I'd rather just agree to disagree on this one, at this point it's all just what we have observed. It heavily depends on the situation, how the db is setup, etc.
As far as the script, yes, it does have locks, and rightly so. It's not terribly tough to write a lock aware script. In my opinion, the replication setup is extremely easy to script. I'd much rather script it than sit in front of the console. Once I see it work, I know it will work every time, and I won't worry about something like me or a peer mistyping the server-id at 4:00am. Even at 20GB, it can't be terribly long at 100Mb/s.
You only need the lock on the master while you're tar'ing the snapshot for distribution to the other servers. Once it's tar'd, unlock master, gzip, redistribute, tar zxvf, setup slave and it will catch up.
How can the an application running on an OS guarantee that the hardware has written the data correctly, and that it will be 100% after the next boot? Even in normal situations the DB cannot guarantee that data will be accessible.
Great! Let's just through 7 or 8 more patches in postgres, you know full text/replication/clustering, etc. and we'll have another beautiful product like qmail! I can't wait! I just love patching software all day just to get it to a semi-usable state, oh and what about the administrators after me? I'm sure they're just jumping for joy over the stickness of the duct tape that I've got all over the servers.
I don't think you _know_ this doesn't happen on postgres. I do think, however, you know this doesn't happen to you/your company on postgres _and_ you couldn't possibly hope to match how much i/o wiki(media|pedia) does in an hour.
UHH...Oracle replication is MUCH more tedious, time consuming and error prone than mysql. It's also almost a guarentee that any loss of an oracle server will require recovery. Mysql can handle reboots well.
Not sure about DB2, but I'm pretty sure postgres is more difficult, considering it's not even native to the software (Last time I checked).
BTW, write a damn script. Mysql was written for unix, unix thrives on scripts. If you can't handle writing a script, why the hell are you a DB admin?
Yeah, I bet you are also one of those people who makes sure that noone can email you unless they already happen to be in your address book. Seriously, we're trying to fix the problem correctly, as opposed to using some ugly kludgy hack.
Mr. Movies is also all over SD too, and yes, they are cheap. Additionally, they share no data between the stores, so SF has no idea that I still owe ~$20 to the RC one:)
imagine what Slashdot would be like if every story were written by a spoiled, ill-informed, over-opinionated techie... I'm not sure if you meant to be facetious or not, but...are you new here?
Spoiled/Over-opinionated? Every day there's another Ipod article. Almost everone here has eroctic fantasies about steve jobs' black turtle necks. Almost every one here rabidly defends Apple's legal department.
And that's just Apple!
And ill informed? Look at the stories that have to do with hydrogen. Every time one comes up there are 100+ comments to do with how the Hindenburg blew up.
Might I also add the "America - The book - The audio book", the audio version of this book is read by TDS crew, and I felt is was more entertaining than the book. It was also more amusing, especially when Jon started out the audio book with the sentence:
I'm going to stop there, because it was my fault that I didn't specify I meant legally. I do think, however, serving a greater public interest doesn't really apply. Of course it does in most interpretations, but I doubt it would single-handedly win the company the case should a shareholder sue it for not maximizing profits.
I don't think google is evil, I don't think they are good. They are a for-profit organization - and they have been prior to going public.
Indeed. It's just of my opinion that the inherent purpose of the shareholders is that they are after more money, and my take on groupthink predicts they will sacrifice the greater public interest for money.
Aww, comeon man. Say it's wrong or something..you don't need to be an ass about it.
If it's true, try buy a single share of just about any company in the country, then leading a class action lawsuit against them for donating money to charity instead of giving you the money in a dividend.
Seems to me that peoplesoft shareholders recently sued peoplesoft for not merging with oracle, after oracle raised its offer to $24/share. This seems, to me, to be shareholders suing their corporation for it NOT trying to make their shareholders money.
Also, look up Pulitzer Inc./Lee Enterprises.
By your logic, I wouldn't be able to sue phizer for donating 90% of their profits to charity. Granted, shareholders wouldn't get far if they donated 1%, but shareholders would probably win if it was 90%.
If it was private the owner could easily "not care" if the profits were not huge. He wouldn't have to give a flying fuck if the numbers were better than last years. If he an idea about how he could server the internet more, he could steer the company in that direction, and continue indefinitely assuming there is some profit.
Since it's public, it _MUST_TRY to make money for the shareholders, lest it gets sued by said shareholders for not doing everything possible. The people essentially lose all control in the company and the only direction it gets steered is towards more profit.
Although just an opinion of mine, google could stay less evil longer if they were private. Eventually, again in my opinion, the company will suffer from the differences in its "Don't be evil" goal and its shareholders "I'm only here for the dollars" goal.
This is a bit different though...Take my parents as an example. They don't use credit cards, they own their cars and they don't even order pizza over the phone. If their identity was stolen and they recently refinanced, it'd be pretty easy to do the rest of the investigating from there.
For the choicepoint story, however, you and I didn't do anything. We didn't hand over our SSNs recently, we didn't buy a book online and we haven't lost our wallets lately. FWIW, although we should be concerned about how the information changes hands, we should also be very concerned for where our data sits day after day, and who has access to it.
Huge not compared to anything... There may be millions installed, but it's not huge compared to RealPlayer. I was trying to point out that this statement means nothing in any real sense of "installed base".
Widely considered = most people think. Yes, most people who own ipods may think it's the best portable media player made. But this says nothing for people who own alternative portable media players. It's just as likely that (example: iRiver) users are just as happy. There were no facts in his statement.
Yes, legally. Burn to CD, rip to computer. Yes, legally, I see your point. This may clear the digital protection from the song, but it still does not null the agreement between you and iTunes for what you can and cannot do with the song. Obviously, napster doesn't allow you do this either, but my intent wasn't to make naptster shine.
You're attacking him for attacking iTunes now. Whose side are you on?
I'm not on any side, as my orignal post pointed out, I was trying show just how biased his post was. And no, I wasn't attacking him. I corrected his spelling, politely, then I pointed out that it was yet another opinion.
He didn't say the Creative and iRiver were bad products... Yeah, I see that. I guess I wasn't in the right place to comment on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly the point I've been trying to make, it's just that you've done it much more succinctly. Thank you.
I'd rather just agree to disagree on this one, at this point it's all just what we have observed. It heavily depends on the situation, how the db is setup, etc.
As far as the script, yes, it does have locks, and rightly so. It's not terribly tough to write a lock aware script. In my opinion, the replication setup is extremely easy to script. I'd much rather script it than sit in front of the console. Once I see it work, I know it will work every time, and I won't worry about something like me or a peer mistyping the server-id at 4:00am. Even at 20GB, it can't be terribly long at 100Mb/s.
You only need the lock on the master while you're tar'ing the snapshot for distribution to the other servers. Once it's tar'd, unlock master, gzip, redistribute, tar zxvf, setup slave and it will catch up.
How can the an application running on an OS guarantee that the hardware has written the data correctly, and that it will be 100% after the next boot? Even in normal situations the DB cannot guarantee that data will be accessible.
So it'll all be done for me while I sit back and watch? Nice.
Back to lifting weights while my girlfriend reads this story to me.
Great! Let's just through 7 or 8 more patches in postgres, you know full text/replication/clustering, etc. and we'll have another beautiful product like qmail! I can't wait!
I just love patching software all day just to get it to a semi-usable state, oh and what about the administrators after me? I'm sure they're just jumping for joy over the stickness of the duct tape that I've got all over the servers.
I don't think you _know_ this doesn't happen on postgres. I do think, however, you know this doesn't happen to you/your company on postgres _and_ you couldn't possibly hope to match how much i/o wiki(media|pedia) does in an hour.
If you would have used newlines and/or paragraphs I probably would have read it.
UHH...Oracle replication is MUCH more tedious, time consuming and error prone than mysql. It's also almost a guarentee that any loss of an oracle server will require recovery. Mysql can handle reboots well.
Not sure about DB2, but I'm pretty sure postgres is more difficult, considering it's not even native to the software (Last time I checked).
BTW, write a damn script. Mysql was written for unix, unix thrives on scripts. If you can't handle writing a script, why the hell are you a DB admin?
Yeah, I bet you are also one of those people who makes sure that noone can email you unless they already happen to be in your address book.
Seriously, we're trying to fix the problem correctly, as opposed to using some ugly kludgy hack.
Mr. Movies is also all over SD too, and yes, they are cheap. Additionally, they share no data between the stores, so SF has no idea that I still owe ~$20 to the RC one:)
Sounds like 1000 parsecs to me, but I could be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec
imagine what Slashdot would be like if every story were written by a spoiled, ill-informed, over-opinionated techie...
I'm not sure if you meant to be facetious or not, but...are you new here?
Spoiled/Over-opinionated?
Every day there's another Ipod article.
Almost everone here has eroctic fantasies about steve jobs' black turtle necks.
Almost every one here rabidly defends Apple's legal department.
And that's just Apple!
And ill informed?
Look at the stories that have to do with hydrogen. Every time one comes up there are 100+ comments to do with how the Hindenburg blew up.
I could go on and on...
Might I also add the "America - The book - The audio book", the audio version of this book is read by TDS crew, and I felt is was more entertaining than the book.
It was also more amusing, especially when Jon started out the audio book with the sentence:
"Welcome, non-reader"
No, it doesn't make me evil, and I see your point. I guess I should have said most/some.
If this were the case you'd think they would just issue another key. I can't imagine the media is key specific.
I'm going to stop there, because it was my fault that I didn't specify I meant legally. I do think, however, serving a greater public interest doesn't really apply. Of course it does in most interpretations, but I doubt it would single-handedly win the company the case should a shareholder sue it for not maximizing profits.
I don't think google is evil, I don't think they are good. They are a for-profit organization - and they have been prior to going public.
Indeed. It's just of my opinion that the inherent purpose of the shareholders is that they are after more money, and my take on groupthink predicts they will sacrifice the greater public interest for money.
That's a load of crap.
Aww, comeon man. Say it's wrong or something..you don't need to be an ass about it.
If it's true, try buy a single share of just about any company in the country, then leading a class action lawsuit against them for donating money to charity instead of giving you the money in a dividend.
Seems to me that peoplesoft shareholders recently sued peoplesoft for not merging with oracle, after oracle raised its offer to $24/share. This seems, to me, to be shareholders suing their corporation for it NOT trying to make their shareholders money.
Also, look up Pulitzer Inc./Lee Enterprises.
By your logic, I wouldn't be able to sue phizer for donating 90% of their profits to charity. Granted, shareholders wouldn't get far if they donated 1%, but shareholders would probably win if it was 90%.
If it was private the owner could easily "not care" if the profits were not huge. He wouldn't have to give a flying fuck if the numbers were better than last years. If he an idea about how he could server the internet more, he could steer the company in that direction, and continue indefinitely assuming there is some profit.
Since it's public, it _MUST_TRY to make money for the shareholders, lest it gets sued by said shareholders for not doing everything possible. The people essentially lose all control in the company and the only direction it gets steered is towards more profit.
Although just an opinion of mine, google could stay less evil longer if they were private. Eventually, again in my opinion, the company will suffer from the differences in its "Don't be evil" goal and its shareholders "I'm only here for the dollars" goal.
This is a bit different though...Take my parents as an example. They don't use credit cards, they own their cars and they don't even order pizza over the phone. If their identity was stolen and they recently refinanced, it'd be pretty easy to do the rest of the investigating from there.
For the choicepoint story, however, you and I didn't do anything. We didn't hand over our SSNs recently, we didn't buy a book online and we haven't lost our wallets lately. FWIW, although we should be concerned about how the information changes hands, we should also be very concerned for where our data sits day after day, and who has access to it.
if it made it to /., black hats knew about it months ago...
Wow! Thanks man, you just made my day!
If this technology they developed is as unreliable, disoraganized and entropic as SASL, we have nothing to worry about.
Whoops, I meant partition.
Soon as you show me how to range partion in postgres, I might consider it.
Huge not compared to anything...
There may be millions installed, but it's not huge compared to RealPlayer. I was trying to point out that this statement means nothing in any real sense of "installed base".
Widely considered = most people think. Yes, most people who own ipods may think it's the best portable media player made. But this says nothing for people who own alternative portable media players. It's just as likely that (example: iRiver) users are just as happy. There were no facts in his statement.
Yes, legally. Burn to CD, rip to computer.
Yes, legally, I see your point. This may clear the digital protection from the song, but it still does not null the agreement between you and iTunes for what you can and cannot do with the song. Obviously, napster doesn't allow you do this either, but my intent wasn't to make naptster shine.
You're attacking him for attacking iTunes now. Whose side are you on?
I'm not on any side, as my orignal post pointed out, I was trying show just how biased his post was. And no, I wasn't attacking him. I corrected his spelling, politely, then I pointed out that it was yet another opinion.
He didn't say the Creative and iRiver were bad products...
Yeah, I see that. I guess I wasn't in the right place to comment on this one.