopefully IBM will pave the way with things like S/390 and the zSeries server.
I'm sure there are plenty large databases running on Linux and even MySQL. Solving the problem of large databases is relatively easy.
The much more difficult problems are availability (i.e. 7x24, runs for years with no interruption) and throughput.
When you combine these constraints to specify the problem of a large, highly available and highly active database that meets ACID test criteria, you have an enormously difficult problem. Until recently with the advent of Linux on mainframes Linux couldn't even dream of playing in this space simply because of the hardware it ran on. Sure, lots of people have Linux boxes that have uptimes for years, but some people have had to reboot because of a bad hard disk or other component. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. And the I/O bandwidth hasn't been there to support the kind of throughput needed at the high end.
Linux on mainframes doesn't really change this at all in the short term, even if you have a proven DBMS like Oracle (forget MySQL or Postgres), because the system as a whole hasn't proven itself. Question: How much money does an airline lose if it's reservation system is down for a few hours, even if it happens once every several years? How much money does a financial institution lose by being unable to execute transactions for even an hour? Answer: enough to buy plenty of proprietary software. People who run these kinds of applications are willing to pay the price for systems with a track record of success in this demanding area. They are often willing to sacrifice certain kinds of sophistication to ensure the safety of their company's critical operations.
I think that once Linux is established on the kind of iron that is needed for these applications, it will take as much as a decade before people will trust it for these kinds of missions. Phrases like "mission critical" are bandied about so they have little meaning; Linux is ready to support many applications that are important to businesses today, but can't be entrusted with other ones yet.
Nobody with a working application of the type I describe here is going to migrate to Linux. Nobody starting such an application from scratch will give more than a moment's consideration to Linux. The most likely entree into this space will be evolution of an application from something that is reasonable to host on Linux on small to midrange computers. If the company doesn't have the resources or the time to migrate to something more reasonable, the Linux will begin to get its shot at proving itself.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
At http://www.wohl.com/middleware5-01.htm they mention a couple of real world examples (where the Wimbledon example might be considered as a high capacity showcase for IBM technology)
"At the Wimbledon Tennis Championships, Linux, dB2, and Netfinity servers make it possible to offer real-time information on scores to fans around the globe. Last year, over 914 million web hits occurred during the games, requesting scores and statistics."
"ERP Central is a portal for ERP consultants. They offer ERP news, job postings, and other information, but their big 'traffic builder' is a free time and expense tracking program which users can access to maintain their schedule information and submit it back to their offices from the site. Linux hosted and built on top of Websphere and dB2, the application can scale to handle over 100,000 users and organizations whose consultants use the software estimate that it saves them 75% in time savings, an average value of $500,000 per organization per year."
JK
We have a need for a new DB system
What systems are available?
Schedule meetings with the sales people from the various vendors, so that we can compare what's out there.
Boink! That's where Linux bounces up against the wall of established companies... except for a smattering of VARs, nobody is there to "attend the meeting" to tout Linux's praises to the big boss... except for the internal sysadmin and/or program managers, who then have to plug the stuff as a better alternative to the established vendors. So, IMHO, for corporate usage, it's not about what the OS can do, it's all in the selling of it.
Now if you'll pardon me, I have to go to a meeting where a big storage vendor will be showing us their wares. Really. ;)
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
One might consider a "large" database in terms of total disk used for the tables, indexes, and logs. Or it could be total concurrent users logged in to the database. Or it could be total simultaneous users - different than concurrent users since simultaneous users are those actually issuing a SQL statement.
A high number of simultaneous users will require more processor/CPU capacity. A high number of concurrent users (with a low number of simultaneous users) might not require much processor capacity but will likely require more memory capacity due to the number of concurrent connections (and each connection having some amount of it's own memory).
Why are they using Sun/HP/IBM Own Unix other then Linux for their mission Critical Apps its really simple The Software is Designed around the Hardware and the Hardware is designed around the Software. I do a lot of work with Sun Sparc Systems with Solaris. And I find that Solaris Works Really good with the Sparc Arcecture and Vice Versa. Linux on the other hand was designed for Hardware that the hardware was designed to run on DOS, Windows systems. And linux had did a good job making their OS run this platform and do it better then windows. But still I find that using Solaris on Sparc/Ultra Sparc systems runs very smoothly and I have little to no trouble adding Hardware. Or upgrading. And I find that Solaris is far more stable then Linux is in special cases. Such as their X Server that runs a lot smoother then XFree86 (I know XFree is not Linux) but Every once in a while XFree86 Will completly crash on me with no way of accessing Linux (Including telnet). In a sence it locked up. Wile I never had that problem with Solaris.The main reason is that their are thousands of different vidio driver to use. But still Solaris and other UNIX on their own platform seem to take the Brunt of the work very well. (Plus it helps that these system generally use higher quality parts)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
No; IBM is looking to do both AIX and Linux - they want to sell hardware running Linux, with the option of moving up to AIX 5L. The marketing is along the lines of "If Linux will handle your needs, we'll give you that; when you need the high end features only available (for now) in AIX, we'll sell you that!". Smart thinking - give people a choice, let 'em mix and match as they please.
A large database (in this context) is an enterprise-sized system: multiple platforms serving many millions of records in short periods of time.
I have customers fielding databases on multiple Enterprise 10000 servers...single tables of more than 35 million rows. This is actually a "medium" system in my mind.
I love Linux, I hacked around the pre 1.0 kernels many years ago. BUT, it does not scale up too well. Even the little things in Linux make it hard to do a good (maintainable) job: shifting device names (pull one of your HDs and see what happens), inability to modify hardware subsystems (storage in particular) while running live, etc. Even EMC, NetApp and XIOtech hardware can't fix these issues.
If the Linux crowd wants to be accepted by Big Business, they must learn the needs of Big Business.
Running a few 4-proc Intel servers with Oracle or Sybase does not put you in the same league. Nor does storing 10,000 articles in MySQL.
If you can imagine doing it yourself, if you can even imagine the amount of data to store, then you are almost surely below the threshholds I need to work in every day.
I work on Unix machines running Oracle and on OS/390 machines running DB2. Based on my work in that and all my tinkering on linux over the years I think Linux is now able to handle mission critical on the right hardware. All the tools for big bizz mission critical stuff became available in Linux recently.
But, and this is a big but, it has to be setup by the right person. I have seen Unix and MVS systems setup and hose up for mission critical situations. We lost a lot of money while the systems were down. The higher ups would blame the people (as they should have) because the systems work in other situations just fine so it must be the people.
Based on perceptions, if it were Linux setup by the wrong guy and things went belly up they would blame the Linux because it's untested. It would end up the scape goat instead of the lazy implementation group. That's what Linux has to overcome.
I remember a quote I think was from the Red Baron, "It's not the crate, but the man in it that counts".
Oh puh-leeze. RedHat will not be sending out people that will be able to answer the extremely complex questions surrounding databases sized for extremely large enterprises -- the oracle market. They will send out someone that knows something about the operating system with maybe some cursory RDBMS experience. Make no mistake, these WILL NOT be terribly seasoned individuals.
// dijit
Sorry, but you go too far. Whereas x86 servers may compete with low-end Sun and IBM servers, compared to the high-end Sun or IBM everything that x86 can offer (or the comping itanium for that matter) is in a totally different league.
Clustering dozens of separate boxes doesn't help for most applications. If you have some high-volume (w.r.t. transactions) tables you can really forget distributing those over separate boxes.
Have you really ever tried running large databases (in size and transaction volume) on any kind of x86 configuration?