>> It replicates 10-60 gigabytes per day from its master database to a MySQL server farm.
>Ah, a 'server farm'. So, the 20 billion rows are probably spread across dozens of mysql servers. This explains it all. Even SQL Server can do better than that.
Yeah, that's hilarious. mySQL should be ashamed of themselves.
And 60GB/day is not much at all - that's about 700 kilobytes per second; two 8-way SQL server servers could replace their "farm" of mySQL servers (judging by the size of replicated data).
I am aware of their replication-based software. The point is, mySQL per se is not a relatively reliable database. And it doesn't scale like Oracle RAC.
Well, in case you haven't noticed, it's late 2005 now. Some things have changed, for example Windows 2003 Server came out and MSCS is now quite a decent HA solution.
(BTW, the grandparent post didn't say that Microsoft's own clustering solution was lame, he made a general statement about all clustering software for the Windows platform).
What you wrote is really ignorant (which, modded on/., translates to Insightful).
1. (because I have yet to meet a clustering DB solution that didnt suck).
Where do you live? In Ruanda? Perhaps you have heard of Oracle RAC. And there are other very good clustering solutions for DBMS.
2. one copy of Debian + Apache + MySQL + Perl or 200 copies
mySQL isn't enterprise-reliable even in stand-alone configuration, let alone clustering. I can't believe this...
3. And windows doesnt support clustering yet - in any decent way shape or form, I dont see the problem here.
Hah, hah! Enough said. And also - what's it to you? If Microsoft (in your view) had a good clustering solution, you'd lose sleep over that? When you're biased like that, no wonder you can't have a quality, unbiased opinion on this topic.
Yes, we do know that people use Linux. GNU/Linux can boot and even run many applications.
And I would bet they had IBM's server-side stuff on AIX or something like that so they couldn't have left IBM anyway. If it was that cost, and not the cost of Windows XP embedded or whatever licenses, that made them take that choice. Does anyone really think IBM sales guys give a flying fuck what OS runs on POS terminals, as long as they control the situation so that the customer doesn't go to a competitor, be it Microsoft, HP or even some skillful Linux-savvy systems integrator? Give me a break...
I mean, what do you expect? First, it sounds like you don't really need a cluster (speeding up compile times - do you really do that much compiling?). If you did, you wouldn't use laptops. Second, there are both commercial and professionally supported open source solutions for compile farms - why don't you rather buy the right software (or support) and instead focus on coding or other tasks?
>you get some patches at the whim of MS. Whereas you implement your Linux patches based on stuff submitted to kernel mailing lists (and you lose all support rights that you might have had from RH/SLES, your h/w vendor and you app vendor)
> tell your system is unsupported if you actually install something other than the supplied bundled software on your system.
As opposed to Red Hat EL and Novell SLES which... oh, wait! And it's not like HP or IBM will debug RH or SLES for you just because it's open source (unless what you're buying is a zSeries box, then they'll ask their Linux partner to fix it or else they'll suggest the other Linux vendor).
No matter what OS, if you do your own thing, you're on your own.
>So please, elaborate your reasoning. What is RedHat doing that scares you?
Just one example - they threatened CentOS with legal action. They now can't even say they're Red Hat based (see their Web site, there's some mumbo-jumbo about being based upon a famous North American enterprise Linux distribution). So in theory, yes, you're allowed to redistribute, even for commercial purposes. In reality, though, they'll screw you up if you start doing well.
To comment on the article: wouldn't it be great if/. had a regex filter so that we can get rid of these "exchange replacment" articles.... Just today I saw KDE goes wild on an SLES9SP2 system and nearly freeze it - the same fucking thing that used to happen back in 2000. Five years past by and not much has changed.
> That said if you need a "farm" of computers to run your mail and your company has fewer than 100,000 employees, I think the benefit of moving off Exchange should be obvious: you wouldn't need the farm any more.
You need directory services, scheduling, global address book, forms and sophisticated IMAP folder sharing even in a very small company (100 employees), so even in small-and-medium enterprises, people do need Exchange-like functionality and not only SMTP/IMAP/Webmail. Dovecot: it's in alpha, for Christ's sake (http://www.dovecot.org/)
>If you were moving to a newer Exchange you already know the hidden costs: software for managing Active Directory quirks (from CA or whomever), special backup software that interfaces properly with exchange (possibly licensed per mailbox) and so forth. With the usual Linux setups you would backup mail the same way you backup anything else: with an LVM snapshot.
1. Software for managing AD: not really that expensive. On Linux you need to spend as much to write and maintain custom scripts, Webforms and what not. 2. Backup software: yes, because Exchange has its internal database format (i.e. it does not use only flat files). You can't back that up without suspending I/O to a consistent state which means you have to have an application-side plugin. 3. LVM: can't create crash-consistent snapshots of database files so what you say is incorrect, unless you meant snapshots of ordinary IMAP directories (incorrect comparison - database format vs. flat files). Besides, if you have VSS H/W Provider agent on Exchange server, you can take snapshots (on storage or the server itself), re-mount them and backup them using the regular Windows software.
https://shop.mysql.com/ - MaxDB for non-SAP apps is US$1,490, MySQL Network Silver (working hours phone support) is US$1,995 and the cheapest one is US$595. And all of this is *per year*, folks.
The free version seems to be the only right-priced product they have.
Solution: use Opera (or IE). Opera 8.5 opens PDFs in Acrobat Reader (not in the browser), at least that's why my copy does. In respect to PDF handling, FF is the worst. MS IE is OK.
I've never stopped being amazed at the fact that the U.S. military makes this information available to general public (including the enemies). Disclosure of the features alone is totally unnecessary, not to mention giving away exact information what companies make key components of each system. That's totally insane. Try finding similar info on Chinese Web sites.
Check out comments on this story - the FF update indicator shows nuthin' and I believe at least 80% of active FF users out there have no freaking clue that they're exposed.
>To those of you who say "What??! Ordinary SATA disks on mission critical servers??!" - even high end enterprise storage systems (like EMC Symmetrix) use ordinary disks.
WTF are you blathering about? The fact that those disk arrays can use SATA disks doesn't mean that they recommend running mission critical databases on SATA disks.
They do that for simple reasons such as: a) if you need cheap storage, you don't have to buy two disk arrays (e.g. Symmertrix for FC SCSI and CORAID for SATA) b) you can put shit data on SATA and important data on SCSI (e.g. database files on SCSI, database backup files on SATA)
What kind of business benefit could HP and RH possibly derive from burning hundreds of man-hours on perf tests that can be replicated using any other hardware with any other Linux OS?
They could sell tuning "services"? Yes, to the first customer, then they would do a diff on clean system install, collect their optimization settings and post them on their Web site for everyone to share.
Apparently you wish they test so that you don't have to spend your time and money to do that. We all want that. They, on the other hand, have to think how to make money, so they'll instead test RH with HP storage - if you want to benefit from that work, you'll have to shell out some bucks for HP storage (and HP/RH services tied to it).
Slashdot Mirror
>"Under the deal, Google will allow web users to access Sun's OpenOffice from a toolbar."
To me this means one will be able to start-up OO by clicking on the G bar.
>> It replicates 10-60 gigabytes per day from its master database to a MySQL server farm.
>Ah, a 'server farm'. So, the 20 billion rows are probably spread across dozens of mysql servers. This explains it all. Even SQL Server can do better than that.
Yeah, that's hilarious. mySQL should be ashamed of themselves.
And 60GB/day is not much at all - that's about 700 kilobytes per second; two 8-way SQL server servers could replace their "farm" of mySQL servers (judging by the size of replicated data).
mySQL makes me sick.
Riiight.
How do you explain the existence of Oracle, then?
>I wonder when investors will catch on and start considering copy prevention schemes as the waste of money they are ?
They'll never do that because cost of developing protection schemes is a very small percentage of overall development cost.
> I know I would, if I owned shares in a software company...
Considering that, I suggest you not to invest in software business. Copy protection is definitively not a good investment criterium.
I am aware of their replication-based software. The point is, mySQL per se is not a relatively reliable database. And it doesn't scale like Oracle RAC.
Well, in case you haven't noticed, it's late 2005 now.
Some things have changed, for example Windows 2003 Server came out and MSCS is now quite a decent HA solution.
(BTW, the grandparent post didn't say that Microsoft's own clustering solution was lame, he made a general statement about all clustering software for the Windows platform).
What you wrote is really ignorant (which, modded on /., translates to Insightful).
1. (because I have yet to meet a clustering DB solution that didnt suck).
Where do you live? In Ruanda?
Perhaps you have heard of Oracle RAC. And there are other very good clustering solutions for DBMS.
2. one copy of Debian + Apache + MySQL + Perl or 200 copies
mySQL isn't enterprise-reliable even in stand-alone configuration, let alone clustering. I can't believe this...
3. And windows doesnt support clustering yet - in any decent way shape or form, I dont see the problem here.
Hah, hah! Enough said.
And also - what's it to you? If Microsoft (in your view) had a good clustering solution, you'd lose sleep over that?
When you're biased like that, no wonder you can't have a quality, unbiased opinion on this topic.
What's newsworthy about this story?
Yes, we do know that people use Linux.
GNU/Linux can boot and even run many applications.
And I would bet they had IBM's server-side stuff on AIX or something like that so they couldn't have left IBM anyway. If it was that cost, and not the cost of Windows XP embedded or whatever licenses, that made them take that choice.
Does anyone really think IBM sales guys give a flying fuck what OS runs on POS terminals, as long as they control the situation so that the customer doesn't go to a competitor, be it Microsoft, HP or even some skillful Linux-savvy systems integrator? Give me a break...
How did this get modded interesting? It is REDUNDANT.
r y/l-cluster1/).
A moronic question (the answer is in the fucking article) that wasted other reader's time and created nothing but glut (since the answer is at the URL given in the story - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/libra
I mean, what do you expect?
First, it sounds like you don't really need a cluster (speeding up compile times - do you really do that much compiling?). If you did, you wouldn't use laptops.
Second, there are both commercial and professionally supported open source solutions for compile farms - why don't you rather buy the right software (or support) and instead focus on coding or other tasks?
>you get some patches at the whim of MS.
Whereas you implement your Linux patches based on stuff submitted to kernel mailing lists (and you lose all support rights that you might have had from RH/SLES, your h/w vendor and you app vendor)
> tell your system is unsupported if you actually install something other than the supplied bundled software on your system.
As opposed to Red Hat EL and Novell SLES which... oh, wait!
And it's not like HP or IBM will debug RH or SLES for you just because it's open source (unless what you're buying is a zSeries box, then they'll ask their Linux partner to fix it or else they'll suggest the other Linux vendor).
No matter what OS, if you do your own thing, you're on your own.
>Perhaps a Firefox-esque forced delay is in order so people can't just click 'OK' without thinking.
:-)
It's funny you should say that - there's a fix for that bug and it comes in shape of a Firefox extension that helps you get rid of the nagging delay.
http://www.mrtech.com/news/messages/5071.html
Don't forget: ... Unbreakable
Oracle
>So please, elaborate your reasoning. What is RedHat doing that scares you?
Just one example - they threatened CentOS with legal action. They now can't even say they're Red Hat based (see their Web site, there's some mumbo-jumbo about being based upon a famous North American enterprise Linux distribution).
So in theory, yes, you're allowed to redistribute, even for commercial purposes. In reality, though, they'll screw you up if you start doing well.
To comment on the article: wouldn't it be great if /. had a regex filter so that we can get rid of these "exchange replacment" articles....
Just today I saw KDE goes wild on an SLES9SP2 system and nearly freeze it - the same fucking thing that used to happen back in 2000. Five years past by and not much has changed.
> That said if you need a "farm" of computers to run your mail and your company has fewer than 100,000 employees, I think the benefit of moving off Exchange should be obvious: you wouldn't need the farm any more.
You need directory services, scheduling, global address book, forms and sophisticated IMAP folder sharing even in a very small company (100 employees), so even in small-and-medium enterprises, people do need Exchange-like functionality and not only SMTP/IMAP/Webmail.
Dovecot: it's in alpha, for Christ's sake (http://www.dovecot.org/)
>If you were moving to a newer Exchange you already know the hidden costs: software for managing Active Directory quirks (from CA or whomever), special backup software that interfaces properly with exchange (possibly licensed per mailbox) and so forth. With the usual Linux setups you would backup mail the same way you backup anything else: with an LVM snapshot.
1. Software for managing AD: not really that expensive. On Linux you need to spend as much to write and maintain custom scripts, Webforms and what not.
2. Backup software: yes, because Exchange has its internal database format (i.e. it does not use only flat files). You can't back that up without suspending I/O to a consistent state which means you have to have an application-side plugin.
3. LVM: can't create crash-consistent snapshots of database files so what you say is incorrect, unless you meant snapshots of ordinary IMAP directories (incorrect comparison - database format vs. flat files). Besides, if you have VSS H/W Provider agent on Exchange server, you can take snapshots (on storage or the server itself), re-mount them and backup them using the regular Windows software.
Soon they'll have the resources to add DRM filters and redesign the GUI so that that they can show ever more ads on it....
>MySQL is around $500.
https://shop.mysql.com/ - MaxDB for non-SAP apps is US$1,490, MySQL Network Silver (working hours phone support) is US$1,995 and the cheapest one is US$595. And all of this is *per year*, folks.
The free version seems to be the only right-priced product they have.
You're right.
>So yeah, mysql and postgresql are neat products, but their lack of scalability for massive tables or analytical queries is a major gap.
Perhaps in a year or so these guys will have something for low-end data warehousing on PostgreSQL: http://www.greenplum.com/
Solution: use Opera (or IE).
Opera 8.5 opens PDFs in Acrobat Reader (not in the browser), at least that's why my copy does.
In respect to PDF handling, FF is the worst. MS IE is OK.
I've never stopped being amazed at the fact that the U.S. military makes this information available to general public (including the enemies).
Disclosure of the features alone is totally unnecessary, not to mention giving away exact information what companies make key components of each system. That's totally insane.
Try finding similar info on Chinese Web sites.
> imagine TV adds that are targetted to you personally based on your viewing habits.
I just did and I don't like the idea. I prefer to have my TV set show stupid ads (I know they have no clue about me) than personalized ads.
>The specific response: It's already patched.
Check out comments on this story - the FF update indicator shows nuthin' and I believe at least 80% of active FF users out there have no freaking clue that they're exposed.
It's more like 10% of Google revenue and it's not predatory - if Google doesn't like it, they can buy AOL themselves.
>To those of you who say "What??! Ordinary SATA disks on mission critical servers??!" - even high end enterprise storage systems (like EMC Symmetrix) use ordinary disks.
WTF are you blathering about?
The fact that those disk arrays can use SATA disks doesn't mean that they recommend running mission critical databases on SATA disks.
They do that for simple reasons such as:
a) if you need cheap storage, you don't have to buy two disk arrays (e.g. Symmertrix for FC SCSI and CORAID for SATA)
b) you can put shit data on SATA and important data on SCSI (e.g. database files on SCSI, database backup files on SATA)
>they do performance tests
What kind of business benefit could HP and RH possibly derive from burning hundreds of man-hours on perf tests that can be replicated using any other hardware with any other Linux OS?
They could sell tuning "services"?
Yes, to the first customer, then they would do a diff on clean system install, collect their optimization settings and post them on their Web site for everyone to share.
Apparently you wish they test so that you don't have to spend your time and money to do that. We all want that.
They, on the other hand, have to think how to make money, so they'll instead test RH with HP storage - if you want to benefit from that work, you'll have to shell out some bucks for HP storage (and HP/RH services tied to it).