Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    74

    Unanswered: how robust of mySQL ?

    hi good day, is mysql be reliable as holding 10gb data ? i'm new to mysql, how good as it compare to postgres ? thank you

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    62
    Depends on the OS stability and filesystem,

    i have 8G data with more than 30Millions data for a live search, so far no problem.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    210
    I'm also curious.

    In terms of things like reliability, resiliance to OS failure, backup and recover options, tools and utilities, performance analysis and tracing, broad support by 3rd party vendors like Quest and Symantec, Scalibility, indexing performance, general performance, support of ANSI definitions, robust procedural language, etc etc.

    How would it compare to say, SQL Server or Oracle? Could you run a $100,000,000 company on it (full ERP and Manufacturing) without sorely regretting the decision? How about a $2,000,000 (20 employee) sales company?

    An 8GB database - that's pretty large for running on a free-bee. Ours is 2GB (SQL Server) and no wall yet.

    Linux was passed over for years but now look at who's depending on it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18
    We need to change our perception on open source programming..
    Mysql is compareable with other db providers.

    http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/
    http://www.mysql.com/customers/
    Kishore

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    15,579
    Provided Answers: 54
    The problem that I see here is that there are really two or more questions to be answered. The MySQL product itself is pretty stable. Different implementations of MySQL can range from "rock solid" to "goes minutes at a time without crashing" and everywhere in between.

    In terms of the raw MySQL product itself as provided by MySQL, you should be able to achieve better than "three nines" (99.9%) uptime as delivered on industry standard hardware. I know of more than one installation that has consistantly achieved "four nines" (99.99%) uptime, but they also have over $500,000 US of MySQL support on staff too.

    If you are willing to dedicate the time and resources to it, MySQL is quite reliable. For many small businesses that don't have the resources to support MySQL, I recommend going with commercial products that have the support that they need or a MySQL provider (shops that provide secure access to well supported MySQL servers).

    This is really a choice that needs to be made by each group implementing a database. MySQL can definitely get you the reliability that you want, but you need to consider the cost... Especially for a small business or organization, you may be better off paying up front for a commercially supported database, or you may be better off waiting until you need professional support and then hiring it...

    -PatP

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Phelan
    The problem that I see here is that there are really two or more questions to be answered. The MySQL product itself is pretty stable. Different implementations of MySQL can range from "rock solid" to "goes minutes at a time without crashing" and everywhere in between.

    In terms of the raw MySQL product itself as provided by MySQL, you should be able to achieve better than "three nines" (99.9%) uptime as delivered on industry standard hardware. I know of more than one installation that has consistantly achieved "four nines" (99.99%) uptime, but they also have over $500,000 US of MySQL support on staff too.

    If you are willing to dedicate the time and resources to it, MySQL is quite reliable. For many small businesses that don't have the resources to support MySQL, I recommend going with commercial products that have the support that they need or a MySQL provider (shops that provide secure access to well supported MySQL servers).

    This is really a choice that needs to be made by each group implementing a database. MySQL can definitely get you the reliability that you want, but you need to consider the cost... Especially for a small business or organization, you may be better off paying up front for a commercially supported database, or you may be better off waiting until you need professional support and then hiring it...

    -PatP
    So, a qualified maybe? lol

    I've never used MySQL except as a freebe from the CD in the back of a study book that I loaded on my home computer years ago. Somehow; that left me with an impression that it was nice for little applications like contact managers or liquor store inventories by software authors wanting a license-free solution.

    Since then; I've been increadibly impressed with Oracle and SQL Server. Coming from 20 years prior of using hierarchial and even home-grown binary search data bases, it was a Godsend! Not only is it (enterprise relational database solutions) impressively efficient in storage and retrieval execution, rock solid in reliability and resiliant to failure, yadda yadda, but it comes with just sooooo many beautiful add-ons and 3rd party support tools (PL SQL, TSQL, Oracle forms and reports, replication, query builders, analysis tools, disk segmentation, security, etc etc).

    Clearly; MySQL is a solidly reliable platform. If it wasn't very scalable and robust at handling complex linking situations or other gotchas it would have achieved a bad name by now (wouldn't it?).

    I'm curious about the infrastructure of supporting technology. You mention that you have to hire your own support staff (curious, isn't support offered by independent firms similar to Microsoft or Oracle's?), does that imply a lack of easy to use tools for repair and analysis?

    In short, does MySQL lend itself to enterprise use on an equal level with Oracle or SQL Server? (this statement isn't intended to imply that Oracle and SQL Server are themselves equal - if I were the IRS charged with processing everyone's taxes, I don't think I would select the latter, but then, I would disqualify myself from making such an important selection).
    Last edited by vich; 10-23-06 at 14:06.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    20,002
    Quote Originally Posted by vich
    I've never used MySQL except as a freebe from the CD in the back of a study book that I loaded on my home computer years ago.
    that's hardly fair

    you should compare that to the crappy software that sql server used to be, say around version 4.5
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    greenwich.ct.us
    Posts
    279

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    62
    i've run MySQL since mysql3.0 and now mysql4.1. Since 2004, we managed to get almost 90% uptime and <2 hours downtime. Downtime maybe caused by table corrupt, and we managed to repair with the available tools. Since MySQL is easy to learn and managed, most of our system analyst can administer the database server. Basically they will monitor the err.logs, console.
    I also have oracle, design and architect by Sun engineer. I don't know how they design it, but instead of < 2hours downtime, they took more than 4 hours. Because , clustering, storage and so on. Is it really a need of that...

    MySQL is easy to use, simple, fast and hardly 99% reliable. But it depends on current OS stability. So far i'm running all my MySQL database on Windows, and we had no major problems. We have thousands of staff connected to the server. Slowly we learned on how to optimize the mysql to give 90% best performance.

    Just my comment

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •