Re: [GENERAL] Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing)
Hiya, As I've mentioned before, we happilly run and offer PostgreSQL and MySQL hosting to our customers. We also offer shell access which simplifies things a little. I'm a little confused as to why people find having auth control from pg_hba.conf a problem? We never use the same passwords or pam for our DBs either, since it offers a little more security should one or the other be compromised. If you use a tool like webmin, it not really any more complicated. Anyone who complains about it being "too hard" to offer PG as a shared hosting option just hasn't investigated the possibility. In my experience, many ISPs and hosts don't offer it because they beleive the ROI (time, learning, extra maintenance, patching, updates,etc) will not good. Regards Tony. Craig O'Shannessy wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: There is another thing too-- MySQL manages connection permissions entirely within the RDBMS, while PostgreSQL relies on the pg_hba.conf. This makes managing a database server in a shared hosting environment a bit harder. While I appreciate the PostgreSQL way of doing things, I realize that it is a bit harder to make work for the average web hosting provider. I am currently looking at the possibility of building a solution, but no one has expressed interest, so I am not sure. Ahh just run different instances for each customer. This wouldn't really work for a ISP would it? A fairly low spec machine with a few hundred low-hit websites, maybe 60 of them wanting a database for their blogs? My ISP runs mysql, I don't get shell access :((, but I can remotely connect to their mysql server from home. If running sixty instances of PostgreSQL, wouldn't you have to have 60 different port numbers, not to mention a whole lot of RAM? I've asked them to put up PostgreSQL as an alternative, but they just say "too hard" and don't want to talk about it. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql on file system EXT2 or EXT3
I'm in agreement with Joshua in some aspects of his reply but not others. I use Reiserfs on many production servers and have done so for a couple of years. I have needed perform one repair only on the filesystem, which was automated with the tools provided. Reiser is still beta, in the same way that Debian uses the term testing to refer to non-stable software. Many people us it in a production environment successfully. But, as a caveat to my praises to Reiser, if you decide to use it , understand that you *must* know your subject, how to use the tools and how to recover from failures. It is not enough to merely rely on fsck getting the job done, and, in some circumstances the incantations required to performa fix can be quite terse IMHO. The next fs I install will be XFS after much deliberation and conversation with like minded fellow compugeeks, since it's at least as good as any other journaling fs, but has the added bonus that filesystems can be *grown* without the aid of LVM, etc. Which would be a huge bonus. Just my 2 cents. Tony. Joshua D. Drake wrote: | Don't go on EXT2, its not reliable and takes lots of time to start after an Actually EXT2 is quite reliable and it is also quite fast. However your point is accurate about start up time after a crash. The most promising FS is Reiserfs v4 http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html Although Reiser is promising, I wouldn't touch it. It is beta, frankly my experience is that even their stable stuff is still beta. If you want a native, reliable, stable FS for Linux. Use JFS or XFS (when 2.6 comes out) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake If you cant wait I suggest XFS or JFS. Look in the archives for all the explanations. Ohhh, and don't use IDE Drives, only SCSI. Cheer -- Canaan Surfing Ltd. Internet Service Providers Ben-Nes Michael - Manager Tel: 972-4-6991122 Fax: 972-4-6990098 http://www.canaan.net.il -- - Original Message - From: Carmen Wai [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 5:00 PM Subject: [GENERAL] Postgresql on file system EXT2 or EXT3 Hello: I would like to know whether there is any different in installing Postgresql on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two machines with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert 10,000 records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert much quicker than the other with EXT3. Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? Thanks a lot! Carmen _ Linguaphone : Learning English? Get Japanese lessons for FREE http://go.msnserver.com/HK/30476.asp ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Advocacy, Thoughts and Comments
Further to this post, what might actually work is to convince O' Reilly (since they have PostgreSQL book/s) to do some articles like they have for PG, but making full use of the PG database. For instance, building a simple data-warehouse using PG. Articles that show off an OSS product/project in a clearly enterprise light in a step-by-step fashion. There have been so many articles on DB design using MySQL. How about an article on DB design using all the functionality of a real ORDBMS. Just a few thoughts. Cheers T. Tony wrote: HI All, I'm glad that this thread prompted some thoughtful response. I think one of my main points I was trying to make, Jason hit the nail on the head. The article to which I was referring uses a great example which I have experienced many times before, but in order to grasp this, PHP et al, must be thought of as a scripting language which crosses many corporate boundries, and it is easy to assume that it's primary use (simple web site back ends) are the only thing to discuss. But the situation has changed enourmously since the release of PHP v4. Now many consultant/developer/sys-admins like myself are going to client site on a contract (this is especially true in the UK, I can't speak for anywhere else) and finding complex stocktrading systems, inventory systems, CRM systems, and others, all written in PHP backed by MySQL. Whether this is right or wrong, good choice or bad choice is not what I'm interested in debating. The point is that when these systems where architected, the developers used MySQL not because they were dumb, but because many of them develop awesome code and can get around most problems in the code, with a little ingenuity. Many simply do not have the insight into the potential benefits of *proper* RDBMS can offer. Had they had the benefit of such knowledge the code they have written would be faster (in DB) and more legible. Sadly often the developers are the only source of DBA for some of these companies. The second scenario, is with admin systems, written by people like myself for companies, whether they be simple or complex systems, that are intended as a temporary work around to an immediate problem. In a very short space of time the stop-gap application you had written to sort out the immediate problem quickly becomes a core business application (I recently returned to a site after not being there for two years and the temporary address book/ email system that I knocked up in an afternoon was not only still being used, but now relied upon heavily). So on to my point, MySQL guys will happily say Hey, we're not saying that the features MySQL is missing aren't important, and we're working towards them, but in the meantime these issues can be worked around like this. and happily play the whole thing down. Many LAMP developers aren't aware of the benefits of stored procedures, of triggers and other good stuff. Like myself, if they were aware how much easier life could be if these things were accessible to them, they'd probably be converts too. There is not enough emphasis put on the basic importance of these functions in PG. Someone needs to standup and say Hey, look how this can simplify your programming lives until I started using Druid/Postgres, I had no idea why I needed triggers or what a cascade effect did, or why I might want one. The Linux community has grown at least in part because it has educated potential users and journo's to its benefits. I believe if the PG advocacy team did the same, then it would attract many more serious LAMP developers. Like Linux vs. Windows, PG has an awful lot going for it in respect to MySQL, so why not crow about it. It needs to be pointed at a crowd that are DB novices, they need to be told why PG is worth the time/knowledge investment, because anyone who reads the MySQL site, will come away with the impression that the Trigger, Stored Procs, and other things are a luxurious overhead not necessary for getting the job done. I'd gladly help out with such a paper, but find myself in the sad position of my prose being open to attack due to my newbieness in the DB world and not able to speak authoratatively on the subject. Have a think, I'd like to know if others agree. Cheers T. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] PGSQL on shared hosting
Hiya, Without wanting to get flamed for gratuitous advertising, my company offers shared hosting with PostgreSQL 7.4. I'll leave it at that. Apologies in advance to anyone I've offended. Regards Tony. Francois Suter wrote: i am a newbie to the pgsql world, so pls bear with a possibly stupid question. i want to test out pgsql but i only have a shared hosting account. is it possible to install pgsql without root access, only for my account? my webhost uses redhat i think. No. The make install step requires a root access. Your best chance is to find a shared hosting which offers PostgreSQL rather than MySQL. There are some. Not many, but some... Good luck. --- Francois Home page: http://www.monpetitcoin.com/ Would Descartes have programmed in Pascal? - Umberto Eco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS
Hi Ben, You asked so here's my take on the subject, but I've gotta say that you can't go far wrong with reading Bruce Momjian's paper at: http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/momjian/hw_performance/ But with that aside. 1. Unless your doing major league DB stuff, the FS should make more than marginal difference, if it's Journaled then it's good. You can take all the time benchmarking that you want, just be sure your ROI is worth the time you invest. My favourite fs is Reiser, but in the cold light of day, ext3 is supported in more places. My first choice is Reiser, since I used it even when it was "unstable" on production servers and it never let me down. I often use one or the other. 2. Bruce's article really is good for this question, but in a nutshell you need to get as much of the DB as close to the CPU as possible. As with any serious application, you can't beat a good L1/L2 cache, then plenty of RAM/Memory ... DBs yum RAM, the more the merrier. Lastly fast and wide disc access, remember disk access will be the slowest part of the system, and in an ideal world you'd fit nearly all of your DB in RAM if it was practical and safe. You'd probably gain more from taking the time to really ensure that your DB is designed flawlessly, and all your indexes are where they're needed. All of the basics come into play, but a well built RDBMS system is greater than the sum of its parts. For further reading check out: http://www.argudo.org/postgresql/soft-tuning.html It all adds up!!. Good Luck Tony. Ben-Nes Michael wrote: Hi I'm upgrading the DB sever hardware and also the Linux OS. My Questions are: 1. What is the preferred FS to go with ? EXT3, Reiseref, JFS, XFS ? ( speed, efficiency ) 2. What is the most importent part in the Hardware ? fast HD, alot of mem, or maybe strong cpu ? Thanks in Advance -- Canaan Surfing Ltd. Internet Service Providers Ben-Nes Michael - Manager Tel: 972-4-6991122 Fax: 972-4-6990098 http://www.canaan.net.il -- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing)
Hi John, I've been thinking about this for sometime, since a couple of my associates are looking to build a commercial app based around JDBC. The difficulty came when we looked at redistributing a MySQL JDBC driver .jar with the application. From what I can tell, since you distribute the JDBC driver they assume that somewhere it's going to be used with a MySQL server and therefore requires licensing. It wasn't exactly clear IMHO or straightforward. So they've decided to go with PG only for the time being, which makes running the server on Windows a little more difficult, but who wants to run windows anyway! As far as speed goes, I think that there isn't enough in it anymore to comment about. Sure MySQL is faster in XYZ scenario, but PG is faster in ABC scenario, swings and roundabouts. IMHO the only place where MySQL has a clear advantage is the fact that it replicates right out of the box, with very little difficulty (see my earlier post today) and is quite robust. Just my 2 Cents Cheers T. John Wells wrote: Yes, I know you've seen the above subject before, so please be gentle with the flamethrowers. I'm preparing to enter a discussion with management at my company regarding going forward as either a MySql shop or a Postgresql shop. It's my opinion that we should be using PG, because of the full ACID support, and the license involved. A consultant my company hired before bringing me in is pushing hard for MySql, citing speed and community support, as well as ACID support. My biggest concern with MySQL is licensing. We need to keep costs low, and last I remember the parent company was being pretty strict on fair use under the GPL. If I recall, they even said a company would have to license the commercial version if it were simply used operationally within the company. Also, I was under the impression that Postgresql had pretty much caught up with MySql in the speed category...is this not the case? Finally, ACID support in mysql always seemed kind of a hackperhaps this has changed? Thanks for any input (armament ;) ) you can provide. John ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
