Any WAMP users Win 2003/Apache/mysql/php?

[w***@hotmail.com]

Anybody running Win2k3 server with Apache 2.x along with mysql and
Php?

For some reason my company is considering doing this with Win2k3 not
Linux.

I know that the LAMP model is the best one, but where can I go to get
stats that backup running Linux/apache/mysql/php is faster and more
stable than Windows 2003 server?

What makes it even more interesting is that we now run linux with
coldfussion on the website today.

How interchangeable are the configs between Windows and linux with
these apps?

Not looking for a "Flame war" but need "proof" to squash this horrible idea!

Thanks

[Greg Copeland]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Anybody running Win2k3 server with Apache 2.x along with mysql and
Php?
For some reason my company is considering doing this with Win2k3 not
Linux.
I know that the LAMP model is the best one, but where can I go to get
stats that backup running Linux/apache/mysql/php is faster and more
stable than Windows 2003 server?
What makes it even more interesting is that we now run linux with
coldfussion on the website today.
How interchangeable are the configs between Windows and linux with
these apps?
Not looking for a "Flame war" but need "proof" to squash this horrible idea!

Well, speaking of flame wars, depending on your timetable, you might
consider using PostgreSQL. The Windows port is currently in Beta.
PostgreSQL is *generally* faster than MySQL (no joke, no FUD, just fact),
way richer, more secure, by far, more feature rich, and offers a ton of SP
language options (Perl, Python, Java (IIRC), TCL, R?, so on and so on).

Bluntly, everytime I see someone using MySQL, I cringe, knowing that
PostgreSQL is almost always a better solution. Heck, if you can get Linux
as your platform, then you're already set to go with PostgreSQL.

I'm not sure you're going to find "faster and more stable" papers or
articles. You probably won't have trouble find TCO papers which work well
for Linux/Apache. If you do some of your own leg work, you might be able
to pull some facts together supporting better Linux/Apache uptimes versus
Win/IIS.

Good luck.

Cheers,

Greg

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Greg Copeland
<***@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:01:25 -0500

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Anybody running Win2k3 server with Apache 2.x along with mysql and
Php?
For some reason my company is considering doing this with Win2k3 not
Linux.
I know that the LAMP model is the best one, but where can I go to get
stats that backup running Linux/apache/mysql/php is faster and more
stable than Windows 2003 server?
What makes it even more interesting is that we now run linux with
coldfussion on the website today.
How interchangeable are the configs between Windows and linux with
these apps?
Not looking for a "Flame war" but need "proof" to squash this horrible idea!

Well, speaking of flame wars, depending on your timetable, you might
consider using PostgreSQL. The Windows port is currently in Beta.
PostgreSQL is *generally* faster than MySQL (no joke, no FUD, just fact),
way richer, more secure, by far, more feature rich, and offers a ton of SP
language options (Perl, Python, Java (IIRC), TCL, R?, so on and so on).

Since this is on Windows -- how does it compare against Access and
SQL Server?

I would expect Access to blow up and die compared to PostgreSQL;
SQL Server will at least make a go of it (although the
Slammer worm doesn't speak very well for SQL Server's
security) but I'm not sure how far.

As for language options -- on Windows, ODBC rules the roost; support
that and anyone can get to the DB. For Java, both MySql and PostgreSQL
have JDBC drivers. I'd have to look regarding Python and Tcl (though
there is a Postgres/Tcl shell somewhere).

Linux has no intrinsic common driver but most systems
support both PostgreSQL and MySql; Java can support others
as well, and there is, on x86 at least, the ODBC option,
strangely enough. (I don't know how well it works.)
There might also be a CORBA option; I can't say without
further research.

As for backups -- Linux makes backups reasonably simple, I would think;
Windows by contrast has some problems backing up locked files.

Post by Greg Copeland
Bluntly, everytime I see someone using MySQL, I cringe, knowing that
PostgreSQL is almost always a better solution. Heck, if you can get Linux
as your platform, then you're already set to go with PostgreSQL.

For the most part. Gentoo and Debian offer PostgreSQL
installs out of the box. I'd have to look regarding other
distros but I'd be surprised if they didn't.

Ditto for MySql.

Post by Greg Copeland
I'm not sure you're going to find "faster and more stable" papers or
articles. You probably won't have trouble find TCO papers which work well
for Linux/Apache. If you do some of your own leg work, you might be able
to pull some facts together supporting better Linux/Apache uptimes versus
Win/IIS.

Uptimes, schmuptimes. While uptimes are good, performance
is better. Keeping that website up 24/7/365 with Access
(yeah, right!) won't help the erstwhile webadministrator if
he can only handle 2 users before it says "services are't
available due to overload". Not that stability doesn't
hurt, but there are definitely a number of issues here.

Post by Greg Copeland
Good luck.
Cheers,
Greg

[Greg Copeland]

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Since this is on Windows -- how does it compare against Access and
SQL Server?

Well, I consider Access to be a slower but richer equivalent of MySQL and
insulting to compare Access to SQL Server or PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is in
the same league as Oracle, MySQL, Informix, Sybase, etc. In other words,
it's a full featured, fast, highly scalable RDBMS.

Having said that, I can't stress enough that the Windows port is in Beta.
But, if your timetable allows for it, you can't beat the price. And,
commercial support is available. Chances are, you won't require it
because the mailing lists are first class. But, nothing beats quality,
commercial support.

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
I would expect Access to blow up and die compared to PostgreSQL;
SQL Server will at least make a go of it (although the
Slammer worm doesn't speak very well for SQL Server's
security) but I'm not sure how far.

Well, that's really a security aspect rather than an overall attribute of
MS SQLServer's abilities. PostgreSQL is right up there in performance,
scalability and reliability. In fact, people often report speed boosts
when migrating away from Oracle. I'm sure that's not true in every case,
but PostgreSQL is ranked right up there the commercial big boys. If
you've used a .org domain, then you've used PostgreSQL.

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
As for language options -- on Windows, ODBC rules the roost; support
that and anyone can get to the DB. For Java, both MySql and PostgreSQL
have JDBC drivers. I'd have to look regarding Python and Tcl (though
there is a Postgres/Tcl shell somewhere).

You misunderstand. Of course, PostgreSQL supports both ODBC and JDBC
access. What I mean is, in stead of using Transact SQL, you can write
your stored procedures in the previously mentioned languages. Just as in
Oracle, you can write Stored Procedures (SP) using Java or their PL/SQL
(which PostgreSQL also has it's own dialect of).

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Linux has no intrinsic common driver but most systems
support both PostgreSQL and MySql; Java can support others
as well, and there is, on x86 at least, the ODBC option,
strangely enough. (I don't know how well it works.)
There might also be a CORBA option; I can't say without
further research.

PostgreSQL supports ODBC, JDBC, and I *think* I remember reading there was
even an ADO driver available. And yes, there currently are some CORBA
hooks for accessing PostgreSQL too. I've never used them so I can't speak
to their functionality or scope of implementation.

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
As for backups -- Linux makes backups reasonably simple, I would think;
Windows by contrast has some problems backing up locked files.

Just about any good backup software is going to support the shadow copy
mechanism. So, that alone, IMO, is not a good reason to avoid Windows.
Having said that, I do believe your backup solutions will be more readily
available on Linux. In fact, perfectly good options exist by using 100%
free and natively available tools if you don't mind scripting a little
bit. If you're in the market for a commercial solution, BRU and any
number of other options work very well.

Post by The Ghost In The Machine

Post by Greg Copeland
Bluntly, everytime I see someone using MySQL, I cringe, knowing that
PostgreSQL is almost always a better solution. Heck, if you can get Linux
as your platform, then you're already set to go with PostgreSQL.

For the most part. Gentoo and Debian offer PostgreSQL
installs out of the box. I'd have to look regarding other
distros but I'd be surprised if they didn't.

I think PostgreSQL is offered on all of the major distros. Mandrake, I
know, and I think RedHat does too. Just the same, downloading, compiling,
and installing is super easy. And, should you want commercial support,
there are commercial vendors which sale support contracts and their own
customized (enhanced or new features) versions of PostgreSQL. All of
which make excellent options.

Cheers,

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Since this is on Windows -- how does it compare against Access and
SQL Server?

Well, I consider Access to be a slower but richer equivalent of MySQL and
insulting to compare Access to SQL Server or PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is in
the same league as Oracle, MySQL, Informix, Sybase, etc. In other words,
it's a full featured, fast, highly scalable RDBMS.

Horrible mistake corrected. I realized I said, "same league as Oracle,
MySQL, Informix...", and that was supposed to read, "same league as
Oracle, MSSQL, Informix...".

That's a huge difference as MySQL is a toy compared to the other databases
in the list and it is, by no means, in the same class.

Sorry for any confusion I may of created here.

Cheers,

Greg

[JEDIDIAH]

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Since this is on Windows -- how does it compare against Access and
SQL Server?

Well, I consider Access to be a slower but richer equivalent of MySQL and
insulting to compare Access to SQL Server or PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is in
the same league as Oracle, MySQL, Informix, Sybase, etc. In other words,

MySQL and Postgres are sandbox toys. Comparing them to Access is not
unreasonable. They simply aren't in the same league with Oracle et al.

Post by Greg Copeland
it's a full featured, fast, highly scalable RDBMS.

It's a bigger toy.

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
I would expect Access to blow up and die compared to PostgreSQL;
SQL Server will at least make a go of it (although the
Slammer worm doesn't speak very well for SQL Server's
security) but I'm not sure how far.

Well, that's really a security aspect rather than an overall attribute of
MS SQLServer's abilities. PostgreSQL is right up there in performance,
scalability and reliability. In fact, people often report speed boosts
when migrating away from Oracle. I'm sure that's not true in every case,

"speed" is not why you run a commercial RDBMS in the first place.

Post by Greg Copeland
but PostgreSQL is ranked right up there the commercial big boys. If
you've used a .org domain, then you've used PostgreSQL.

Get back to us when a financial institution has deployed it.

[deletia]

[DFS]

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Since this is on Windows -- how does it compare against Access and
SQL Server?

Well, I consider Access to be a slower but richer equivalent of
MySQL and insulting to compare Access to SQL Server or PostgreSQL.
PostgreSQL is in the same league as Oracle, MySQL, Informix, Sybase,
etc. In other words,

MySQL and Postgres are sandbox toys. Comparing them to Access is not
unreasonable.

It would probably shock you (or maybe not) to see how many companies build
and run their entire businesses on MS Office and Access. Many thousands of
mission-critical systems (department or company-wide) are hosted on Access,
all around the world. It's kind of scary, considering I know of a $45
program that will easily break Access security (reveal every user, group and
password using a quick drag-n-drop operation).

As an Access developer, I'm often floored to see how much valuable and
sensitive info. companies put on Access systems. Depending on the
app\data\user count, I usually recommend SQL Server or Oracle.

Post by JEDIDIAH
They simply aren't in the same league with Oracle et al.

This is true. I spent several months as the data analyst and DBA on a
Solaris/J2EE/Oracle/XML project, and the more I dug through Oracle the more
impressed I was. That is one monstrous C program. It would take years to
master it - heck, a whole lifetime maybe.

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland
it's a full featured, fast, highly scalable RDBMS.

It's a bigger toy.

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
I would expect Access to blow up and die compared to PostgreSQL;
SQL Server will at least make a go of it (although the
Slammer worm doesn't speak very well for SQL Server's
security) but I'm not sure how far.

Well, that's really a security aspect rather than an overall
attribute of MS SQLServer's abilities. PostgreSQL is right up there
in performance, scalability and reliability. In fact, people often
report speed boosts when migrating away from Oracle. I'm sure
that's not true in every case,

"speed" is not why you run a commercial RDBMS in the first place.

I used to embarrass an Oracle developer with how quickly my Access/Jet
systems would return data. It will return 100,000 rows to the screen in a
matter of seconds. SELECTS are blindingly fast. Now when you start dealing
with millions of rows, it quickly chokes, but for smaller systems it flies.

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland
but PostgreSQL is ranked right up there the commercial big boys. If
you've used a .org domain, then you've used PostgreSQL.

Get back to us when a financial institution has deployed it.
[deletia]

[Greg Copeland]

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland
Well, I consider Access to be a slower but richer equivalent of MySQL and
insulting to compare Access to SQL Server or PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is in
the same league as Oracle, MySQL, Informix, Sybase, etc. In other words,

MySQL and Postgres are sandbox toys. Comparing them to Access is not
unreasonable. They simply aren't in the same league with Oracle et al.

Spoken like a truly uninformed idiot. Ya, I know you're trolling, but I
want to make sure the others are not fooled by your stupidity. PostgreSQL
is feature rich and fast. It is ranked up there with the likes of Oracle,
MSSQL, Informix, Sybase, etc. MySQL, on the other hand, is a toy which
has fewer features than even Access has. In otherwords, Access is a toy
DB and is still more feature rich than MySQL. MySQL, on the other hand,
is much faster than Access. Comparing Access and MySQL with real DBs is a
clear insult. If you would use Access for a DB, then MySQL is probably a
good pick. If you would not use Access for a project, then you should
ignore MySQL.

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland
it's a full featured, fast, highly scalable RDBMS.

It's a bigger toy.

Nice to know that your stupidity considers Oracle, MSSQL, Informix,
Sybase, etc., all toys. What a moron.

Post by JEDIDIAH
"speed" is not why you run a commercial RDBMS in the first place.

No said otherwise. I see in your stupidity, you trying to pick a fight
about something which was never said. What a moron.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Get back to us when a financial institution has deployed it.

Wow, sheer stupidity at it's best. In what capacity. Financial
institutions already use it, however, you don't specify at what capacity.
Beyond, it really has no bearing at all. Only pethetic losers such as
your self imagine that that others much first validate you for something
to become true. Meanwhile, back on planet sanity, some of us don't
require others to decide if something is acceptible. Some of us can think
for themselves. Meanwhile, your zealot fantasies will force you into
using Access and MySQL. Which is fine. It's just that those of us that
have an brain and can think, will point and laugh at your stupidity.
Which, I must say, has already started. LOL.

What a moron.

Want to prove me wrong, in detail, explain why PostgreSQL is a toy DB.
I'm sure your stupidity is in need of a platform to shine. Go ahead,
shine away. Provide details.

What a moron.

Cheers,

Greg

[JEDIDIAH]

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland
Well, I consider Access to be a slower but richer equivalent of MySQL and
insulting to compare Access to SQL Server or PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is in
the same league as Oracle, MySQL, Informix, Sybase, etc. In other words,

MySQL and Postgres are sandbox toys. Comparing them to Access is not
unreasonable. They simply aren't in the same league with Oracle et al.

Spoken like a truly uninformed idiot. Ya, I know you're trolling, but I

I'm not trolling at all. I'm just trying to inject a little sense into
this cabal of drooling fanboys. MySQL and Postgres are nice if you have
no serious uptime requirements and/or don't care about your data.

Otherwise they are woefully inadequate.

They will continue to be so until their fanboys cease to focus
on the less important aspects of data management.

Post by Greg Copeland
want to make sure the others are not fooled by your stupidity. PostgreSQL
is feature rich and fast. It is ranked up there with the likes of Oracle,

"feature rich and fast" does not qualify anything to be a
serious enterprise RDBMS.

[deletia]

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH
"speed" is not why you run a commercial RDBMS in the first place.

No said otherwise. I see in your stupidity, you trying to pick a fight

You just did: "feature rich and fast".

[deletia]

Go play in mommas basement, the rest of us have serious SLAs to deliver.

[Greg Copeland]

Post by JEDIDIAH
I'm not trolling at all.

Riiiiight. Meanwhile, reality is missing you.

Post by JEDIDIAH
MySQL and Postgres are nice if you have
no serious uptime requirements and/or don't care about your data.

Having to correct your stupidity is getting old. The correct sentence
should read, "MySQL is nice if you have no serious uptime requirements
and/or don't care about your data."

Hopefully, you'll be able to understand why you're wrong some day. But,
seriously, we both know that's pretty much impossible to expect your mind
to grow.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Otherwise they are woefully inadequate.

How? Why? Provide technical details. Hmmm. I guess this makes the
second time to ask. Gasp, you mean you didn't provide any? You mean
you're trolling? Gasp. What a surprise.

[stupid garbage deleted]

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland
is feature rich and fast. It is ranked up there with the likes of Oracle,

I'm glad we agree! Since you've offered nothing to displel the facts that
PostgreSQL is a serious database, then clearly we agree.

Here's the funny part. For some reason I got the impression that you
actually thought that negatively quoting me somehow disproved reality.
That's funny. What a troll. What dork. What an idiot.

Post by JEDIDIAH
[deletia]

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH
"speed" is not why you run a commercial RDBMS in the first place.

No said otherwise. I see in your stupidity, you trying to pick a fight

You just did: "feature rich and fast".

LOL. Your stupidity is showing. Feature rich = commercial placing. Fast
is an assesment of it's comparative speed. The fact that your so confused
by such a basic comment and still completely missed the facts, highlights
just how stupid you are. This is funny. Oh gasp, you failed to present
anything to support your position. Gasp, what a surprise, coming from a
troll.

Thus far, we have a thread that reads like this:
Me: It's feature rich and fast. It's highly scalable. It's a serious DB
which can compete with the big, commercial offerings.

You: Duh, "fast" does not mean it can do, er, like stuff. Duh, "feature
rich" does not mean it's fast. Duh, no one cares 'bout fast. Duh. It no
good. It baaad. Baaaad DB. Me scared. Mommy!

Me: Support and provide the technical reasons why PostgreSQL isn't up to
snuff.

You: Duh, because me can only quote and attempt to, err, spin, it. Me
idiot. Me no comment in-tell-a-gent-lee. Duh. Rich, fast, no equal good.
Rich, fast equal bad. Duh. I mean bad cus I....duh...what me want to
say. Duh. Me scared. Mommy!

This is funny stuff.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Go play in mommas basement, the rest of us have serious SLAs to deliver.

Good, then we agree that you have no idea what you're talking about. What
a moron. Please, I'll ask a third time. In technical detail, explain
why PostgreSQL is a toy database. Furthermore, in technical detail,
explain why PostgreSQL is not in the same league as the big commercial
databases.

This should be so funny. Don't foget to start your sentences with, "duh"
and end with "mommy".

Cheers,


Greg

[JEDIDIAH]

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH
I'm not trolling at all.

Riiiiight. Meanwhile, reality is missing you.

Post by JEDIDIAH
MySQL and Postgres are nice if you have
no serious uptime requirements and/or don't care about your data.

Having to correct your stupidity is getting old. The correct sentence

You haven't corrected anything. All you've done is repeat dubious
Microsoft style marketing drivel. You've never given any indication
why someone should be willing to put their company's data or job on
the line over MySQL.

Post by Greg Copeland
should read, "MySQL is nice if you have no serious uptime requirements
and/or don't care about your data."
Hopefully, you'll be able to understand why you're wrong some day. But,
seriously, we both know that's pretty much impossible to expect your mind
to grow.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Otherwise they are woefully inadequate.

How? Why? Provide technical details. Hmmm. I guess this makes the
second time to ask. Gasp, you mean you didn't provide any? You mean
you're trolling? Gasp. What a surprise.

No point in time recovery.

Postgres has just released such features as beta and they will probably
prove themselves worthwhile for FUTURE use. MySQL seems to be sorely
lacking in that area. The official documentation of what disaster
recovery features it does have are not at all compelling.

[deletia]

I can take an axe to a server running one of the serious database
products and be sure that I'll get the data back including the last
transactions commited before I went postal.

Now, that's just the starting point.

[Greg Copeland]

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland
Having to correct your stupidity is getting old. The correct sentence

You haven't corrected anything. All you've done is repeat dubious
Microsoft style marketing drivel. You've never given any indication
why someone should be willing to put their company's data or job on
the line over MySQL.

Your stupidity is showing again. You clearly missed the factually correct
revision that I made to your statement. And, I previously answered the
stupidity of the above question, when you originally asked, so I'll
happily move along. Sure wish you could. Groan.

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH
Otherwise they are woefully inadequate.

How? Why? Provide technical details. Hmmm. I guess this makes the
second time to ask. Gasp, you mean you didn't provide any? You mean
you're trolling? Gasp. What a surprise.

No point in time recovery.

Wrong. PITR is coming. Is this the sole hook you hang your hat on? If
so, it's a rusty hook. Alternate solutions include replication. So, what
was your point?

Post by JEDIDIAH
Postgres has just released such features as beta and they will probably
prove themselves worthwhile for FUTURE use.

And yet, many large companies have long been using PostgreSQL on very
large datasets. In many cases, they even replaced Oracle with it.

Post by JEDIDIAH
MySQL seems to be sorely
lacking in that area. The official documentation of what disaster
recovery features it does have are not at all compelling.

That's because MySQL is sorely lacking in just about every area. It IS a
toy DB, unlike PostgreSQL, Informix, Oracle, Sybase, MSSQL, etc.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Now, that's just the starting point.

Please, keep going because I've not heard anything of merit, thus far.

But, by your own admission, in your opinion, 8.0 will be a first class
RDBMS. At this point, I think I've won.

Cheers,

Greg

[JEDIDIAH]

[deletia]

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH
Otherwise they are woefully inadequate.

How? Why? Provide technical details. Hmmm. I guess this makes the
second time to ask. Gasp, you mean you didn't provide any? You mean
you're trolling? Gasp. What a surprise.

No point in time recovery.

Wrong. PITR is coming. Is this the sole hook you hang your hat on? If

^^^^^^^^^
It's a pretty big hook.

Some companies get cranky when they lose transactions

Oracle and it's real competitors have been allowing for transaction
level recovery for over a decade. Meanwhile, the FreeDBs might have
such a feature sometime in the unspecified future.

10 year solid track record vs. "Well it will be out any day now".

...and you wonder why people call the FreeDBs toys.

Post by Greg Copeland
so, it's a rusty hook. Alternate solutions include replication. So, what
was your point?

Such replication will either be a burden on the master server or incomplete
when compared to proper transaction logs. There really isn't a shortcut to
avoid the overhead associated with proper PITR.

Now you've just added the network as a point of failure in what should be
a very central feature of the engine.

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH
Postgres has just released such features as beta and they will probably
prove themselves worthwhile for FUTURE use.

And yet, many large companies have long been using PostgreSQL on very
large datasets. In many cases, they even replaced Oracle with it.

That indicates nothing in terms of how critical their data is. They may
simply have very loose requirements in that area. Or they may simply be
foolish.

Oracle is quite often horrendous overkill.

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH
MySQL seems to be sorely
lacking in that area. The official documentation of what disaster
recovery features it does have are not at all compelling.

That's because MySQL is sorely lacking in just about every area. It IS a
toy DB, unlike PostgreSQL, Informix, Oracle, Sybase, MSSQL, etc.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Now, that's just the starting point.

Please, keep going because I've not heard anything of merit, thus far.
But, by your own admission, in your opinion, 8.0 will be a first class
RDBMS. At this point, I think I've won.

You are far too eager to use beta features when the alternatives
have had a decade or more to prove themselves.

Postgres may earn it's wings in 3 or 5 years.

For now it is still just (although promising) a toy.

[Greg Copeland]

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland
Wrong. PITR is coming. Is this the sole hook you hang your hat on? If

^^^^^^^^^
It's a pretty big hook.

Not really. According to your own example, PITR is worthless (which it's
not). According to you, you can take an axe to a machine just because it
has PITR, with BS. Logging transactions via PITR or via replication is,
more or less, the same thing. Like I said, your hook is rusty and dull.
And, for the sake of this argument, uttterly worthless.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Some companies get cranky when they lose transactions

That's why they don't use MySQL. That's exactly why they use PostgreSQL,
Oracle, MSSQL, Sybase, Informix, etc. Granted, PITR is a much desired
feature. I do agree that it's the difference between an enterprise DB and
a DB that is ranked (features, scalability, performance) among the big
boys, which is what I've always said.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Oracle and it's real competitors have been allowing for transaction
level recovery for over a decade. Meanwhile, the FreeDBs might have
such a feature sometime in the unspecified future.

Transaction level recovery? You mean a transaction log. PostgreSQL has
had this forever.

Post by JEDIDIAH
10 year solid track record vs. "Well it will be out any day now".

PostgreSQL is a proven track record, but obviously, not as long. But,
that certainly does not fly in the face of anything I've said. It does,
however, fly in the face of your position, which is that PostgreSQL is a
toy db. Once again, you can't support your position. Oh, what a
surprise. I think, having had 4 times to directly address the issue and
completely failing, pretty well proves you have no point or proof at all.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Such replication will either be a burden on the master server or incomplete
when compared to proper transaction logs. There really isn't a shortcut to
avoid the overhead associated with proper PITR.

PostgreSQL has transation logs and has had transaction logs for a long
time now. PostgreSQL has been fully ACID for a long time. Period. What
it has lacked is PITR. There is a difference. Let me rephrase, there is
a HUGE difference. The distinction, of which, is clearly lost on you.
For PITR, replication, especially asynchronous replication, is easily a
replacement for PITR. After all, many people use PITR as a poor man's
replication solution.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Now you've just added the network as a point of failure in what should be
a very central feature of the engine.

Network failure does not constitute data loss. What an idiot. And, if
you have a network failure, people can't get to your DB anyways. Again,
what an idiot. Ever here of redundant network paths? Shesh. What a dope.

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH
Now, that's just the starting point.

Please, keep going because I've not heard anything of merit, thus far.
But, by your own admission, in your opinion, 8.0 will be a first class
RDBMS. At this point, I think I've won.

You are far too eager to use beta features when the alternatives
have had a decade or more to prove themselves.

Considering I never said anything of the like, once again we're force with
the reality that you're a blow hard moron. And, once again, you fail to
support your position. Oh, what a surprise.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Postgres may earn it's wings in 3 or 5 years.

PostgreSQL has already earned it's wings 5-8 years ago. With PITR, it
will truly be an entrprise class solution. Until such time, it clearly
ranks up there with the big commercial solutions.

Post by JEDIDIAH
For now it is still just (although promising) a toy.

For now, it's a real work horse with real data which has proved it self
years ago. I noticed, once again, you throw absolute BS into the mix and
still fail to support your position. What a surprise. What a loser.
What a moron.

Too bad you don't know crap and databases. Those of that do, happily
point and laugh at your stupidity.

In the final analysis, even you are forced to admit that version 8.0 will
elevate PostgreSQL from a DB in the same class to a true enterprise class
solution. Which, you've admitted time and time again. So, clearly you've
back peddled enough to out right admit I'm right, yet proudly you lie that
I'm not. What a dope.

Cheers,

Greg

[DFS]

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland
Wrong. PITR is coming. Is this the sole hook you hang your hat on? If

^^^^^^^^^
It's a pretty big hook.

Not really. According to your own example, PITR is worthless (which
it's not). According to you, you can take an axe to a machine just
because it has PITR, with BS. Logging transactions via PITR or via
replication is, more or less, the same thing. Like I said, your hook
is rusty and dull. And, for the sake of this argument, uttterly
worthless.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Some companies get cranky when they lose transactions

That's why they don't use MySQL. That's exactly why they use
PostgreSQL, Oracle, MSSQL, Sybase, Informix, etc. Granted, PITR is a
much desired feature. I do agree that it's the difference between an
enterprise DB and a DB that is ranked (features, scalability,
performance) among the big boys, which is what I've always said.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Oracle and it's real competitors have been allowing for transaction
level recovery for over a decade. Meanwhile, the FreeDBs might have
such a feature sometime in the unspecified future.

Transaction level recovery? You mean a transaction log. PostgreSQL
has had this forever.

Post by JEDIDIAH
10 year solid track record vs. "Well it will be out any day now".

PostgreSQL is a proven track record, but obviously, not as long. But,
that certainly does not fly in the face of anything I've said. It
does, however, fly in the face of your position, which is that
PostgreSQL is a toy db. Once again, you can't support your position.
Oh, what a surprise. I think, having had 4 times to directly address
the issue and completely failing, pretty well proves you have no
point or proof at all.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Such replication will either be a burden on the master server or
incomplete when compared to proper transaction logs. There really
isn't a shortcut to avoid the overhead associated with proper PITR.

PostgreSQL has transation logs and has had transaction logs for a long
time now. PostgreSQL has been fully ACID for a long time. Period.
What it has lacked is PITR. There is a difference. Let me rephrase,
there is a HUGE difference. The distinction, of which, is clearly
lost on you.
For PITR, replication, especially asynchronous replication, is easily
a replacement for PITR. After all, many people use PITR as a poor
man's replication solution.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Now you've just added the network as a point of failure in what
should be a very central feature of the engine.

Network failure does not constitute data loss. What an idiot. And,
if you have a network failure, people can't get to your DB anyways.
Again, what an idiot. Ever here of redundant network paths? Shesh.
What a dope.

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by JEDIDIAH
Now, that's just the starting point.

Please, keep going because I've not heard anything of merit, thus far.
But, by your own admission, in your opinion, 8.0 will be a first
class RDBMS. At this point, I think I've won.

You are far too eager to use beta features when the alternatives
have had a decade or more to prove themselves.

Considering I never said anything of the like, once again we're force
with the reality that you're a blow hard moron. And, once again, you
fail to support your position. Oh, what a surprise.

Post by JEDIDIAH
Postgres may earn it's wings in 3 or 5 years.

PostgreSQL has already earned it's wings 5-8 years ago. With PITR, it
will truly be an entrprise class solution. Until such time, it
clearly ranks up there with the big commercial solutions.

Post by JEDIDIAH
For now it is still just (although promising) a toy.

For now, it's a real work horse with real data which has proved it
self years ago. I noticed, once again, you throw absolute BS into
the mix and still fail to support your position. What a surprise.
What a loser.
What a moron.
Too bad you don't know crap and databases. Those of that do, happily
point and laugh at your stupidity.
In the final analysis, even you are forced to admit that version 8.0
will elevate PostgreSQL from a DB in the same class to a true
enterprise class solution. Which, you've admitted time and time
again. So, clearly you've back peddled enough to out right admit I'm
right, yet proudly you lie that I'm not. What a dope.
Cheers,
Greg

Congratulations, Greg. You're almost as much an asshole as I am. It takes
hard work, but you seem to be up to it.

[Greg Copeland]

Post by DFS
Congratulations, Greg. You're almost as much an asshole as I am. It takes
hard work, but you seem to be up to it.

Hehe. That's only because he elevated himself to be an even bigger ass.
Nothing worse than people like him, knowing full well, he's full of crap,
and just too plain proud to admit he's wrong. All the while, pretending
that the egg on his face is really some new fashion statement.

Notice that I pick my battles carefully. Accordingly, I rarely lose.
Occationally, there might be a surprise that I didn't know or simply over
looked, but when that happens I swollow some pride and publically bow out.
On the other hand, if people want to dig their heels in and be a horse's
ass, like him, I'm happy to kick him in nuts until he screams.

I don't tolorate idiots well.

Cheers,

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

Post by Greg Copeland
For PITR, replication, especially asynchronous replication, is easily a
replacement for PITR. After all, many people use PITR as a poor man's
replication solution.

Minor correction. The above should read, "...especially synchronous
replication...". Sorry folks.

Cheers,

Greg

[unknown]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:01:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
As for backups -- Linux makes backups reasonably simple, I would think;
Windows by contrast has some problems backing up locked files.

That makes me wonder: how do you perform a backup on a live MySQL
database, i.e. while users are actively accessing it, reading and
writing?

The big boys (Oracle and SQL Server, at least) supports online
backups.

[Jim Richardson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:33:00 +0200,

Post by unknown
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:01:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
As for backups -- Linux makes backups reasonably simple, I would think;
Windows by contrast has some problems backing up locked files.

That makes me wonder: how do you perform a backup on a live MySQL
database, i.e. while users are actively accessing it, reading and
writing?

mysqldump, man for details. Of course, if you have enabled logging, you
have a backup automatically, in the log. You can replay it.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBGH5md90bcYOAWPYRAlztAKC8meVz9MWgC74mhpYsWCbaRqiYPACgwPJa
2svhF5wdHJ44gAeAMnbjfIA=
=Kqwe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Greg Copeland]

Post by Jim Richardson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:33:00 +0200,

Post by unknown
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:01:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
As for backups -- Linux makes backups reasonably simple, I would think;
Windows by contrast has some problems backing up locked files.

That makes me wonder: how do you perform a backup on a live MySQL
database, i.e. while users are actively accessing it, reading and
writing?

mysqldump, man for details. Of course, if you have enabled logging, you
have a backup automatically, in the log. You can replay it.

Logs are not a replacement for a backup. And, in order for a log to be of
use, you must still have the base backup (base+logs = current database),
up to where the logs start. Logs are good for emergency recovery (non
system or hardware related problem) up to your latest backup and even a
poor-man's replication (copy logs to another system and roll forward), but
they are not a replacement for backups in of themeselves.

Related PostgreSQL Links:
http://advocacy.postgresql.org/ (White papers, TCO, studies, etc)
http://www.postgresql.org/news/216.html (official beta announcement)
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/books.html (Some books which are
available)
irc://irc.freenode.com/#postgresql
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/index.html (online static docs)
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/index.html (online inter
docs)


Cheers,

Greg

[Jim Richardson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:13:29 -0500,

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by Jim Richardson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:33:00 +0200,

Post by unknown
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:01:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine

Post by The Ghost In The Machine
As for backups -- Linux makes backups reasonably simple, I would think;
Windows by contrast has some problems backing up locked files.

That makes me wonder: how do you perform a backup on a live MySQL
database, i.e. while users are actively accessing it, reading and
writing?

mysqldump, man for details. Of course, if you have enabled logging, you
have a backup automatically, in the log. You can replay it.

Logs are not a replacement for a backup. And, in order for a log to be of
use, you must still have the base backup (base+logs = current database),
up to where the logs start. Logs are good for emergency recovery (non
system or hardware related problem) up to your latest backup and even a
poor-man's replication (copy logs to another system and roll forward), but
they are not a replacement for backups in of themeselves.

mysql's bin log, along with a mysqldump or other snapshot of the
database in question, is both a log, and a backup. It logs only writes,
so it's not useful for some things, but it works great as a backup, and
at almost 0 cost in performance hit.

Mysqldump of course, *is* a backup solution.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBGQovd90bcYOAWPYRAuPbAKDGKAL7KIBQHFw6pPV1neg+y7SsiQCgmzF6
aROs2iZS5TOsNzP/Ha16yjA=
=IqDE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Greg Copeland]

Post by Jim Richardson
mysql's bin log, along with a mysqldump or other snapshot of the
database in question, is both a log, and a backup. It logs only writes,
so it's not useful for some things, but it works great as a backup, and
at almost 0 cost in performance hit.
Mysqldump of course, *is* a backup solution.

I think we're talking about two different things here. A dump is a dump
and is a great backup. That, I'm not debating. A log, in of it self, is
not a backup. It is a delta which is part of a backup. Thusly, a
dump + delta = complete database. That's the distinction that I was
making. It sounds like we're saying the same thing and you just didn't
realize it. Perhaps I worded it poorly.

Cheers,

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

Post by Greg Copeland

Post by Jim Richardson
mysql's bin log, along with a mysqldump or other snapshot of the
database in question, is both a log, and a backup. It logs only writes,
so it's not useful for some things, but it works great as a backup, and
at almost 0 cost in performance hit.
Mysqldump of course, *is* a backup solution.

I think we're talking about two different things here. A dump is a dump
and is a great backup. That, I'm not debating. A log, in of it self, is
not a backup. It is a delta which is part of a backup. Thusly, a
dump + delta = complete database. That's the distinction that I was
making. It sounds like we're saying the same thing and you just didn't
realize it. Perhaps I worded it poorly.
Cheers,
Greg

LOL. That sounds even more confusing...

Scratch the "two different things here" comment and I think we'll be on
the same page. ;)

Cheers,

Greg

[Peter Bilt]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Anybody running Win2k3 server with Apache 2.x along with mysql and
Php?
For some reason my company is considering doing this with Win2k3 not
Linux.

a wise decision.

Post by w***@hotmail.com
I know that the LAMP model is the best one

says who? can you provide prove that LAMP is better than WAMP? Don't
forget that Windows users are the largest Open Source customers in the
world, are you suggesting that they are all wrong?

Post by w***@hotmail.com
but where can I go to get
stats that backup running Linux/apache/mysql/php is faster and more
stable than Windows 2003 server?

You cannot get those stats, because there are none that prove that.
Windows Server 2003 is a formidable "enterprise" server platform.

Post by w***@hotmail.com
What makes it even more interesting is that we now run linux with
coldfussion on the website today.

You are now experiencing the benefits of "payware" software, the
private industry advantage!

Post by w***@hotmail.com
How interchangeable are the configs between Windows and linux with
these apps?

With Apache/MySQL/PHP? 100% portable. However, to use the better tools
such as ColdFusion and DreamWeaver MX, you need Windows. Remember, you
get what you pay for!


Peter Bilt
WAMP and Open Office advocate!
SP2!!!!!!!

[General Protection Fault]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Anybody running Win2k3 server with Apache 2.x along with mysql and
Php?
For some reason my company is considering doing this with Win2k3 not
Linux.
I know that the LAMP model is the best one, but where can I go to get
stats that backup running Linux/apache/mysql/php is faster and more
stable than Windows 2003 server?
What makes it even more interesting is that we now run linux with
coldfussion on the website today.
How interchangeable are the configs between Windows and linux with
these apps?
Not looking for a "Flame war" but need "proof" to squash this horrible idea!
Thanks

I've done this and it works very well.

In fact, you can use WIMP (Windows/IIS/MySQL/PHP) as well, because you
can set up PHP to handle .php files. I'm doing this right now as well
for raster image operations on an ASP website.