Send Netdot-devel mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://osl.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/netdot-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Netdot-devel digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Seeking feedback about DBMS support (Carlos Vicente)
2. Re: Seeking feedback about DBMS support (Karl Putland)
3. Re: [Netdot-users] Seeking feedback about DBMS support
(Michael Hertrick)
4. Re: [Netdot-users] Seeking feedback about DBMS support
(William Bulley)
5. Re: [Netdot-users] Seeking feedback about DBMS support
(Carlos Vicente)
6. Re: [Netdot-users] Seeking feedback about DBMS support
(William Bulley)
7. Re: [Netdot-users] Seeking feedback about DBMS support
(William Bulley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:10:07 -0400
From: Carlos Vicente <[email protected]>
Subject: [Netdot-devel] Seeking feedback about DBMS support
To: netdot-users <[email protected]>, netdot-devel
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear Netdot community,
One of our initial design goals for Netdot was to make it DB-agnostic.
We aimed at supporting both MySQL and Postgres equally. However, our
production systems at the University of Oregon have always been based on
MySQL, so Pg support was somewhat lagging. It still is.
The sad truth is that it takes considerable time and effort to support
two backends.
At a recent discussion we talked about the possibility of supporting
only PostgreSQL in the future. There are a few things that make Pg
attractive: native support for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, table
partitions, etc. Pg is also not owned by Oracle ;-)
A decision like this can't be made lightly. We certainly do not want to
alienate administrators out there.
My hunch is that most people don't care about the backend, and if they
do, they prefer Pg. Am I right?
What do you all think?
--
cv
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:43:36 -0600
From: Karl Putland <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-devel] Seeking feedback about DBMS support
To: Carlos Vicente <[email protected]>
Cc: netdot-users <[email protected]>, netdot-devel
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<CA+EXWswrcK4u_oLwmW=ub9dasdjnas+-yvhmstpgz9qatc-...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
+1 for Postgres
The support for postgres was one of the reasons that I selected Netdot.
I was about to write functions to cast the numeric(40,0) address columns to
inet but if you're considering changing the backend.
--Karl
Karl Putland
Senior VoIP Engineer
*SimpleSignal*
3600 S Yosemite, Suite 150
Denver, CO 80237
One Number Rings All My Phones: 303-242-8608
SimpleSignal.com <http://www.simplesignal.com/> |
Blog<http://www.simplesignal.com/blog>
| Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/SimpleSignal?ref=ts> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/simplesignal>
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Carlos Vicente <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dear Netdot community,
>
> One of our initial design goals for Netdot was to make it DB-agnostic.
> We aimed at supporting both MySQL and Postgres equally. However, our
> production systems at the University of Oregon have always been based on
> MySQL, so Pg support was somewhat lagging. It still is.
>
> The sad truth is that it takes considerable time and effort to support
> two backends.
>
> At a recent discussion we talked about the possibility of supporting
> only PostgreSQL in the future. There are a few things that make Pg
> attractive: native support for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, table
> partitions, etc. Pg is also not owned by Oracle ;-)
>
> A decision like this can't be made lightly. We certainly do not want to
> alienate administrators out there.
>
> My hunch is that most people don't care about the backend, and if they
> do, they prefer Pg. Am I right?
>
> What do you all think?
>
> --
> cv
> _______________________________________________
> Netdot-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://osl.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/netdot-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://osl.uoregon.edu/pipermail/netdot-devel/attachments/20120924/5e781fec/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:38:46 -0400
From: Michael Hertrick <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-devel] [Netdot-users] Seeking feedback about DBMS
support
To: Carlos Vicente <[email protected]>
Cc: netdot-users <[email protected]>, netdot-devel
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/2012 04:10 PM, Carlos Vicente wrote:
> Dear Netdot community,
>
> One of our initial design goals for Netdot was to make it
> DB-agnostic. We aimed at supporting both MySQL and Postgres
> equally. However, our production systems at the University of
> Oregon have always been based on MySQL, so Pg support was somewhat
> lagging. It still is.
>
> The sad truth is that it takes considerable time and effort to
> support two backends.
>
> At a recent discussion we talked about the possibility of
> supporting only PostgreSQL in the future. There are a few things
> that make Pg attractive: native support for IPv4 and IPv6
> addresses, table partitions, etc. Pg is also not owned by Oracle
> ;-)
IPv6 good. Oracle bad (particularly from a networking standpoint, I'm
not a DBA).
>
> A decision like this can't be made lightly. We certainly do not
> want to alienate administrators out there.
>
> My hunch is that most people don't care about the backend, and if
> they do, they prefer Pg. Am I right?
I think you're right about that. It's no harder to install and run a
pg daemon than it is mysql. I know a few DBAs and software developers
that prefer pg, given the choice between pg and mysql.
>
> What do you all think?
>
Regards,
Michael Hertrick
Neovera, Inc.
- --
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlBgxNYACgkQcJVdtfpkLb+CYgCfXes46TqkyiPoWqF+jJ8aO86D
0O8An0XBs92J7xzTxqJAeGQReixdAR8N
=dpOO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:58:07 -0400
From: William Bulley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-devel] [Netdot-users] Seeking feedback about DBMS
support
To: Carlos Vicente <[email protected]>
Cc: netdot-users <[email protected]>, netdot-devel
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
According to Carlos Vicente <[email protected]> on Mon, 09/24/12 at 16:10:
>
> One of our initial design goals for Netdot was to make it DB-agnostic.
> We aimed at supporting both MySQL and Postgres equally. However, our
> production systems at the University of Oregon have always been based on
> MySQL, so Pg support was somewhat lagging. It still is.
>
> The sad truth is that it takes considerable time and effort to support
> two backends.
>
> At a recent discussion we talked about the possibility of supporting
> only PostgreSQL in the future. There are a few things that make Pg
> attractive: native support for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, table
> partitions, etc. Pg is also not owned by Oracle ;-)
>
> A decision like this can't be made lightly. We certainly do not want to
> alienate administrators out there.
>
> My hunch is that most people don't care about the backend, and if they
> do, they prefer Pg. Am I right?
>
> What do you all think?
+1 for MySQL
Regards,
web...
--
William Bulley Email: [email protected]
72 characters width template ----------------------------------------->|
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:35:09 -0400
From: Carlos Vicente <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-devel] [Netdot-users] Seeking feedback about DBMS
support
To: William Bulley <[email protected]>
Cc: netdot-users <[email protected]>, netdot-devel
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Web,
Care to comment why?
>> What do you all think?
>
> +1 for MySQL
>
> Regards,
>
> web...
>
--
cv
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:52:49 -0400
From: William Bulley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-devel] [Netdot-users] Seeking feedback about DBMS
support
To: Carlos Vicente <[email protected]>
Cc: netdot-users <[email protected]>, netdot-devel
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
According to Carlos Vicente <[email protected]> on Tue, 09/25/12 at 08:35:
>
> Care to comment why?
Sure. But these are my opinions only, not those of my organization.
I have only used MySQL myself - zero experience with Pg - don't want
to climb the learning curve (unless there are good reasons to change).
Compare with source code management. I started using RCS in the 1980's
and still use it today. That said, when OU changed to Git, I immediately
embraced Git, even though the Git "look and feel" differs from CVS, SVN,
etc. It turns out the learning curve was not too bad, and Git rules!
But the main reason, here at the UofM, is because our IT folks want to
support a small set of database engines. Today, as I understand is, they
support Oracle _only_ but they reluctantly agreed to support MySQL for
some applications. I doubt I could get them to accept Pg in addition
to their organization-wide support mandate for Oracle and MySQL.
I need them to support MySQL when we deploy NETDOT in production. The
likelihood of an approved one-off PostgreSQL (on at minimum two servers)
installation is going to be small, IMHO. :-)
Regards,
web...
--
William Bulley Email: [email protected]
72 characters width template ----------------------------------------->|
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:22:33 -0400
From: William Bulley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-devel] [Netdot-users] Seeking feedback about DBMS
support
To: Phil Regnauld <[email protected]>
Cc: Vincent Magnin <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
According to Phil Regnauld <[email protected]> on Tue, 09/25/12 at 08:55:
>
> At first, there is probably no direct performance gain to be had by
> switching backends. But having used PostgreSQL for large data storage/
> retrieval projects over the past 10+ years, I can say the following:
>
> - Parts of the Netdot code that needs to deal with certain data types
> can be simplified because certain transformations are no longer
> necessary, if the DB backend can handle that type natively ;
>
> - Not having to ping pong the data back and forth between the main
> application (Netdot Perl code) and the DB saves some time on
> processing when having to deal with many objects ;
>
> - Certain features in PgSQL make it much easier to implement very
> large data sets using so-called "partitioning" without having to
> start messing around with multiple tables and keeping track of
> those somewhere.
>
> Since this is the netdot-users (and not -devel) list, you may think:
> "Why do I care ?". Well, to start with:
>
> - Netdot CAN be faster on some operations, like cleaning up (deleting)
> the forwarding tables / MAC addresses: something which takes a very long
> time with MySQL on large installations, can be done in a matter of
> seconds
>
> - Less time is spent on maintaining or optimizing code that is duplicating
> functionality that is better handled by the storage engine (PgSQL);
> for instance, storing/searching/sorting v4/v6 data types.
>
> - This frees up more time from the core development team (currently less
> than 2.5 people :)
>
> ... Which translates to less bugs, more time spent developing cool
> features, maybe a faster release cycle, and happier users :)
>
> Side note: the above are probably possible in MySQL, but then it becomes
> a matter of figuring out which backend, which version of MySQL, etc...
>
> Plus, there is in-house expertise to help with the PostgreSQL transition,
> including making it as painless as possible to migrate an existing
> installation to a new backend.
It appears OU is interested in simplifying or streamlining their coding
and support efforts. OTOH it might be worth considering building upon a
different, more modern support library. Long term gain for short term pain.
Rather than debate the merits of MySQL and PostgreSQL, would it be worth
talking about replacing Class::DBI with a more modern and thoroughly
object oriented solution such as Rose::DB?
Rose::DB supports PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite, Informix, and Oracle. All
the variations in database types would vanish should NETDOT embrace the
Rose::DB suite of Perl modules. This is not likely to be accepted, but
I feel compelled to make the suggestion given that Rose::DB is high on
the recommended list of DBI-like solutions for modern Perl applications.
Regards,
web...
--
William Bulley Email: [email protected]
72 characters width template ----------------------------------------->|
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Netdot-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://osl.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/netdot-devel
End of Netdot-devel Digest, Vol 66, Issue 18
********************************************
