Re: [Maria-discuss] [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Axel Schwenke wrote: >> But to put things in context, in MySQL 5.0 series the situation was >> the opposite: The bugs were public but the publicly released and GPL >> licensed bug fixes would be up to 6 months delayd in favor of paying >> customers getting them instantly. In some ways, the current situation >> is still better than back then. > > This is a very weird statement. Oracle does not release GPL versions more > often than MySQL AB did. In fact Oracle does not make any promise to ever > produce GPL bugfix releases. It's completely at their discretion. > See "Community Server" releases in http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/news-5-0-x.html MySQL AB had a commitment to do a Community release every six months, it happened that they failed on that commitment and the gaps were longer. Since MySQL 5.1 they started releasing Community and Enterprise releases in sync, every month. This had nothing to do with Oracle, it was still under Sun watch. It's perhaps not so relevant to this discussion, though, just some historical perspective. > For projects like Debian that build their own binaries and are not dependent > on complete releases (but rather a stream of patches) the current situation > with Oracle is clearly a step back. When 5.1 went GA, we had both the bugs and the fixes, so I agree. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [ubuntu-server] Re: [Maria-discuss] [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On 02/16/2012 10:24 PM, Stewart Smith wrote: > The benefit of Percona Server is in having [...] > and features to better help you diagnose what's going on > inside your server. Not to take sides in a complex multi-sided argument with many factors to consider, but from a practical getting-business-done perspective, my company switched from the standard Ubuntu MySQL release to Percona (MySQL 5.5) in December for just this reason. We needed to understand deep details on the performance of our database; Percona gave us the insight we needed (and more). -- Eric Hammond -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
Most enterprise users I've seen usually standardize on commercially supported databases (whether open source or not). If they are actually using a non-supported version of open source software, they're rolling their own if they are worried about version changes or distro supplied patches mucking things up. Otherwise, they just roll with the patches/version changes after putting them through the paces of their dev/test machines. Unless I'm mistaken, LTS releases have 3 years of support beyond the next LTS release date. Given this, you have three years to do compatibility testing with your apps against whatever default DB is shipping in the next release and/or develop an alternate plan. You're going to have to do this testing anyway. If it takes more than three years to figure out what you need to do, you're doing it wrong. Given that the options being discussed are free for download and in the case of MariaDB, you can do a drop in replacement on an existing 10.04 MySQL box so you can start testing now on your dev/test boxes/VMs. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Alex Esterkin wrote: > As an end user, I would most strongly dislike this. You clearly don't > understand how corporate users think and operate, how they work with open > source technologies, and how they plan and evolve their technical > roadmaps. > > Last year Ubuntu inflicted enough damage on itself by messing up with UI > and display management. Replacing OpenOffice with LibreOffice was not a > success story either. > > A year ago I had plans to migrate my remaining CentOS and Debian servers > and test environments to Ubuntu and I recommended using Ubuntu for a couple > of server appliance products we had in the works. These plans were > revisited and revised in the fall, based on revised Linux distro release > and roadmap assessment. > > As far as MySQL is concerned, I don't care at this point what your Ubuntu > server distro plans are, as I have already migrated away from Ubuntu. > > However, if the discussion about replacing MySQL also spreads into the > Fedora Project and CentOS communities, that would give me a very good > reason for migrating/porting MySQL apps and products to Postgres. > > Regards, > > Alex Esterkin, > Former Chief Architect, Infobright > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 04:37, Clint Byrum wrote: > >> Many of us in the Free and Open Source software community have seen a >> trend regarding Oracle's stewardship of Open source software that it >> inherited when it purchased Sun. In particular there were two fairly >> large public project blow ups that resulted in OpenOffice splintering, >> and the Hudson community (almost?) completely moving to an independent >> fork called Jenkins. >> >> It has been brought to my attention that MySQL may have gone this way >> as well, but in a much more subtle way. This started about a year ago, >> and has only recently really become obvious. >> >> A few notable fellows from the MySQL ecosystem have commented: >> >> Mark Callaghan >> http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2011/02/where-have-bugs-gone.html >> (read the comments on this one, very informative, and most of the >> commenters are extremely important non-Oracle members of the MySQL >> community) >> >> http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2011/11/great-work-bug-12704861-was-fixed.html >> >> Stewart Smith: >> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2011/11/20/bug12704861/ >> >> And the CVE's are extremely vague: >> >> http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-0119 >> >> "Unspecified vulnerability in the MySQL Server component in Oracle MySQL >> 5.1.x and 5.5.x allows remote authenticated users to affect availability >> via unknown vectors" >> >> Links to here: >> >> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/cpujan2012-366304.html >> >> Which links to here: >> >> http://support.oracle.com/CSP/main/article?cmd=show&type=NOT&id=1390289.1 >> >> Which requires an account (which I created). I did try to login but got >> some kind of failure.. >> >> "Failure of server APACHE bridge:". >> >> The bzr commits for the latest MySQL releases also reference log bug#'s >> that are thought to belong to the private oracle support system, not >> accessible to non-paying customers. >> >> This is all very troubling, as in a Linux distribution, we must be able >> to support our users and track upstream development. >> >> So what should we, the Debian and Ubuntu MySQL maintainers and users, >> do about this? >> >> Well there is a Jenkins to MySQL's Hudson, a LibreOffice to their >> OpenOffice. >> >> MariaDB 5.3, in release-candidate now, is 100% backward compatible with >> MySQL 5.1. It also includes a few speedups and features that can be found >> in MySQL 5.5 and Percona Server. It is developed 100% in the open, on >> launchpad.net, including a public bug tracker and up to date bzr trees >> of the code. >> >> http://mariadb.org >> https://launchpad.net/maria >> >> I'm writing to the greater Debian and Ubuntu community to ask for your >> thoughts on a
Re: [Maria-discuss] [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
2012/2/17 Björn Boschman : > This leads us to the following options: > * Stay with MySQL but no security nor bugfixes > * Search for an alternative which is even 100% compatible with MySQL + > having full community support For completeness, let me also defend Oracle for a change :-) There's also the 3rd option: * Stay with MySQL and blindly apply the updates that Oracle continues to release as GPL. The downside - which our Canonical maintainers seem to dislike - is the "blindly" part. The fixes are GPL, but the bugs are not public, so we don't know what they fix. Most Linux distributions like to take a minimalist approach to updates, so they'd like to just fix the most critical bugs. The information to do that is now hidden. But to put things in context, in MySQL 5.0 series the situation was the opposite: The bugs were public but the publicly released and GPL licensed bug fixes would be up to 6 months delayd in favor of paying customers getting them instantly. In some ways, the current situation is still better than back then. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Distro-provided mechanism to clean up old kernels
> Martin Pitt writes: > I think it'd be best if update-manager would auto-remove all kernel > packages except the most recent two or three during dist-upgrade. This > needs to be specified carefully of course, as people might explicitly > run a kernel from the previous distro release. So perhaps some > clevernes like if you install linux-image-3.2.0-N-generic, delete all > kernels up to linux-image-3.2.0-(N-2)-generic. My own use case here is that I had to work around a bug in newer kernels by running a very old one for *months*, I don't have the precise number anymore but I think I had at least 5 or 6 kernels newer than the only one I could use. Is there a way to know the last time a kernel was booted and use that as a criteria to keep it ? This will allow removing kernels unused for months limiting the risks that we remove a vital one. Vincent -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
Hi Alex, Am 16.02.2012 19:33, schrieb Alex Esterkin: As an end user, I would most strongly dislike this. You clearly don't understand how corporate users think and operate, how they work with open source technologies, and how they plan and evolve their technical roadmaps. I think I understand a bit of how corporate users think and operate. When you are an enterprise user who has subscribed support from MySQL via Oracle you are enforced to use the Oracle binaries and cannot just use the distribution supplied binaries at all. This includes bugfixes and security fixes from your vendor, in this case Oracle (not Debian or any other distribution). When you do not have such a subscription you rely on the support from your distribution. That's the point this whole discussion is about. Neighter Debian nor Ubuntu can offer reliable bugfixes and security support. Not because they don't want to. Their hands are bound because MySQL/Oracle somehow is not willing to provide important information such as detailed changelogs or security information. This leads us to the following options: * Stay with MySQL but no security nor bugfixes * Search for an alternative which is even 100% compatible with MySQL + having full community support From my personal as well as my business perspective I want a system where I can get bugfixes as well as security fixes. You should consider those questions in your roadmap as well. B -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Distro-provided mechanism to clean up old kernels
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 14:16, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:07:58 PM Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:04:03PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Bear in mind that dbus is not running on servers by default. So that > > > would be a fine solution for the desktop, but there's a larger > > > architectural decision to confront there if we think that should be the > > > solution on servers as well. > > > > Evan Broder has set me straight here that we *are* installing dbus by > > default, and I see that it's part of the 'standard' task in precise. So > > nevermind. :) > > Right, but that doesn't make it a good thing. > > DBus is a desktop technology and I don't think there's a compelling use > case > for adding this additional complexity to servers. > > Myself, I'd prefer it go away. I'm not clear why it was added. > > Scott K > > Perhaps it was pulled in because of upstart's support for dbus? ( http://upstart.ubuntu.com/wiki/DBusInterface) -- Mario Limonciello supe...@ubuntu.com -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Maria-discuss] [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:55:58 +0200, Walter Heck wrote: > I think it would be fair to take into account both the things Colin > and Stewart have said as many of them are correct, but their words > should also be taken with a grain of salt as they work for the > companies that would benefit heavily from having 'their' fork be the > replacement of mysql. That's not to accuse them of anything, just to > keep in mind when making a decision. The fork that 'wins' this > decision might well be the more succesful one in the long run simply > because of being the default mysql version in two of the most widely > used linux distributions. Just to be clear: I'm not aiming for Percona Server to become upstream. The benefit of Percona Server is in having extra performance and features to better help you diagnose what's going on inside your server. We intentionally closely track Oracle MySQL releases and don't deviate hugely. > Percona server's direction is heavily influenced by the commercial > value for Percona. They implement new features when customers pay for > them, and their development seems to be driven by that largely. The > community benefits from the 'fallout' of those features being released > as open source. The largest benefit is a release cycle that seems a > bit more regular then mariadb's. We do put customer priorities first although we do also do development for the general good of the wider community - but it's just commercial sense to prioritise work for paying customers (we like making enough money to hire new people and pay them well). It's not just fallout though, it is a pretty core belief of those of us who work here that free software is the best way to develop software and that every bit of software we ship is licensed under a free software license. -- Stewart Smith -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Distro-provided mechanism to clean up old kernels
On 16 February 2012 20:21, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Dustin Kirkland wrote: > >>I asked about this in IRC yesterday, and Colin Watson pointed me to >>the computer-janitor utility, which is intended to handle this. >>Seconds later, Barry Warsaw told me that computer-janitor should die >>:-) > > c-j needs attention, but I'm not particularly motivated to give it what it > needs. There's basic housekeeping, such as that the code for c-j is sprinkled > between the update-manager and the computer-janitor packages, and even more > important problems such LP: #458872. What's demotivating though is that in > all the discussions we've had about the tool, most people think it's just not > user-friendly enough given today's emphasis on software-center. You should also note that Ubuntu Tweak has its own Janitor tool included. This tool is quite popular among desktop users. Regards, -- # Przemysław Kulczycki ## Jabber/XMPP/Gtalk/Tlen ID: azrael[na]jabster.pl -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
As an end user, I would most strongly dislike this. You clearly don't understand how corporate users think and operate, how they work with open source technologies, and how they plan and evolve their technical roadmaps. Last year Ubuntu inflicted enough damage on itself by messing up with UI and display management. Replacing OpenOffice with LibreOffice was not a success story either. A year ago I had plans to migrate my remaining CentOS and Debian servers and test environments to Ubuntu and I recommended using Ubuntu for a couple of server appliance products we had in the works. These plans were revisited and revised in the fall, based on revised Linux distro release and roadmap assessment. As far as MySQL is concerned, I don't care at this point what your Ubuntu server distro plans are, as I have already migrated away from Ubuntu. However, if the discussion about replacing MySQL also spreads into the Fedora Project and CentOS communities, that would give me a very good reason for migrating/porting MySQL apps and products to Postgres. Regards, Alex Esterkin, Former Chief Architect, Infobright On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 04:37, Clint Byrum wrote: > Many of us in the Free and Open Source software community have seen a > trend regarding Oracle's stewardship of Open source software that it > inherited when it purchased Sun. In particular there were two fairly > large public project blow ups that resulted in OpenOffice splintering, > and the Hudson community (almost?) completely moving to an independent > fork called Jenkins. > > It has been brought to my attention that MySQL may have gone this way > as well, but in a much more subtle way. This started about a year ago, > and has only recently really become obvious. > > A few notable fellows from the MySQL ecosystem have commented: > > Mark Callaghan > http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2011/02/where-have-bugs-gone.html > (read the comments on this one, very informative, and most of the > commenters are extremely important non-Oracle members of the MySQL > community) > > http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2011/11/great-work-bug-12704861-was-fixed.html > > Stewart Smith: > http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2011/11/20/bug12704861/ > > And the CVE's are extremely vague: > > http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-0119 > > "Unspecified vulnerability in the MySQL Server component in Oracle MySQL > 5.1.x and 5.5.x allows remote authenticated users to affect availability > via unknown vectors" > > Links to here: > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/cpujan2012-366304.html > > Which links to here: > > http://support.oracle.com/CSP/main/article?cmd=show&type=NOT&id=1390289.1 > > Which requires an account (which I created). I did try to login but got > some kind of failure.. > > "Failure of server APACHE bridge:". > > The bzr commits for the latest MySQL releases also reference log bug#'s > that are thought to belong to the private oracle support system, not > accessible to non-paying customers. > > This is all very troubling, as in a Linux distribution, we must be able > to support our users and track upstream development. > > So what should we, the Debian and Ubuntu MySQL maintainers and users, > do about this? > > Well there is a Jenkins to MySQL's Hudson, a LibreOffice to their > OpenOffice. > > MariaDB 5.3, in release-candidate now, is 100% backward compatible with > MySQL 5.1. It also includes a few speedups and features that can be found > in MySQL 5.5 and Percona Server. It is developed 100% in the open, on > launchpad.net, including a public bug tracker and up to date bzr trees > of the code. > > http://mariadb.org > https://launchpad.net/maria > > I'm writing to the greater Debian and Ubuntu community to ask for your > thoughts on a proposal to drop MySQL in favor of MariaDB. Its clear to > me that Oracle is not going to do work in the open, and this will become > a huge support burden for Linux distributions. The recent CVE's had to > be hunted down and investigated at great difficulty to several people, > since the KB articles referenced and the internal Oracle bug numbers > referenced were not available. > > This will only get harder as the community bug tracker gets further out > of sync with the private one. > > There is some need to consider acting quickly: > > Ubuntu precise, the next LTS release of Ubuntu will be hitting feature > freeze on Feb. 16. The release, due in April, will be supported with > security updates for 5 years. That may be 5 long years of support if > MySQL continues to obscure things. > > Debian wheezy is still quite far off, but it is critical that this be > done and decided by the time the release freeze begins. > > So, here is a suggested plan, given the facts above: > > * Upload mariadb 5.3 to Debian experimental, with it providing > mysql-server, mysql-client, and libmysqlclient-dev. > > * For Ubuntu users, upload these packages to a PPA for testing > applications for compatibility, and rebuild test
Re: [debian-mysql] [Maria-discuss] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Bjoern Boschman wrote: > More features even though they only apply to niche user are in general > nothing bad. Many DBAs tend to be very conservative and like a less is more approach, but personally I agree with you. I wish there was fork with everything: all the features from MariaDB *and* MySQL 5.5. And Percona, they still have some unique stuff beyond those two, like Galera. > But I don't really get the point of MariaDB grants 5 year GA support > vs. Percona grants only 2 years. I'd guess that for > 90% of all > available packages within the Debian project no assured support exists > at all? Clearly I was unclear in my previous email. The 2 year support is not true for any of the alternatives. MySQL gives 5 years (and more for customers that pay), Percona trails MySQL so they also end up doing 5 years (and more for paying customers). MariaDB also does 5, apparently. So the original statement of 2 years was just not correct. Why this is important is a good question, however it seems the origin of this discussion comes from the fact that Ubuntu indeed wants to support their product, coupled with a feeling that the relationship with Oracle MySQL makes that goal hard to achieve. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Maria-discuss] [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Walter Heck wrote: > As for MariaDB, I like their much more community driven development > that seems less commercially driven, ... > At this point I think MariaDB would probably be a better match for > being in the main ubuntu/debian distro's as their whole ecosystem > seems to match better. Nuances, but I always like to separate the following: I wouldn't say that MariaDB is any more a community fork than Percona is. MariaDB is 100% controlled by Monty and his company, just like Percona Server is controlled and developed by Percona. Both companies are community friendly and open source minded. However, MariaDB has a strategy of being very inclusive while Percona has a strategy of not deviating too much from "upstream" MySQL. This is great, because including things like more storage engines in MariaDB exposes them to more users - so MariaDB does a great service to those engines in the MySQL ecosystem. I believe it is important to make this distinction though, because many people in Linux distribution space have a tendency to cheer for the community projects. That would be "neither of the above". (see Drizzle :-) Otoh even MariaDB is not - unfortunately - even close at capturing the wholeness of what is out there in the MySQL ecosystem. I've already mentioned major things like MySQL 5.5 or Galera, otoh there are lots of smaller patches too like those from Anders Karlsson or TaoBao. So like I said, it is unfortunate we don't have a distribution that would really cover the whole community. Hence it is a bit of a paradox really: In theory MariaDB should satisfy more users, since it tries to include more features. In practice however I've repeatedly found that Percona has been (much) faster to include stuff that really matters, like MySQL 5.5, HandlerSocket and Galera. (HandlerSocket is also in the MariaDB 5.3 Release Candidate now.) So yes, it is difficult to say that either is better than the other. "In theory, things always work according to the theory, but in practice they don't." > Let it be clear that I have no commercial benefits from either one > over the other, just voicing my opinion. Good idea to do disclosures! Always a big fan of those: I believe as an ex employee I own some shares on the MariaDB side. (The paperwork is still unclear.) So I could greatly benefit if all the Linux distributions would default to MariaDB and it would then achieve world domination. I have no financial ties to Percona. When I worked for MySQL and Sun I had some options that I lost when resigning. I currently work for an organization that is a heavy MySQL end user and have tried to provide this perspective in my writings in this thread. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [debian-mysql] [Maria-discuss] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 16.02.2012 08:40, Henrik Ingo wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Bjoern Boschman > wrote: >> On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote: >>> Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are >>> compatible with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play >>> replacement. Percona Server is much closer to MySQL (which many >>> think is great), shall I say more focused. MariaDB has more >>> deviation in the code base and also adds more stuff like >>> additional storage engines (which many think is great, >>> especially when you want to play with new features). >> >> The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-) > > > Ok, fair point, but MariaDB really goes out of its way to have lots > of them: PBXT, OQGraph engine, Sphinx, Aria... You won't find > these (unless you contract Percona to provide them for you) in > Percona Server. These are not that commonly used but more niche. > But they are the reason I commonly label MariaDB as "has more > stuff". More features even though they only apply to niche user are in general nothing bad. Some features like microsecond datetime is really something I'm gonna have a look at :-) But I don't really get the point of MariaDB grants 5 year GA support vs. Percona grants only 2 years. I'd guess that for > 90% of all available packages within the Debian project no assured support exists at all? B -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk88xF8ACgkQABMWRpwdNunURACgoQOic29AFWc8DgGWnrXiVswa 6oEAnA+iF1Y617+Zup+UUbpFLiPqXIj3 =ddTc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
All I am asking for is this: Please, do not substitute packages. Let mysql-server.deb retain its origin. Please, add MariaDB under a different name and let the end users decide whether they want to stick with the Oracle's MySQL or to switch to using MariaDB. If MariaDB is better, faster, more scalable, and more stable, the end users will flock.And those who decide to switch to MariaDB would still want to do it on their schedule, as opposed to on the Ubuntu release schedule. Regards, Alex Esterkin On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:39, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of Tue Feb 07 01:50:18 -0800 2012: > > Many of us in the Free and Open Source software community have seen a > > trend regarding Oracle's stewardship of Open source software that it > > inherited when it purchased Sun. In particular there were two fairly > > large public project blow ups that resulted in OpenOffice splintering, > > and the Hudson community (almost?) completely moving to an independent > > fork called Jenkins. > > > > It has been brought to my attention that MySQL may have gone this way > > as well, but in a much more subtle way. This started about a year ago, > > and has only recently really become obvious. > > > > A few notable fellows from the MySQL ecosystem have commented: > > > > Mark Callaghan > > http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2011/02/where-have-bugs-gone.html > > (read the comments on this one, very informative, and most of the > > commenters are extremely important non-Oracle members of the MySQL > > community) > > > > > http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2011/11/great-work-bug-12704861-was-fixed.html > > > > Stewart Smith: > > http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2011/11/20/bug12704861/ > > > > And the CVE's are extremely vague: > > > > http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-0119 > > > > "Unspecified vulnerability in the MySQL Server component in Oracle MySQL > > 5.1.x and 5.5.x allows remote authenticated users to affect availability > > via unknown vectors" > > > > Links to here: > > > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/cpujan2012-366304.html > > > > Which links to here: > > > > > http://support.oracle.com/CSP/main/article?cmd=show&type=NOT&id=1390289.1 > > > > Which requires an account (which I created). I did try to login but got > > some kind of failure.. > > > > "Failure of server APACHE bridge:". > > > > The bzr commits for the latest MySQL releases also reference log bug#'s > > that are thought to belong to the private oracle support system, not > > accessible to non-paying customers. > > > > This is all very troubling, as in a Linux distribution, we must be able > > to support our users and track upstream development. > > > > So what should we, the Debian and Ubuntu MySQL maintainers and users, > > do about this? > > > > Well there is a Jenkins to MySQL's Hudson, a LibreOffice to their > > OpenOffice. > > > > MariaDB 5.3, in release-candidate now, is 100% backward compatible with > > MySQL 5.1. It also includes a few speedups and features that can be found > > in MySQL 5.5 and Percona Server. It is developed 100% in the open, on > > launchpad.net, including a public bug tracker and up to date bzr trees > > of the code. > > > > http://mariadb.org > > https://launchpad.net/maria > > > > I'm writing to the greater Debian and Ubuntu community to ask for your > > thoughts on a proposal to drop MySQL in favor of MariaDB. Its clear to > > me that Oracle is not going to do work in the open, and this will become > > a huge support burden for Linux distributions. The recent CVE's had to > > be hunted down and investigated at great difficulty to several people, > > since the KB articles referenced and the internal Oracle bug numbers > > referenced were not available. > > > > This will only get harder as the community bug tracker gets further out > > of sync with the private one. > > > > There is some need to consider acting quickly: > > > > Ubuntu precise, the next LTS release of Ubuntu will be hitting feature > > freeze on Feb. 16. The release, due in April, will be supported with > > security updates for 5 years. That may be 5 long years of support if > > MySQL continues to obscure things. > > > > Debian wheezy is still quite far off, but it is critical that this be > > done and decided by the time the release freeze begins. > > > > So, here is a suggested plan, given the facts above: > > > > * Upload mariadb 5.3 to Debian experimental, with it providing > > mysql-server, mysql-client, and libmysqlclient-dev. > > > > * For Ubuntu users, upload these packages to a PPA for testing > > applications for compatibility, and rebuild testing. > > > > * If testing goes well, replace mysql-5.5 with mariadb in both Debian > > unstable and Ubuntu precise. If there are reservations about switching > > this late in precise's cycle, ship mysql-5.5 in precise, and push off > > Ubuntu's transition until the next cycle. > > > > Before I strike out on this path alone, which, I unders
Re: [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
I really think Alex ahas a point. It does not matter what the technical arguments are. The techie will not be able to explain them adequately to the guy making the decisions - who only knows that he is running a MySQL shop. Could we adopt the following scheme: mysql-X depends on mysql-X-5.1 | mariadb-X-5.1 (in unstable) and mysql-X-5.5 | mariadb-X-5.5 (in experimental) Having the mariadb-* packages managed by the same team as the mysql-* team should enable leveaging of effort. This would keep the corporate guys happy and support for my the oracle based mysql could be dropped if it became clear that it was no longer required. On 17/02/12 08:53, Björn Boschman wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Am 16.02.2012 19:33, schrieb Alex Esterkin: >> As an end user, I would most strongly dislike this. You clearly don't >> understand how corporate users think and operate, how they work with >> open source technologies, and how they plan and evolve their technical >> roadmaps. > > I think I understand a bit of how corporate users think and operate. > > When you are an enterprise user who has subscribed support from MySQL > via Oracle you are enforced to use the Oracle binaries and cannot just > use the distribution supplied binaries at all. > This includes bugfixes and security fixes from your vendor, in this case > Oracle (not Debian or any other distribution). > > When you do not have such a subscription you rely on the support from > your distribution. That's the point this whole discussion is about. > Neighter Debian nor Ubuntu can offer reliable bugfixes and security > support. Not because they don't want to. Their hands are bound because > MySQL/Oracle somehow is not willing to provide important information > such as detailed changelogs or security information. > > This leads us to the following options: > * Stay with MySQL but no security nor bugfixes > * Search for an alternative which is even 100% compatible with MySQL + > having full community support > > From my personal as well as my business perspective I want a system > where I can get bugfixes as well as security fixes. You should consider > those questions in your roadmap as well. > > > B > > ___ > pkg-mysql-maint mailing list > pkg-mysql-ma...@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-mysql-maint -- Nicholas Bamber | http://www.periapt.co.uk/ PGP key 3BFFE73C from pgp.mit.edu -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Maria-discuss] [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:33:50 +0100, Bjoern Boschman wrote: > On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote: > > Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible > > with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona > > Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall > > I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and > > also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many > > think is great, especially when you want to play with new > > features). > > The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-) We use the name XtraDB to refer to our modified InnoDB (this avoids confusion and trademark issues). We don't ship any other engines though, we simply don't see the demand. -- Stewart Smith -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Maria-discuss] [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 16.02.2012 09:55, Walter Heck wrote: > I think it would be fair to take into account both the things > Colin and Stewart have said as many of them are correct, but their > words should also be taken with a grain of salt as they work for > the companies that would benefit heavily from having 'their' fork > be the replacement of mysql. That's not to accuse them of anything, > just to keep in mind when making a decision. The fork that 'wins' > this decision might well be the more succesful one in the long run > simply because of being the default mysql version in two of the > most widely used linux distributions. well spoken. At some point I also guess that "our" descission may even influence the other two major's: SuSE and DeadRed? B -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk88xZAACgkQABMWRpwdNul//QCg0Iw4xdpLMed97c7EXcyyQYX3 JCsAn2nnEuQybUafR8air58qF84/4D34 =fHwe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Maria-discuss] [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
I think it would be fair to take into account both the things Colin and Stewart have said as many of them are correct, but their words should also be taken with a grain of salt as they work for the companies that would benefit heavily from having 'their' fork be the replacement of mysql. That's not to accuse them of anything, just to keep in mind when making a decision. The fork that 'wins' this decision might well be the more succesful one in the long run simply because of being the default mysql version in two of the most widely used linux distributions. Personally I don't know which fork I'd appreciate more. At this point here's where we stand with both forks imho (feel free to correct me when I say something stupid/incorrect ;) ): Percona server's direction is heavily influenced by the commercial value for Percona. They implement new features when customers pay for them, and their development seems to be driven by that largely. The community benefits from the 'fallout' of those features being released as open source. The largest benefit is a release cycle that seems a bit more regular then mariadb's. As for MariaDB, I like their much more community driven development that seems less commercially driven, but the main disadvantage is their release cycle: the oldest commits from the 5.3 changelog stem from 2009 (!), and the 5.3.0 beta was released in July of last year [1]. Then again, guaranteed support for 5 years is a good thing. At this point I think MariaDB would probably be a better match for being in the main ubuntu/debian distro's as their whole ecosystem seems to match better. Let it be clear that I have no commercial benefits from either one over the other, just voicing my opinion. cheers, Walter [1] http://kb.askmonty.org/en/mariadb-530-changelog-p6 On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:40, Henrik Ingo wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Bjoern Boschman wrote: >> On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote: >>> Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible >>> with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona >>> Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall >>> I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and >>> also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many >>> think is great, especially when you want to play with new >>> features). >> >> The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-) > > > Ok, fair point, but MariaDB really goes out of its way to have lots of > them: PBXT, OQGraph engine, Sphinx, Aria... You won't find these > (unless you contract Percona to provide them for you) in Percona > Server. These are not that commonly used but more niche. But they are > the reason I commonly label MariaDB as "has more stuff". > > > henrik > > -- > henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi > +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo > www.openlife.cc > > My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 > > ___ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss > Post to : maria-disc...@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Walter Heck -- follow @walterheck on twitter to see what I'm up to! -- Check out my new startup: Server Monitoring as a Service @ http://tribily.com Follow @tribily on Twitter and/or 'Like' our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/tribily -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Maria-discuss] [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
Hi! > "Henrik" == Henrik Ingo writes: Henrik> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Walter Heck wrote: >> As for MariaDB, I like their much more community driven development >> that seems less commercially driven, Henrik> ... >> At this point I think MariaDB would probably be a better match for >> being in the main ubuntu/debian distro's as their whole ecosystem >> seems to match better. Henrik> Nuances, but I always like to separate the following: Henrik> I wouldn't say that MariaDB is any more a community fork than Percona Henrik> is. MariaDB is 100% controlled by Monty and his company, just like Henrik> Percona Server is controlled and developed by Percona. Both companies Henrik> are community friendly and open source minded. However, MariaDB has a Henrik> strategy of being very inclusive while Percona has a strategy of not Henrik> deviating too much from "upstream" MySQL. This is great, because Henrik> including things like more storage engines in MariaDB exposes them to Henrik> more users - so MariaDB does a great service to those engines in the Henrik> MySQL ecosystem. MariaDB is not controlled by me or Monty Program Ab. Anyone outside of Monty Program Ab can get commits rights to MariaDB and there is people outside of the company that has commit rights and has done commits. MariaDB is in this regard driven as most other open source projects. What it's true is that Monty Program Ab takes responsibility to support a version for 5 years after it been declared stable and will fix any security issues that is reported (even if there is no paying customers for it). This is however not the same thing as having 100% control of it. Henrik> Otoh even MariaDB is not - unfortunately - even close at capturing the Henrik> wholeness of what is out there in the MySQL ecosystem. I've already Henrik> mentioned major things like MySQL 5.5 or Galera, otoh there are lots Henrik> of smaller patches too like those from Anders Karlsson or TaoBao. So Henrik> like I said, it is unfortunate we don't have a distribution that would Henrik> really cover the whole community. We are talking with Galera of adding it to MariaDB 5.5. You know very well about this as you where present when this was discussed only 2 weeks ago. The main reason we haven't done it yet is that we want to make the changes to the upper level less intrusive to make the code it easier to manage long term and we are working with Galera to get these changes done. Henrik> Hence it is a bit of a paradox really: In theory MariaDB should Henrik> satisfy more users, since it tries to include more features. In Henrik> practice however I've repeatedly found that Percona has been (much) Henrik> faster to include stuff that really matters, like MySQL 5.5, Henrik> HandlerSocket and Galera. (HandlerSocket is also in the MariaDB 5.3 Henrik> Release Candidate now.) How about microseconds, MyISAM new key cache, group commit, optimizer enchancements, dynamic columns, thread pool etc. MariaDB 5.3 and 5.5 has a LOT of critical features that Percona will never implement. Handler socket was added in MariaDB about the same time Percona added it, no big difference there. Regards, Monty -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Maria-discuss] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Colin Charles wrote: >> There is also a fourth MySQL fork: Percona Server. It is interesting >> to note people in this thread and in general the Linux distro people >> seem to omit this when talking about MySQL forks. As far as I'm aware >> it is the most popular of the forks (after MySQL itself), and used by >> many demanding Percona customers, especially the big and sexy Web >> companies (but not only). > > I don't think this is a fair statement as MariaDB also has many popular users > out there. Let's not make this a popularity contest either > I don't know how you mean it would be unfair, I think it is factually true and relevant statement. It just seemed odd to read 20+ messages about MySQL forks and people seemed to not be aware of the one that most people used. I know MariaDB has lots of users (too), but if you look at something like Planet MySQL, it seems the mindshare (people who blog about it) is mainly within Monty Program and SkySQL employees - and perhaps me as a former employee mentioning it occasionally :-) This is not supposed to be an argument against using MariaDB, just that the discussion seemed a bit uninformed when considering the whole. FWIW I think most of the positive attributes of MariaDB have been well represented in the thread already. >> Out of these four it should first be mentioned that Drizzle is not at >> all a compatible fork of MySQL. Some would say the things that are not >> compatible are enhancements :-) But nevertheless, while Drizzle feels >> very familiar to a MySQL user, you couldn't take away MySQL, drop in >> Drizzle and expect that nobody would notice. > > Nobody? WordPress users for example, might (see: > https://launchpad.net/wordpress-drizzle a plugin that you will require). I > think there's a Drupal patch that's almost quite ready also... > It seems like you omitted "couldn't" while reading? But yes, that's exactly the point. > MariaDB 5.5 beta should be out by the end of this month. Yes, but that was also said last Summer. Let's just stick with what we have on the table. > What should also be taken into consideration is support for an existing GA > release. I've asked Percona (Stewart Smith, Director, Server Development) > what the plans are and generally Percona will officially support 2 GA > releases just like Oracle. Unless a customer asks for it, there wouldn't be a > fix. LTS releases might I remind you need 5 years of support. Percona Server > 5.1 will remain supported till Percona Server 5.6 is released, and beyond > that, its just a customer request possibly. There is no defined policy yet to > be fair > [needs citation] http://www.mysql.com/support/ Maintenance Releases, Bug Fixes, Patches, Updates: 1-5 Years and 6-8 Years w Extended support So it is 5 years just like it's always been (since MySQL 5.0 at least). Just like with the original topic of this thread, Oracle does not state anything about the Community version, but I don't have any information that they would have started dropping support earlier for that. Until Oracle took over Community version was supported for the same 5 years, and since MySQL 5.1 the support is actually better since there are more frequent updates! > This alpha feature is very interesting, but the idea of having a 3-node > cluster pitches this as a NDB replacement rather than just a MySQL > replacement. This is only true if you think the NDB engine is a good replacement for InnoDB. We always had to work hard to advocate against such misconceptions when I was selling NDB. But it is true that the quality of HA properties is comparable to NDB cluster. To stay consistent with my own propositions above, I suppose I shouldn't say that "I'm sure it will be GA next month" :-) >But as an aside, I do agree with you - I am totally stoked with the Galera >technology coming out of Codership! > Yes. And the main value is that it enhances the level of HA *for InnoDB*. Anyway, it was just another example why Percona should be considered, as they are often seen driving the state of the art in MySQL, such as with this example. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Distro-provided mechanism to clean up old kernels
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:29:08AM +0100, Vincent Ladeuil wrote: > > Martin Pitt writes: > > > > > I think it'd be best if update-manager would auto-remove all kernel > > packages except the most recent two or three during dist-upgrade. This > > needs to be specified carefully of course, as people might explicitly > > run a kernel from the previous distro release. So perhaps some > > clevernes like if you install linux-image-3.2.0-N-generic, delete all > > kernels up to linux-image-3.2.0-(N-2)-generic. > > My own use case here is that I had to work around a bug in newer kernels > by running a very old one for *months*, I don't have the precise number > anymore but I think I had at least 5 or 6 kernels newer than the only > one I could use. Having 5 or so kernels would also be handy for troubleshooting drm bugs; once and a while we have to have the user boot earlier kernels to bracket when a regression started. It's not a huge issue though; we can always just have them download older kernels. But if they're already on disk it makes troubleshooting a bit more convenient. > Is there a way to know the last time a kernel was booted and use that as > a criteria to keep it ? > > This will allow removing kernels unused for months limiting the risks > that we remove a vital one. Time of last boot, and/or total number of times booted would be interesting metrics. For fallback purposes I'd love to hang onto a old known-good kernel that I'd booted a hundred times, rather than the one from last week which may well have the same bug I'm trying to get around. But maybe this is overthinking things. ;-) Bryce -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Maria-discuss] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Fabio T. Leitao wrote: > For those who have not followed this up closely, a little history. > > Remember that MariaDB is not just "compatible" with MySQL, but it kind of IS > MySQL, forked and re-branded. > > In 2009, even before Oracle has purchased Sun, Monty Widenius (one of the > original creators of MySQL and architects) has left the Sun (than the owner > of MySQL) and started MariaDB, intended as a replacement for the full MySQL > server. > > It seems that since that, most of the MySQL developers left and joined > either Drizzle or MariaDB. Drizzle is another fork, but was targeted to a > “limited but important market”, created by Brian Aker almost the same time > when MySQL was bought by Sun (back in 2008) > Hi Fabio You contributed a fairly good history, so it inspired me to fill in missing pieces. There is also a fourth MySQL fork: Percona Server. It is interesting to note people in this thread and in general the Linux distro people seem to omit this when talking about MySQL forks. As far as I'm aware it is the most popular of the forks (after MySQL itself), and used by many demanding Percona customers, especially the big and sexy Web companies (but not only). Out of these four it should first be mentioned that Drizzle is not at all a compatible fork of MySQL. Some would say the things that are not compatible are enhancements :-) But nevertheless, while Drizzle feels very familiar to a MySQL user, you couldn't take away MySQL, drop in Drizzle and expect that nobody would notice. Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many think is great, especially when you want to play with new features). Personally I think the main benefit of Percona Server is that they have a 5.5 version out there for some time - exactly a year ago it seems! While MariaDB has focused more on their own work (and perhaps also therefore the merge effort for them is much larger) they haven't yet produced a 5.5 release (even alpha). This should be taken into account, since many MySQL users already use MySQL 5.5 and features like semi-sync replication, they would consider MariaDB a downgrade. The difference is not big, but it is commonly accepted that (InnoDB) performance wise a vanilla MySQL 5.5 is better than Percona Server 5.1 or MariaDB 5.3. Otoh Percona Server 5.5 improves on MySQL 5.5. The other strong advantage Percona has at the moment is their recent adoption of Galera clustering technology (see Percona XtraDB Cluster). This is a revolutionary technology when it comes to High-Availability with MySQL and even scalability of MySQL. In fact it has many of the good properties seen in many NoSQL solutions (but is still good old SQL, Galera is just about the clustering). I'm personally a big fan of Galera and don't intend to use anything else going forward. Just wanted to complete the discussion with these perspectives from a MySQL heavy user. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [Maria-discuss] [debian-mysql] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
Henrik Ingo wrote: > > For completeness, let me also defend Oracle for a change :-) There's > also the 3rd option: > > * Stay with MySQL and blindly apply the updates that Oracle continues > to release as GPL. > But to put things in context, in MySQL 5.0 series the situation was > the opposite: The bugs were public but the publicly released and GPL > licensed bug fixes would be up to 6 months delayd in favor of paying > customers getting them instantly. In some ways, the current situation > is still better than back then. This is a very weird statement. Oracle does not release GPL versions more often than MySQL AB did. In fact Oracle does not make any promise to ever produce GPL bugfix releases. It's completely at their discretion. But contrary to MySQL AB, Oracle - does not have a public bug tracking system where one could find a description of the bug - does not publish patches alongside with the bug reports - does not feed patches to publicly available source code trees in a timely manner For projects like Debian that build their own binaries and are not dependent on complete releases (but rather a stream of patches) the current situation with Oracle is clearly a step back. XL -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [debian-mysql] [Maria-discuss] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote: > Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible > with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona > Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall > I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and > also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many > think is great, especially when you want to play with new > features). The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-) B -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk88sV4ACgkQABMWRpwdNuk9vgCeJmJ/+/yxT7umuAviAQq8zObH GbMAoK6zWodhzZf/y0rBkR4zDbJh42uX =/R3L -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [debian-mysql] [Maria-discuss] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
I have been following this thead with interest and as it happens I have been seeking to get more involved in Debian mysql. I emailed Norbert Tretkowski though I did not get a reply. However I am not seeing my view represented here. First of all it may well be that MariaDB is better and has a more secure future in the open source world than MySQL, and that therefore it should be available in Debian. But there are a number of reasons why I think MySQL should not be dropped. 1.) MySQL has brand recognition. 2.) Dropping MySQL would create fear and confusion in users of Debian and users of downstream distributions. 3.) MariaDB will from time to time fall behind MySQL. 4.) MySQL will continue to be around for the forseeable future and its core at least will be available on terms that technically are packageable for Debian. Furthermore I suggest that the cost and effort of one team maintaining MySQL and MariaDB is a lot less than two separate teams maintaining both since MariaDB could often be mined as a source of patches. On 16/02/12 07:40, Henrik Ingo wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Bjoern Boschman wrote: >> On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote: >>> Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible >>> with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona >>> Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall >>> I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and >>> also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many >>> think is great, especially when you want to play with new >>> features). >> >> The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-) > > > Ok, fair point, but MariaDB really goes out of its way to have lots of > them: PBXT, OQGraph engine, Sphinx, Aria... You won't find these > (unless you contract Percona to provide them for you) in Percona > Server. These are not that commonly used but more niche. But they are > the reason I commonly label MariaDB as "has more stuff". > > > henrik > -- Nicholas Bamber | http://www.periapt.co.uk/ PGP key 3BFFE73C from pgp.mit.edu -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: [debian-mysql] [Maria-discuss] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Bjoern Boschman wrote: > On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote: >> Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible >> with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona >> Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall >> I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and >> also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many >> think is great, especially when you want to play with new >> features). > > The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-) Ok, fair point, but MariaDB really goes out of its way to have lots of them: PBXT, OQGraph engine, Sphinx, Aria... You won't find these (unless you contract Percona to provide them for you) in Percona Server. These are not that commonly used but more niche. But they are the reason I commonly label MariaDB as "has more stuff". henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Distro-provided mechanism to clean up old kernels
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012, at 07:23 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> linux-headers-* is already covered by apt-get autoremove, which is
> good. Perhaps we can mark older kernels as auto-removable as well, so
> that without any other tools you at least have one command to clean
> them up all?
Are you sure about this? I did a test and I don't think that autoremove
removes the linux-headers-*:
$ dpkg -l | awk '/^ii/{print $2}' | grep ^linux
linux-firmware
linux-generic
linux-headers-3.0.0-14
linux-headers-3.0.0-14-generic
linux-headers-3.0.0-15
linux-headers-3.0.0-15-generic
linux-headers-3.0.0-16
linux-headers-3.0.0-16-generic
linux-headers-generic
linux-image-3.0.0-15-generic
linux-image-3.0.0-16-generic
linux-image-generic
linux-libc-dev
linux-sound-base
$ sudo apt-get autoremove
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 10 not upgraded.
I'd like to suggest instead the following modifications to the script
that was posted before:
#!/bin/bash
OLDKERNEL=$(ls -tr /boot/vmlinuz-* | head -n -2 | cut -d- -f2- | awk
'{print "linux-image-" $0}')
OLDHEADERS=$(ls -tr /boot/vmlinuz-* | head -n -2 | cut -d- -f2- | sed
's/-generic//g' | awk '{print "linux-headers-" $0}')
if [ -n "$OLDKERNEL" -o -n "$OLDHEADERS" ]; then
sudo apt-get -q remove --purge $OLDKERNEL $OLDHEADERS
fi
(note that this version is not fully automatic as apt will prompt the
user before removing packages)
Tim
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Openstack on Bare Metal
adding ubuntu-server list
On 02/20/2012 10:18 AM, Michael Galloway wrote:
> good day all,
>
> we have an existing HPC cluster we are wanting to stand up with
> openstack. last week we began experimenting with orchestra/juju as our
> provisioning system and we seem to get stuck at the deploy services
> state with juju, which we have
> gone through a couple of times.
>
> i have orchestra up and running and juju bootstrapped per this guide:
>
> http://cloud.ubuntu.com/2011/10/ubuntu-cloud-deployment-with-orchestra-and-juju/
>
> a bit edited for brevity:
>
> ubuntu@kbase-b:~$ sudo cobbler list
> distros:
>
>oneiric-i386
>oneiric-x86_64
>precise-i386
>precise-x86_64
>
> profiles:
>
>oneiric-i386
>oneiric-i386-juju
>oneiric-x86_64
>oneiric-x86_64-juju
>precise-i386
>precise-i386-juju
>precise-x86_64
>precise-x86_64-juju
>
> systems:
>node066.kbase.lan
>
> repos:
>
>oneiric-i386
>oneiric-i386-security
>oneiric-x86_64
>oneiric-x86_64-security
>precise-i386
>precise-i386-security
>precise-x86_64
>precise-x86_64-security
>
> images:
>
> mgmtclasses:
>orchestra-juju-acquired
>orchestra-juju-available
>
> packages:
>
> files:
>
> ubuntu@kbase-b:~$ juju status
> 2012-02-20 10:47:42,035 INFO Connecting to environment.
> machines:
> 0: {dns-name: node066.kbase.lan, instance-id:
> MTMyOTY4MTEzNS41NTc1MDQuMTY0ODQyOA}
> services: {}
> 2012-02-20 10:47:42,588 INFO 'status' command finished successfully
>
> my environments.yaml
> ubuntu@kbase-b:~/.juju$ more environments.yaml
> juju: environments
> environments:
> orchestra:
> type: orchestra
> # Specify the orchestra server's IP address
> orchestra-server: 172.16.100.2
> # Specify storage. In this case we are using webdav installed by
> orchestra.
> storage-url: http://172.16.100.2/webdav
> # Specify cobbler's usr/pass
> orchestra-user: cobbler
> orchestra-pass: cobbler
> admin-secret: d
> # Branch from where we will install ensemble
> # juju-branch: lp:juju
> # Mangement classes
> acquired-mgmt-class: orchestra-juju-acquired
> available-mgmt-class: orchestra-juju-available
> default-series: oneiric
>
> and i've configured the openstack charms per this guide:
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/UbuntuCloudOrchestraJuju
>
> we are looking for some hints about the best way to provision services.
> the last build, we configured a group
> of nodes in orchestra, then used juju to deploy (say, mysql or rabbitmq)
> and the nodes would never boot cleanly.
>
> i had to make changes to the hosts file on the orchestra server as well
> to get juju to boot strap cleanly.
>
> i'm guess i'm looking for a bit of general advice/handholding on the
> best way to move forward. thanks!
>
> --- michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Robbie Williamson
robbiew[irc.freenode.net]
"Don't make me angry...you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
-Bruce Banner
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
