Slashdot Mirror
MySQL Clustering Software Launched
lawrencekhoo writes "MySQL AB announced yesterday that software for building a
MySQL Cluster
will be available for download by the end of April. Articles available from
Computerworld,
Internetnews,
Linux Electrons,
and PHP Architect.
Great! Now my website can finally have 99.99% availability ..."
It's PR. Remember, The SCO Group is "a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions", per many of their press releases. It doesn't make it any more acceptable, it's just a tactic. Chill.
This sig no verb.
If this is the requirement deployment then for people like us were db size at over 20GB, and yes the big blogs are already stored in compressed using compression, this would not be economically pratically to use. Factoring OS, caching, I need to get 22GB memory for each node? Last I checked, the 2GB cheaps are still nasty expensive.
I think they're using "database" here to mean RDBMS. Technically a database is
just anything that organises data, so a filesystem would count, but that's not
how the term is generally used. Usually these days when people say database
they mean RDBMS.
The other thing is, most installs is not the only reasonable measure of
popularity. I'm pretty sure more people have daily interaction with MySQL
than with Berkeley DB directly. Berkeley DB is installed so widely because
it's been around longer and because certain key pieces of software depend
on or use it for historical reasons, not because people like it better.
Note that I'm not trying to say Berkeley DB is bad or anything, or that MySQL
should replace it; they're really quite different things, and they exist for
different purposes and fill different niches. I wouldn't consider them to be
direct competition really -- well, not mostly. MySQL is in competition with
PostgreSQL mainly, and to a lesser extent the major commercial database
offerings (Oracle, MS SQL Server) and various lesser-known projects (e.g.
Firebird SQL). Berkeley DB competes with I think certain Gnu libraries and
maybe some other things I'm even less aware of. Not that MySQL and Berkeley
DB are in _completely_ different worlds; they both might reasonably be said
to compete on some level with SQLite for example, so there is some overlap
between their areas of application. But still, they're mostly not really in
the same category.
Sure, they're both databases. But to say one is more popular than the other
is like arguing whether traceroute is more popular than Mozilla. They are,
after all, both internet software.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
The standard requirements for the node surprised me.
Is stats that you need 16GB of RAM !! Why do they say that? Doesn't the amount of RAM depends on the size of your Database? If my InnoDB database file is only 3GB why would I need more that 4GB og RAM?
Also, why the hell would you need scsi drives for an in memory database?
I mean, this is an enterprise-scale storage engine from the same engineering team that used to deride ACID transaction isolation and rollback as unimportant, and whose parser still silently ignores any attempt to use integrity constraints that aren't supported. Are these the right people to achieve the robustness that needs to accompany "five nines"?