Slashdot Mirror
MySQL 5.1 Released, Not Quite Up To Par
Mad Merlin writes "It's no secret that MySQL 5.1 has been a long time in the making, with the first beta release being in Nov 2005, but MySQL 5.1.30 has finally been released as GA. MySQL users can expect new features such as table/index partitioning, row based replication, a new plugin architecture, an event scheduler and a host of performance improvements from 5.1." Monty also had a blog post outlining some of the challenges faced in 5.1, including crashing bugs and a beta quality to most new features.
Impressive, now MySQL can have features other databases (PostgreSQL among others) have had for *years*. I've never understood; people like MySQL because it is "light", "simple", "easy", blah, blah.... and yet they add all these enterprise features that then everyone will laud about how MySQL is "growing up" or some such. MySQL is one of the best examples of self redefined success I think I've ever seen.
If you want these features why not use a database that has had them for a long time, where they are better tested, and possibly get better performance under concurrent load as a side benefit.
Using "Common Sense" is being either to arrogant or to ignorant to ask people who know more about something than you.
Just about every major non-open source project that has shipped with major bugs, the /. crowd jumps on for releasing poor quality products due to bad planning, poor communication, legal reasons, marketing deadlines, oh and the list goes on. When an open source project is shipped with major bugs though, what do I hear? Excuses. Is it just possible that people who develop open source are human, and make the same decisions, for the same reasons, as their closed-source counterparts? Which might lead to the conclusion that different methods don't necessarily yield different results; ie, that open source innately presents no inherent technical advantage over closed source, only social and legal advantages. Uh oh... they're getting a duck and a large scale out. I think that's my cue to post and run now...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If we have to play car analogy - lets say both cars engines will fail if you go over 80 kmh on a sunday while wearing blue. One vendor will tell you before you buy the car - the other waits until you've been on the phone with roadside assistance for a couple days. The severity of the issue is the same - it's just how the manufacturer handles it that is different.
To step away from the metaphor for a second - I have had severity 1 service tickets open with Oracle support for over a day that ended up being unpublished bugs that were fixed with a patch that was not available until you knew you had run into the bug. Sev 1 to be clear is production systems down.
I worked on a project with an Oracle consultant who had been on his own before he joined Oracle. I asked why he made the switch and he told me it was for one main reason - so that he would get full access to all the documentation, including all the bugs and open issues.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Obviously 5.1 is not a perfect release. Quality is critically important to a database and I hope MySQL/Sun takes note of Montyâ(TM)s concerns, ...
However in my opinion MySQL 5.1 a very good release, long ready for general production usage.
You call THAT a rebuttal? My goodness... it no wonder MySQL sucks if he can admit on the one hand it's bugridden (not in those words, sure) and then say at the same time, it's ready for general production usage. What the hell does that mean?! It just makes me ANGRY to think people like this are DBAs! Does he mean to suggest your "general production usage" server is OK with lost rows and table corruption... if the chances of it happening are rare enough? Does he mean to suggest "general production usage" is a separate category from "people who use the advertised features of the product?" Seriously.... arrrrgh..... I think I'm having a stroke, I need to go take a valium or something.
Well, you'd be a fool to buy MS SQL for its enterprise capabilities.
It has its strengths, of course, but it's most important strength is it is the default database slice of the Microsoft deployment stack and is well integrated with Microsoft development tools. For modest projects it provides the kinds of advantages MySQL does in the LAMP stack.
I'm not saying it is a bad product, depending on your needs. Nor am I saying that you can't do "enterprise applications" (whatever those are) if you design around its limitations. I'm just saying that if I weren't developing around a completely Microsoft based solution, I wouldn't give MS SQL a second glance. There are cheaper (open source) solutions on the low end, and more scalable solutions on the high end.
If maximum upward scalability from a PC host starting point was required, I'd go with Oracle. The fit on the low end is a bit awkward, but it's workable. You've got to be careful when you license Oracle because you can spend too much money very easily, but if you know what you're doing Oracle is scalable and cost-efficient. If you don't know what you're doing, that's a different affair altogether.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You call software that can bring down multiple slaves with a drop table statement in a transaction production-ready? Have fun with that.
df -h
If you allow your users direct access to SQL and rely on SQL permissions you probably shouldn't. Most MySQL setups have no way of allowing untrusted users to run SQL directly so they can't run a drop table statement. So yes, if your letting complete strangers run SQL on your database you might want to look somewhere else.