Re: help with site+database
Hello, On Tuesday 17 July 2001 10:07, TooManySecrets wrote: Hi. I'm constructing a new site from cero. The actual site is dinamic, with a database server (the DB is over 65 Mb big). The next site also will dinamic, but I would like to change the actual DB (a MS SQL 7) with MySQL or (better for my, I think) a Postgresql DB. The number of visits, actually, is from 9000 to 45000 visits per day. Can anybody tell me what of DB (MySQL or PostgreSQL) are better for me? Can explain me why? Can tell me any site about benchmarks, or any date about that? Any of these databases are too strong to support this number of visitors? The site will run with apache+php4, with database access optimized. Also, we have the Oracle 9i option, but we want to make this project under one of these open source option. Expecially if you have a dinamic PHP site, for me, MySQL and PHP, is the better and faster solution. If you take a look at http://www.mysql.com you can see all about. ... another one, last day i see on a newspaper also NASA migrate to MySQL see ya fabri - --- Fabrizio Tivano technical manager @ karmanet.it tel +39119729007 fax +39119723331 gsm +393385432935 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with site+database
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Fabrizio Tivano wrote: Expecially if you have a dinamic PHP site, for me, MySQL and PHP, is the better and faster solution. If you take a look at http://www.mysql.com you can see all about. ... another one, last day i see on a newspaper also NASA migrate to MySQL It all depends on funcionality you expect from your DB server. MySQL lacks some funcionality, look: The FOREIGN KEY syntax in MySQL exists only for compatibility with other SQL vendors. Search the net for some feature comparision. -=Czaj-nick=- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with site+database
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 11:30:18AM +0200, Fabrizio Tivano wrote: I'm constructing a new site from cero. The actual site is dinamic, with a database server (the DB is over 65 Mb big). The next site also will dinamic, but I would like to change the actual DB (a MS SQL 7) with MySQL or (better for my, I think) a Postgresql DB. The number of visits, actually, is from 9000 to 45000 visits per day. Can anybody tell me what of DB (MySQL or PostgreSQL) are better for me? Can explain me why? Can tell me any site about benchmarks, or any date about that? Any of these databases are too strong to support this number of visitors? The site will run with apache+php4, with database access optimized. Also, we have the Oracle 9i option, but we want to make this project under one of these open source option. Expecially if you have a dinamic PHP site, for me, MySQL and PHP, is the better and faster solution. actually, it's not. mysql is faster (these days, only marginally faster) than postgres for extremely simple queries, but not for complex queries. postgres blows mysql out of the water on anything more complex than a single select of a bunch of fields from a single table by a single user. postgres has more features, is more reliable, is faster in real-world usage (i.e. moderately complex and complex queries, and multi-user access), and has much better documentation than mysql. Pg was designed from the start to be a real database, whereas mysql is little more than a jumped up filesystem with sql tacked on. PHP is OK, but i wouldn't use mysql for anything. i really don't understand how anyone could trust their data to a toy. there's an excellent article comparing the relative performance of postgresql and mysql (with the same php based application) at http://www.phpbuilder.net/columns/tim20001112.php3 apart from that, do a search on google for postgres mysql comparison or postgres and php. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hardware recommendation
anyone have recommendation for these specifications: motherboard that fits in 1u case onboard lan and video no scsi dual cpu upto 1Ghz cpu price range: $180 and under I want to put a acceleraid on it on the pci slot so don't need the onboard scsi like the s2510u3ng from Tyan trying to save some money -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with site+database
PHP is OK, but i wouldn't use mysql for anything. i really don't understand how anyone could trust their data to a toy. Slashdot uses mySQL as its database and I don't think that anyone could plausibly argue that /. isn't an intensive use of a database by a very busy, and very successful, Web site. If you've ever perused Slashcode you'll also agree that those are some really ugly SQL statements! :-) I'm not saying that mySQL is better, I'm saying that, as in all which tool is better questions the answer is always it depends. The answer to the which is better question seems to depend on what you are using the database for. My suggestion is to grab both databases, populate them with your data and manually run some of your typical queries on them. See which works better for *your* needs. Pete -- http://www.elbnet.com ELB Internet Services, Inc. Web Design, Computer Consulting, Internet Hosting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware recommendation
Allen, I don't know if you're aware but your mailer seems to have a Y2K problem. From your mail header: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 101 10:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Gotta' be perl! :-) Pete -- http://www.elbnet.com ELB Internet Services, Inc. Web Design, Computer Consulting, Internet Hosting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with site+database
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 11:52:14PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: Expecially if you have a dinamic PHP site, for me, MySQL and PHP, is the better and faster solution. actually, it's not. mysql is faster (these days, only marginally faster) than postgres for extremely simple queries, but not for complex queries. postgres blows mysql out of the water on anything more complex than a single select of a bunch of fields from a single table by a single user. I had to set up a server for a company who insisted on using MySQL and PHP and it hasn't caused any problems for them. I believe the load was high at times but I'm not sure how many queries they got per a second. Chances are that they were using mostly the one database user and they could have been using simple queries. PHP is OK, but i wouldn't use mysql for anything. i really don't understand how anyone could trust their data to a toy. I've never used MySQL for a serious use by choice, but when I have used it with no choice it hasn't caused any problems. I think you are forgetting something though... some people would trust their data to a cow if they could get it in there somehow! Well at least they trust it to that un-nameable redmond based software company known as the evil empire! there's an excellent article comparing the relative performance of postgresql and mysql (with the same php based application) at http://www.phpbuilder.net/columns/tim20001112.php3 apart from that, do a search on google for postgres mysql comparison or postgres and php. I've found varying reviews to be mixed. Just by searching for postgres mysql comparison like you said I found this: http://phd.pp.ru/Software/SQL/PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL.html I do have a serious use for a database soon so I'll be sure to test both database packages out myself. Replication will be important though and last time I checked mysql didn't have any which is pretty useless (but I think they might have been implementing it). -- Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with site+database
quote who=Peter Billson Slashdot uses mySQL as its database and I don't think that anyone could plausibly argue that /. isn't an intensive use of a database by a very busy, and very successful, Web site. It's also a very botched job. The code that slashdot runs - the previous generation of SlashCode - is at best, shocking. They still run MySQL because the site was never designed with database abstraction in mind, and that's all they had at the time. They run it, because they're stuck with it, so it's not a good advertisement for MySQL at all! :) The answer to the which is better question seems to depend on what you are using the database for. My suggestion is to grab both databases, populate them with your data and manually run some of your typical queries on them. See which works better for *your* needs. The only problem with this is that you simply cannot do things in MySQL that you can with PostgreSQL - if you had to do anything remotely complicated it would be a comparison between PostgreSQL and MySQL (with a lot of glue and bodge code to fix up everything it doesn't do). - Jeff -- I was there when geek became chic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with site+database
It has been been our experience (doing in-house development work) that your choice of database (between mySQL and PostgreSQL) should be partially based on the types of tables and queries you will use with your application(s). mySQL appears to be extremely fast for simple queries. However, our developers suffer with it because of its' limited support for advanced SQL functionality. mySQL does not currently support subselects, foreign keys, stored procedures or triggers. In addition, only mySQL version 3.23.X supports temporary tables (version 3.22.32 is in Potato) etc. Since 45000 visits/day is approximately one (1) connection/sec for a twelve (12) hour day, I would say that, all other differences aside, either database should perform satisfactorily. On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:07:33AM +0200, TooManySecrets wrote: Hi. I'm constructing a new site from cero. The actual site is dinamic, with a database server (the DB is over 65 Mb big). The next site also will dinamic, but I would like to change the actual DB (a MS SQL 7) with MySQL or (better for my, I think) a Postgresql DB. The number of visits, actually, is from 9000 to 45000 visits per day. Can anybody tell me what of DB (MySQL or PostgreSQL) are better for me? Can explain me why? Can tell me any site about benchmarks, or any date about that? Any of these databases are too strong to support this number of visitors? The site will run with apache+php4, with database access optimized. Also, we have the Oracle 9i option, but we want to make this project under one of these open source option. Please, anybody can help me??? NOTE: I will apologize about the inconvenience of my bad english. Sorry. Have a nice day ;-) TooManySecrets -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jean-Paul Stewart Senior Systems Administrator CarbonMedia, Inc. 114 East 25th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212.253.7180 Fax: 212.253.8467 http://www.carbonmedia.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with site+database
quote who=Jeremy Lunn I've found varying reviews to be mixed. Just by searching for postgres mysql comparison like you said I found this: http://phd.pp.ru/Software/SQL/PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL.html Any comparison should take note of PostgreSQL's incredible leaps in speed with version 7.1, and even more features that MySQL can't do (OUTER JOIN for example). For anyone who hasn't tried it out - it's quite different to MySQL, but it rocks very, very hard. Definitely worth learning and porting! :) - Jeff -- If your life was a movie, would you pay to see it? Would you pay to see an advertisement for it? - James Morris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: help with site+database
On Tuesday, July 17, 2001 10:37 AM, Jeremy Lunn wrote: I do have a serious use for a database soon so I'll be sure to test both database packages out myself. Replication will be important though and last time I checked mysql didn't have any which is pretty useless (but I think they might have been implementing it). MySQL 3.23.x does have replication however it is rudimentary. You basically have master/slave configurations. Although this can work bidirectionally, that can screw up AUTO_INCREMENT tables if you do an INSERT into such a table on both your servers ``simultaniously''. It also seems like no fun to administer. If you can live with doing all your UPDATEs on a single, master server, and slaving your other server(s) to it, MySQL's replication is not impossible to use or understand; but obviously that makes application development more difficult and time-consuming. What replication capabilities does pgsql have? Here is a link to MySQL's replication documentation: http://www.mysql.com/doc/R/e/Replication.html - jsw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Salt for /etc/shadow and passwd?
Okay... I wasn't thinking. The salt is stored within the crypted password generated, which is why password crackers work. Well... hopefully you can confirm this :-) Sincerely, Jason - Original Message - From: Jason Lim [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 3:17 AM Subject: Salt for /etc/shadow and passwd? Hi! I was wondering where the salt is stored on a debian linux system...? I want to cp /etc/shadow from one server to another for simplicity, and I would rather not have to regenerate all the crypted passwords over again. So... if I can make the salt for both servers the same then that SHOULD work, right? Well, thanks in advance! Sincerely, Jason http://www.zentek-international.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Salt for /etc/shadow and passwd?
-. Jason Lim (2001-07-18) : | | Okay... I wasn't thinking. The salt is stored within the crypted password | generated, which is why password crackers work. Yes, with crypt(3) the salt is precisely the first two characters. -tom -- == Thomas.Morin @webmotion.comSysAdmin/RD == Phone: +1 613 731 4046 ext113 \Fax: +1 613 260 9545 == PGP/keyID: 8CEA233D == PGP/KeyFP: 503BF6CFD3AE8719377B832A02FB94E08CEA233D -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salt for /etc/shadow and passwd?
Hi! I was wondering where the salt is stored on a debian linux system...? I want to cp /etc/shadow from one server to another for simplicity, and I would rather not have to regenerate all the crypted passwords over again. So... if I can make the salt for both servers the same then that SHOULD work, right? Well, thanks in advance! Sincerely, Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apache behind a fw
i need to serve webpages under a domain (example.com), but i have a problem. the machine with the external ip is a fw, that does port forwarding to the apache box. this is not a very big problem, but gets really annoying when i need to test the server from inside the internal network. using example.com as the domain leads to a route error, so i need to use the internal ip of the apache box (and all the references to the domain name on the webpages don't work). is this usual? how does a isp setup apache router to make the server work with the domain name from inside the fw? -- -- a strange game. the only winning move is not to play Diego Torres - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Madrid / España -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with site+database
quote who=[EMAIL PROTECTED] I know oracle has optimistic locking and versioning. I **think** postgres does too? Comments? Postgres has better than row level locking (I'm sure Craig was just simplifying earlier), plus reading and writing are independent. See: http://postgresql.planetmirror.com/devel-corner/docs/postgres/mvcc.html Very groovy stuff. I'm not sure the issue is mysql vs postgres, but what does it take to run a particular site. If the site is heavily interactive with complex queries and transactions, the choice seems limited. There aren't too many websites that would run with a read only style approach to their databases, as you mentioned earlier in your email. This is why I can't imagine using MySQL for anything truly useful. Oh well... have they got a history in their cli yet? Heh. Time for you to catch up with newer Postgres releases, methinks. :) - Jeff -- Boys will be boys, hackers will be hackers, geeks will be geeks, and cyberpunks will always just be ravers with Macintoshes. - Monkey Master, Crackmonkey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
