Re: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Ralph Janke's message of Thu Mar 31 05:55:44 -0700 2011:
>   On 03/30/2011 07:19 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:16:14AM -0400, Ralph Janke wrote:
> >>   Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql?
> >>
> > I'd really like to have a good reason before moving to any of these as
> > our preferred MySQL service. I don't think MySQL is like Hudson.. Oracle
> > seems to be taking good care of it and (for the time being) nothing has
> > changed in their approach to community contribution (which has never
> > been fantastic anyway).
> >
> There are lots of reasons to go to mariadb!

Ralph, your reasons are pretty compelling. Could you make sure they're
up to date in the wiki matrix that Dave Walker posted a link to?

I definitely think we should have a discussion about this at UDS. It
would be a bold move to move MySQL out of main and instead make the "M"
in our LAMP server MariaDB.

-- 
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Chuck Short]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:55:44 -0400
Ralph Janke  wrote:

>   On 03/30/2011 07:19 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:16:14AM -0400, Ralph Janke wrote:
> >>   Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql?
> >>
> > Could you provide some rationalization of MariaDB vs. the main MySQL
> > releases?
> >
> > There are a bunch of forks we could consider with varying degrees of
> > compatibility with MYSQL.
> >
> > Percona (working on packaging)
> > MariaDB (available from their own repos)
> > Drizzle (in universe)
> >
> > Compatible or not, none of these are really MySQL.
> >
> > I'd really like to have a good reason before moving to any of these
> > as our preferred MySQL service. I don't think MySQL is like
> > Hudson.. Oracle seems to be taking good care of it and (for the
> > time being) nothing has changed in their approach to community
> > contribution (which has never been fantastic anyway).
> >
> There are lots of reasons to go to mariadb!
> 
> 1) They explicitly promise that they are always 100% backwards 
> compatible to the
> related mysql version, hence nothing is lost in comparison with mysql
> 
> 2) Mysql only tracks queries with 1s execution time granularity.
> Mariadb tracks by
> default ms granularity. This is very important for performance
> analysis of in
> particular websites.
> 
> 3) MariaDb offers additional features (and storage engines) by
> default that in mysql
> require proprietary licences to obtain similar.
> 
> Every case that I know of, mariadb could be just plugged into the
> system for mysql without
> any issues.
> 
> That are only the reasons that come immediately into me head, there
> are many more when you
> look at the comparisons.
> 
> 
> 

HI,

Sure Mariadb is great but I'm looking with my distro glasses on and I
see this:

chuck@kyle:~$ apt-cache rdepends libmysqlclient16 | wc -l
166

The 166 is the number of packages that depend on libmysqlclient for
functionality that they need. This includes both main and universe.

So unless we have a clear plan of transitioning from mysql to mariadb
and help from upstream both in Debian and the mariab developers then
one can argue about the technical merits of one database over another
until the cows come home.

chuck

-- 
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Ralph Janke]

 On 03/30/2011 07:19 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:16:14AM -0400, Ralph Janke wrote:

  Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql?


Could you provide some rationalization of MariaDB vs. the main MySQL
releases?

There are a bunch of forks we could consider with varying degrees of
compatibility with MYSQL.

Percona (working on packaging)
MariaDB (available from their own repos)
Drizzle (in universe)

Compatible or not, none of these are really MySQL.

I'd really like to have a good reason before moving to any of these as
our preferred MySQL service. I don't think MySQL is like Hudson.. Oracle
seems to be taking good care of it and (for the time being) nothing has
changed in their approach to community contribution (which has never
been fantastic anyway).


There are lots of reasons to go to mariadb!

1) They explicitly promise that they are always 100% backwards 
compatible to the

related mysql version, hence nothing is lost in comparison with mysql

2) Mysql only tracks queries with 1s execution time granularity. Mariadb 
tracks by
default ms granularity. This is very important for performance analysis 
of in

particular websites.

3) MariaDb offers additional features (and storage engines) by default 
that in mysql

require proprietary licences to obtain similar.

Every case that I know of, mariadb could be just plugged into the system 
for mysql without

any issues.

That are only the reasons that come immediately into me head, there are 
many more when you

look at the comparisons.



--
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Dave Walker]

On 31/03/11 00:19, Clint Byrum wrote:

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:16:14AM -0400, Ralph Janke wrote:

  Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql?


Could you provide some rationalization of MariaDB vs. the main MySQL
releases?

There are a bunch of forks we could consider with varying degrees of
compatibility with MYSQL.

Percona (working on packaging)
MariaDB (available from their own repos)
Drizzle (in universe)

Compatible or not, none of these are really MySQL.

I'd really like to have a good reason before moving to any of these as
our preferred MySQL service. I don't think MySQL is like Hudson.. Oracle
seems to be taking good care of it and (for the time being) nothing has
changed in their approach to community contribution (which has never
been fantastic anyway).




There seems to be at least some interest in other options.  As Clint 
points out, rational needs to be known in order to make a reasonable 
decision.  I am not familiar with the details of the other mysql 
compatible database options.  If we have a UDS session discussing this, 
we really need the facts available before the session.


I'd like to request that interested people help complete a feature 
matrix on the wiki [0].  Please feel free to add as much information as 
possible.  In this instance, a Feature can also be a negative thing.  
Please add suitable references.


Thanks, your help is appreciated.

[0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase/FeatureComparison/MySQL

Kind Regards,
Dave Walker

--
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 08:33:34 PM Douglas Stanley wrote:
> But then again, why not keep MySQL in main AND choose a newer fork to also
> include?

Since Ubuntu was started, there has been a design goal to try and pick one 
package in a catagory and support it well in Main and leave the others in 
Universe for support as it's available.  That goal isn't always achieved 
(e.g.Postfix and Exim in Main even though Postfix is the "standard" MTA for 
Ubuntu).  I think we would only have more than one MySQL in Main if it was 
really unavoidable.  The decision to focus support around a subset of the 
archive is one of the design choices that distinguishes Ubuntu from Debian.

Scott K

-- 
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Paul Graydon]

On 03/30/2011 02:33 PM, Douglas Stanley wrote:



On Mar 30, 2011 7:20 PM, "Clint Byrum" > wrote:

>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:16:14AM -0400, Ralph Janke wrote:
> >  Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql?
> >
>
> Could you provide some rationalization of MariaDB vs. the main MySQL
> releases?
>
> There are a bunch of forks we could consider with varying degrees of
> compatibility with MYSQL.
>
> Percona (working on packaging)
> MariaDB (available from their own repos)
> Drizzle (in universe)
>
> Compatible or not, none of these are really MySQL.
>
> I'd really like to have a good reason before moving to any of these as
> our preferred MySQL service. I don't think MySQL is like Hudson.. Oracle
> seems to be taking good care of it and (for the time being) nothing has
> changed in their approach to community contribution (which has never
> been fantastic anyway).
>
>
I thought they recently pulled innodb support from the latest 
"community" edition of MySQL.  So unless the consensus is to just 
stick with 5.5 forever, then I guess there's no reason to choose a 
fork now.  However, if we don't want to stay with an old version 
forever,  a choice will have to be made at some point.


But then again, why not keep MySQL in main AND choose a newer fork to 
also include? Maybe some people won't care about innodb, and just keep 
using MySQL. Or maybe I'm completely wrong and innodb hasn't been 
pulled out, in which case, just ignore the crazy person in the corner 
babbling...


Quite the contrary.  MySQL is focusing more intently around innodb than 
ever before.  That pulling from community edition was FUD that got 
spread around from someone not understanding the differences between 
MySQL Classic (free version that's targetted as an embedded database for 
ISVs, OEMs and VARs) and MySQL Community Edition which is aimed at 
servers : 
http://palominodb.com/blog/2010/11/04/oracle-not-removing-innodb , 
http://blogs.oracle.com/mysql/2010/11/mysql_community_edition_and_innodb.html  
, and the features here: http://www.mysql.com/products/community/


As of 5.5 InnoDB is the default engine for MySQL instead of MyISAM, so 
that by default people's data is stored in a transactional, ACID 
compliant way.


Paul
-- 
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Douglas Stanley]

On Mar 30, 2011 7:20 PM, "Clint Byrum"  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:16:14AM -0400, Ralph Janke wrote:
> >  Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql?
> >
>
> Could you provide some rationalization of MariaDB vs. the main MySQL
> releases?
>
> There are a bunch of forks we could consider with varying degrees of
> compatibility with MYSQL.
>
> Percona (working on packaging)
> MariaDB (available from their own repos)
> Drizzle (in universe)
>
> Compatible or not, none of these are really MySQL.
>
> I'd really like to have a good reason before moving to any of these as
> our preferred MySQL service. I don't think MySQL is like Hudson.. Oracle
> seems to be taking good care of it and (for the time being) nothing has
> changed in their approach to community contribution (which has never
> been fantastic anyway).
>
>
I thought they recently pulled innodb support from the latest "community"
edition of MySQL.  So unless the consensus is to just stick with 5.5
forever, then I guess there's no reason to choose a fork now.  However, if
we don't want to stay with an old version forever,  a choice will have to be
made at some point.

But then again, why not keep MySQL in main AND choose a newer fork to also
include? Maybe some people won't care about innodb, and just keep using
MySQL. Or maybe I'm completely wrong and innodb hasn't been pulled out, in
which case, just ignore the crazy person in the corner babbling...

Doug

> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
-- 
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Clint Byrum]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:16:14AM -0400, Ralph Janke wrote:
>  Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql?
> 

Could you provide some rationalization of MariaDB vs. the main MySQL
releases?

There are a bunch of forks we could consider with varying degrees of
compatibility with MYSQL.

Percona (working on packaging)
MariaDB (available from their own repos)
Drizzle (in universe)

Compatible or not, none of these are really MySQL.

I'd really like to have a good reason before moving to any of these as
our preferred MySQL service. I don't think MySQL is like Hudson.. Oracle
seems to be taking good care of it and (for the time being) nothing has
changed in their approach to community contribution (which has never
been fantastic anyway).


-- 
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Douglas Stanley]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Scott Kitterman  wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:16:14 AM Ralph Janke wrote:
>
> Top posting fixed.
>
>> On 03/30/2011 10:13 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 09:59:58 AM Chuck Short wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> For Oneiric I would like the following packages updated:
>> >>
>> >> dovecot 1.2.x ->  2.x
>> >> mysql 5.1 ->  5.5
>> >>
>> >> The reasoning for this update in the long run it will be easier to
>> >> maintain for a LTS and more users want to use both mysql 5.5 and
>> >> dovecot2.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> chuck
>> >
>> > Since mysql is used by desktop applications we'll need to make sure
>> > that's supported there as well.  We don't want to get into another mess
>> > like we did with having to support 5.0 and 5.1 (to some degree) in Main.
>> >
>> > I'm very interested in postgresql-9.0, but that should just happen since
>> > it's in Debian already and postgresql supports parallel installation of
>> > multiple versions.  The only question is if it should be the version in
>> > Main starting in O or P.  I think there are some packaging complications
>> > if the highest version in the archive isn't the one in Main (pitti would
>> > know for sure).
>> >
>>
>>   Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql?
>>
>
> There's more than one fork out there.  It would probably be useful to have a
> discussion about what mysql variant will be most supportable for LTS and move
> towards that in the oneiric timeframe.  I think that deserves a spec of it's
> own.
>
> Scott K
>

I agree, if the community is going to want to move away from mysql to
one of the variants, the time is now to discuss which one would be
best.

> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>



-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

-- 
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:16:14 AM Ralph Janke wrote:

Top posting fixed.

> On 03/30/2011 10:13 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 09:59:58 AM Chuck Short wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> For Oneiric I would like the following packages updated:
> >> 
> >> dovecot 1.2.x ->  2.x
> >> mysql 5.1 ->  5.5
> >> 
> >> The reasoning for this update in the long run it will be easier to
> >> maintain for a LTS and more users want to use both mysql 5.5 and
> >> dovecot2.
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> chuck
> > 
> > Since mysql is used by desktop applications we'll need to make sure
> > that's supported there as well.  We don't want to get into another mess
> > like we did with having to support 5.0 and 5.1 (to some degree) in Main.
> > 
> > I'm very interested in postgresql-9.0, but that should just happen since
> > it's in Debian already and postgresql supports parallel installation of
> > multiple versions.  The only question is if it should be the version in
> > Main starting in O or P.  I think there are some packaging complications
> > if the highest version in the archive isn't the one in Main (pitti would
> > know for sure).
> > 
>
>   Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql?
> 

There's more than one fork out there.  It would probably be useful to have a 
discussion about what mysql variant will be most supportable for LTS and move 
towards that in the oneiric timeframe.  I think that deserves a spec of it's 
own.

Scott K

-- 
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Ralph Janke]

 Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql?

On 03/30/2011 10:13 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 09:59:58 AM Chuck Short wrote:

Hi,

For Oneiric I would like the following packages updated:

dovecot 1.2.x ->  2.x
mysql 5.1 ->  5.5

The reasoning for this update in the long run it will be easier to
maintain for a LTS and more users want to use both mysql 5.5 and
dovecot2.

Regards
chuck

Since mysql is used by desktop applications we'll need to make sure that's
supported there as well.  We don't want to get into another mess like we did
with having to support 5.0 and 5.1 (to some degree) in Main.

I'm very interested in postgresql-9.0, but that should just happen since it's
in Debian already and postgresql supports parallel installation of multiple
versions.  The only question is if it should be the version in Main starting
in O or P.  I think there are some packaging complications if the highest
version in the archive isn't the one in Main (pitti would know for sure).

Scott K




--
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: [Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 09:59:58 AM Chuck Short wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> For Oneiric I would like the following packages updated:
> 
> dovecot 1.2.x -> 2.x
> mysql 5.1 -> 5.5
> 
> The reasoning for this update in the long run it will be easier to
> maintain for a LTS and more users want to use both mysql 5.5 and
> dovecot2.
> 
> Regards
> chuck
Since mysql is used by desktop applications we'll need to make sure that's 
supported there as well.  We don't want to get into another mess like we did 
with having to support 5.0 and 5.1 (to some degree) in Main.

I'm very interested in postgresql-9.0, but that should just happen since it's 
in Debian already and postgresql supports parallel installation of multiple 
versions.  The only question is if it should be the version in Main starting 
in O or P.  I think there are some packaging complications if the highest 
version in the archive isn't the one in Main (pitti would know for sure).

Scott K

-- 
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

[Oneiric-Topic] Package Updates

[Chuck Short]

Hi,

For Oneiric I would like the following packages updated:

dovecot 1.2.x -> 2.x
mysql 5.1 -> 5.5

The reasoning for this update in the long run it will be easier to
maintain for a LTS and more users want to use both mysql 5.5 and
dovecot2.

Regards
chuck

-- 
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam