[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
socialxray;144233 Wrote: It is transparent to the end user and that is all that counts.I wish! I had to upgrade to a newer version of my OS in order to get MySQL in a form that slimserver 6.5.0 was happy with. And it sure doesn't seem any snappier when dealing with full-catalogue shuffle or re-scanning the music library. -- John Stimson John Stimson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=218 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
I'd just like to add another request for a future option to use the sqlite3 back end. After installing slimserver 6.5 on my VIA M1 machine with 256MB memory it became unusable for other work (ripping cds, etc.) due to swapping so I've had to order additional memory. I'm an experienced sqlite3 developer myself and I'm not aware of any memory overhead problems compared to other DBMS. Thanks! -- chickenmagnet chickenmagnet's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2840 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
Wow, if Slim went with MySQL for performance improvements, I think they failed on that one miserably... -- Mister-E Mister-E's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1680 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
Jack Coates;145366 Wrote: Or use the built-in Random Play, which does the same thing. Mind you, erland's plugins provide far more flexibility than the built-in Random Play (e.g. play tracks you haven't played in a long time, rate tracks and then randomly play 4 and 5 star tracks, play unrated tracks, play jazz tracks you haven't played on the SB before, etc, etc). -- smc2911 smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
On 10/10/06, smc2911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: neurophyre;145151 Wrote: Funny, I came here to make a post asking if there's any way to improve performance on low-end machines.Hitting play on a directory with a few hundred files in it (say I want to listen to a shuffle of all my alternative music, or whatever) is absolutely glacial on my even more lowly 600MHz VIA Eden CPU (vaguely comparable to a 350MHz original Celeron, or so I've heard).The Squeezebox freezes hard for like 15 seconds until SlimServer can get itself together to build the playlist and start servicing UI requests again.Building huge playlists like that can certainly be slow. If you want ashuffle on a big list of music, I'd suggest you look at erlands pluginshere http://erland.homeip.net/download (primarily DynamicPlaylist andSQLPlaylist), which dynamically generates playlists in blocks of 10tracks at a time. The performance is far better this way. Or use the built-in Random Play, which does the same thing.-- I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,So across the Western ocean I must wander -- traditional ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
mwatkins;144231 Wrote: I can't believe that the queries used by slimserver couldn't be abstracted sufficiently to avoid issues with various flavours of SQL. Its not like the queries needed to support a music catalogue are rocket science. While its true that there are a great many differences between the various implementations of SQL, for a tool with needs as simple as slimserver's, using a middleware layer to hide those differences would have been an appropriate, even advantageous, decision. Sure, taking the middleware db-abstraction approach would have resulted in more databases being used, with a corresponding impact on support queries from the multitudes. I understand that, but I don't agree with the decision. A better decision would have been to use db-abstraction in the core, but announce support only for a single database, MySql if that is your choice. Solve the supportability issue by decree, rather than limiting the scope of the software's appeal. At least then you aren't walling the software off from others who might be interested in different sorts of mashups which might prove interesting to the community. This isn't about being married to one technology, or me or others being biggoted against another. Given that there are a plethora of db-abstraction layers out there, and slimserver's db requirements are practically infantile, the decision smacks of poor product management choices. PS: Good point about the implementation language. Always felt Perl was a poor choice for slimserver, but I grinned and bore that. But the difference is significant: perl I already must support on a wide fleet of machines at work and at home; MySql I do not have to support nor care to add it to the mix. Chances are that I will explore other options rather than invest in a new upgraded box for home, or one for the office I'd planned to add. What was once a no brainer decision for me now is less so. I doubt my apparent reluctance to upgrade due to MySql dependency is going to be commonly shared, but certainly there will be some who feel as I do. Enough to matter, from a sales perspective? Perhaps not. I think the fact that scan times improved with MySQL might not mean that MySQL was needed. It could also be evidence that there was something wrong with SS. I too have my doubts that PERL is the right choice for SS. I really don't see why a full-blown transactional db back-end should be needed, even with tens of thousands of tracks. I agree, buying more SBs would be a no-brainer if not for SS. SS is clearly the weak link in the whole SB proposition --the UI, the db, the performance...perhaps it's time for a complete re-do guys... I know you guys love hardware (and, kudos, it really shows in the product) and the current SS is already developed, but if it were my money, I'd be taking a long hard look at slimserver. -- rudholm rudholm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2980 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
Given all of the above, I have to imagine the possibility of moving to Apache for the underlying web server would certainly generate some interesting discussion... http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?SoftwareRoadmap Re-architect event/threading/forking model. Investigate using mod_perl / Apache to handle all the web based interaction, and have custom mod_perl protocol handlers for non-HTTP interaction (ie: SlimProto) I already run Apache on my SlimServer machine, as well as MySQL, so the move would be welcome. What becomes increasingly evident is that running SlimServer on anything other than a dedicated server is becoming less and less feasible as the software evolves and customers' expectations for robustness and responsiveness increases. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
What becomes increasingly evident is that running SlimServer on anything other than a dedicated server is becoming less and less feasible as the software evolves and customers' expectations for robustness and responsiveness increases. I don't know why I should need a dedicated machine, really. I've no problem running slimserver 6.5 with samba, apache, another MySQL instance, mail... on the same two year old Via C3/1GHz with 512MB ram. That machine does sometimes crash for unknown reasons. But it's been up for three months now, surviving quite a few slimserver installations. I'd bet most of the issues asking for a dedicated machine are due to some other influence. -- Michael - http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
Michael Herger;145105 Wrote: I don't know why I should need a dedicated machine, really. I've no problem running slimserver 6.5 with samba, apache, another MySQL instance, mail... on the same two year old Via C3/1GHz with 512MB ram. That machine does sometimes crash for unknown reasons. But it's been up for three months now, surviving quite a few slimserver installations. I meant a dedicated server, not necessarily a machine dedicated only to running SlimServer. Something not used as a desktop for playing Warcraft, watching porn, etc. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
On 10/10/06, Michael Herger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What becomes increasingly evident is that running SlimServer on anything other than a dedicated server is becoming less and less feasible as the software evolves and customers' expectations for robustness and responsiveness increases. I don't know why I should need a dedicated machine, really. I've noproblem running slimserver 6.5 with samba, apache, another MySQL instance,mail... on the same two year old Via C3/1GHz with 512MB ram. That machine does sometimes crash for unknown reasons. But it's been up for threemonths now, surviving quite a few slimserver installations.I'd bet most of the issues asking for a dedicated machine are due to someother influence. I gotta agree with this. I look at the slimserver user on my server, and it's using 150 MB of RAM and 2 percent average of the CPU, for all of its services put together. During a scan, CPU use goes up to 20% or so for about fifteen minutes (almost 14,000 tracks). It's the most important service on the box, aside from low-impactors like routing, firewalling, squid, and openvpn. For comparison's sake, Firefox is using about the same amount of memory and CPU on my XP laptop with 7 open tabs. -- I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,So across the Western ocean I must wander -- traditional ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
Andrew L. Weekes;144247 Wrote: I beg to differ. On my Slimserver box, which is a lowly PIII 600, the performance improvement from migrating the database to MySQL was DRAMATIC. Despite the extra processes, memory etc, it was a very obvious improvement in speed of response. That was under SS 6.3, so the only variable was the database itself, the SS code was unchanged. Funny, I came here to make a post asking if there's any way to improve performance on low-end machines. Hitting play on a directory with a few hundred files in it (say I want to listen to a shuffle of all my alternative music, or whatever) is absolutely glacial on my even more lowly 600MHz VIA Eden CPU (vaguely comparable to a 350MHz original Celeron, or so I've heard). The Squeezebox freezes hard for like 15 seconds until SlimServer can get itself together to build the playlist and start servicing UI requests again. I really hope future releases will address low-end performance, as I suspect that a fair portion of users are running SlimServer on NAS type boxes that aren't exactly powerhouses. And those users tend to be the type that submit bug reports and patches and get things improved, I'd wager. -- neurophyre neurophyre's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1758 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
Jack Coates;145137 Wrote: Honestly, I doubt that a modern machine would have issues running it, even with WoW going too :) Now if you're using a four or five year old computer as your main desktop, that's another matter. Quite a few people don't WANT to have to dedicate a modern machine to SlimServer. They want it running on a NAS-type machine. I've got a 600MHz VIA C3 with 120MB available physical RAM that I use for NAS. Since I'm using it to store all my music and other files, since it's on 24/7 and since it does nothing else, it's the only logical choice to run SlimServer. I know very well what old and slow machines are capable of, and you'd be surprised. SlimServer should not be as sluggish as it currently is on this machine. Some of what people have said above seems to indicate that MySQL will lead to a performance increase on this machine. If so, that's great. Perl itself might be the next culprit to look at -- and why the heck SlimServer is chewing up SO much RAM. -- neurophyre neurophyre's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1758 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
On 10/10/06, neurophyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really hope future releases will address low-end performance, as Isuspect that a fair portion of users are running SlimServer on NAS type boxes that aren't exactly powerhouses.And those users tend to be thetype that submit bug reports and patches and get things improved, I'dwager.NAS boxes are only going to get more powerful. I think SlimServer 6.5 is far superior to 6.3 in all places except for memory-starved machines. With memory as cheap as it is, the next generation NAS devices will be able to handle SlimServer without any issue (assuming you can get it to run/deployed -- that's a different issue!). Ben ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
On 10/10/06, neurophyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Coates;145137 Wrote: Honestly, I doubt that a modern machine would have issues running it, even with WoW going too :) Now if you're using a four or five year old computer as your main desktop, that's another matter.Quite a few people don't WANT to have to dedicate a modern machine to SlimServer.They want it running on a NAS-type machine.I've got a600MHz VIA C3 with 120MB available physical RAM that I use for NAS.Since I'm using it to store all my music and other files, since it's on 24/7 and since it does nothing else, it's the only logical choice to runSlimServer.Great. Add 256mb of RAM to that and you're all set. Otherwise you're just asking too much of the box. I certainly do NOT want SlimDevices to spent their time catering to a minority of people who won't spent $20 to upgrade the RAM on their server. Ben ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
On 10/10/06, neurophyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Coates;145137 Wrote: Honestly, I doubt that a modern machine would have issues running it, even with WoW going too :) Now if you're using a four or five year old computer as your main desktop, that's another matter.Quite a few people don't WANT to have to dedicate a modern machine to SlimServer.They want it running on a NAS-type machine.I've got aI didn't say dedicated.-- I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,So across the Western ocean I must wander -- traditional ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
neurophyre;145151 Wrote: Funny, I came here to make a post asking if there's any way to improve performance on low-end machines. Hitting play on a directory with a few hundred files in it (say I want to listen to a shuffle of all my alternative music, or whatever) is absolutely glacial on my even more lowly 600MHz VIA Eden CPU (vaguely comparable to a 350MHz original Celeron, or so I've heard). The Squeezebox freezes hard for like 15 seconds until SlimServer can get itself together to build the playlist and start servicing UI requests again. Building huge playlists like that can certainly be slow. If you want a shuffle on a big list of music, I'd suggest you look at erlands plugins here http://erland.homeip.net/download (primarily DynamicPlaylist and SQLPlaylist), which dynamically generates playlists in blocks of 10 tracks at a time. The performance is far better this way. -- smc2911 smc2911's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4388 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
socialxray;144233 Wrote: Um...this is a consumer product. Not an enterprise product. It is transparent to the end user and that is all that counts. Sure, it is another process that is running on the box but it is still smaller than Slimserver's footprint. Plus it is a lot cheaper than an Oracle license. Got to roll with the punches my man, or sit the game out. BTW, I support multi-db strategies at my job and it ain't so dirt simple. i can't say if a choice of db would be worthy or not, but i can say that i think SS is starting to become a resource hog. 3 processes in all that i am aware of. over time, mem usage grows as if there is a leak. the mysql takes 16megs, the slim.exe takes an incredible 60 or so at start up, and then works its way up to over 75!!! this is the single biggest process on my system, with only the svchost close. the next closest app is outlook at 25 or so. and then this i really don't get, the tray icon is 7.5meg! why??? to power its dumb lil lights? i like the way plextor runs its tray icon, subdued when plextools is exited, but still there ready to start up. still piggy at 2megs, but not as bad. -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 w/SS 6.5.0 - Win XP Pro SP2 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
Slimserver didn't get any slimmer by adding MySql, my man. I don't claim slimserver/squeezebox... to be enterprise products, but a certain, reasonably high, percentage of its users happen to be technical folks. Maybe the product line has enough mainstream appeal now that it doesn't matter, but generally speaking ticking off your technical base and early adopters isn't a great idea. -- mwatkins mwatkins's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7867 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
Jacob Potter;144236 Wrote: SlimServer does exactly that, using DBIx::Class for all the database O/RM stuff. The schema itself (in the SQL/ directory) would need to be rewritten, but not too much more, I think. You could perhaps have taken a peek at the code before ranting. :) - Jacob That's a plus, although my original post was less of a rant, more of a question... turned slightly more ranty as time went on. I had done a preliminary search through docs and forums to see if this issue had come up before and seeing nothing, posted the question; perhaps a FAQ entry you can roll your own if you like would be appropriate. In an ideal world. the product would continue to support sqlite, *and* now MySql, with an install time option to choose one or the other. My two cents. Am not really interested in carrying this on further. In my day job I have to argue with, plead to, and convince product managers all the time who make brain dead decisions, from time to time... this is starting to resemble work a little too much. Cheers. -- mwatkins mwatkins's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7867 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
For folks that have a few thousand or so titles and don't need the complication of a c/s rdb, sqlite performs more than adequately. I beg to differ. On my Slimserver box, which is a lowly PIII 600, the performance improvement from migrating the database to MySQL was DRAMATIC. Despite the extra processes, memory etc, it was a very obvious improvement in speed of response. That was under SS 6.3, so the only variable was the database itself, the SS code was unchanged. I think we can all easily get bogged down by dogma, but what matters is results. The other arguments are irrelevant to most users, they don't care what database is used, they only care about whether it works or not, something it plainly does ;) Andy. -- Andrew L. Weekes Andrew L. Weekes's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=573 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
If you read through the 3rd Party stuff there are quite a few threads showing that some of the NAS (network attached storage) devices are taking a huge hit in performance with 6.5.x This could well be due to the need for MySQL (or not - ive not had time to read the SS source code). However an option to keep the old database format would possibly be good for these groups of people - if it works; dont fix it. If you need improved performance then the path is probably to have a custom mini-itx / PC based system; in which case MySQL is not a problem. Just my 0.02$ -- roamingstudio roamingstudio's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6923 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
I really can't see the big problem here. We had a bundled database in 6.3(SQLite) in 6.5 we also have a bundled database(MySQL). If you are a non technical person, you don't se any difference. There is no extra installation, there is no exta configuration. If you are a technical person who didn't administate/manage the SQLite datbase with third party tools you won't se any difference. There is no extra configuration or management with the bundled MySQL compared to the earlier bundled SQLite database. The MySQL database bundled is by default configured with no network support, so the security risk shouldn't be a problem either. If you are a technical person who cares about the database and wan't to administrate/manage it with third party tools, you will see the difference. Earlier you had to use user unfriendly tools towards a text file which could easily be corrupted, now with MySQL there is a lot of third party tools available which you can use to manage/administrate your database. Slim Devices could of course have choosen to say that they support ANY database, but that would probably have been a huge hit on the support team which would result in that we would get less support for real problems. It would probably also have resulted in less time for the developers to implement real slimserver functions because they had to spend time to make sure to test the existing code toward all available database products. The only bad thing I personally can see with MySQL is if it make slimserver not to work on low memory/slow CPU devices such as NAS boxes. -- erland Erland Isaksson 'My homepage' (http://erland.homeip.net) 'My download page' (http://erland.homeip.net/download) (Developer of 'TrackStat' (http://erland.homeip.net/download/do/viewapplication?name=slimserver-trackstat) , 'SQLPlayList' (http://erland.homeip.net/download/do/viewapplication?name=slimserver-sqlplaylist) , 'DynamicPlayList' (http://erland.homeip.net/download/do/viewapplication?name=slimserver-dynamicplaylist), 'Custom Browse' (http://erland.homeip.net/download/do/viewapplication?name=slimserver-custombrowse) and 'RandomPlayList' (http://erland.homeip.net/download/do/viewapplication?name=slimserver-randomplaylist) plugins) erland's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3124 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
erland;144264 Wrote: The only bad thing I personally can see with MySQL is if it make slimserver not to work on low memory/slow CPU devices such as NAS boxes. I think the NAS + SB3 / Transporter route is one a lot of people are going to favour in the future; and is not worth 'forgetting' about. -- roamingstudio roamingstudio's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6923 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
Seems to work on Synology for Flipflip and Mr Hyde, but on the other hand the DS-106 comes with MySQL pre-installed. -- tommypeters SB3--Meridian G68--NuForce Ref8--Bc Acoustique ACT A3 tommypeters's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6528 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
mwatkins wrote: Slimserver didn't get any slimmer by adding MySql, my man. The devices are slim. The server serves them. It is not a tiny server, it is a server for slim devices. You are looking at it from the wrong viewpoint. The devices are simple, slim and dumb. All the brains are in the server. The server is not slim, it is feature rich. There is lots of demand for it to get more rich and powerful, far more than folks wanting the server to be slimer. It is all open source, if you don't like it, change it and submit patches. Your subject line in inflamatory and unjustified. MySql is bundled, and installed invisibly for 99% of the users. For technical folks who want to use another Sql engine, you can do it. As a technical person, you have to admit that there is no such thing as a true sql standard implementation. Every implementation has tradeoffs. While you can write to a pure SQL spec, all of the vendors improve the language to make development easier. Once you start to use it, you become tied into that dialect. You can have preferences that differ from those chosen by the developers. You can become a developer. Patches always welcome. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
I can't believe that the queries used by slimserver couldn't be abstracted sufficiently to avoid issues with various flavours of SQL. Its not like the queries needed to support a music catalogue are rocket science. While its true that there are a great many differences between the various implementations of SQL, for a tool with needs as simple as slimserver's, using a middleware layer to hide those differences would have been an appropriate, even advantageous, decision. Sure, taking the middleware db-abstraction approach would have resulted in more databases being used, with a corresponding impact on support queries from the multitudes. I understand that, but I don't agree with the decision. A better decision would have been to use db-abstraction in the core, but announce support only for a single database, MySql if that is your choice. Solve the supportability issue by decree, rather than limiting the scope of the software's appeal. At least then you aren't walling the software off from others who might be interested in different sorts of mashups which might prove interesting to the community. This isn't about being married to one technology, or me or others being biggoted against another. Given that there are a plethora of db-abstraction layers out there, and slimserver's db requirements are practically infantile, the decision smacks of poor product management choices. -- mwatkins mwatkins's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7867 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Re: Slimserver 6.5 MySQL Requirement - Bad!
Um...this is a consumer product. Not an enterprise product. It is transparent to the end user and that is all that counts. Sure, it is another process that is running on the box but Slimserver isn't so slim itself. Plus it is a lot cheaper than an Oracle license. Got to roll with the punches my man, or sit the game out. -- socialxray socialxray's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2996 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28414 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
