Most of the companies I work for INSIST on *everything* Microsoft
because in their eyes, *only* Microsoft is suitable for stuffed shirt
corporate work.
True, And IMHO the only reason is the incompetence of managers.
The bigger the organization is, the higher the decision maker is,
And the
...
Just some thoughts...
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Claude Schneegans [mailto:schneeg...@internetique.com]
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 11:14 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Stung by HostMySite price increase?
Most of the companies I work for INSIST on *everything* Microsoft
because
I'm kinda jumping into the middle of this thread but I thought it would
be worth mentioning that I've had exceptionally good experiences with
PostgreSQL. It's licensed even more liberally then MySQL, and is
regularly benchmarked at being faster with complex queries then MySQL is.
I started
David, your response was artful, I'm going to put a cool dude check
next to your name in my book. :)
Did you bring in any hired guns/experts for your MySQL stuff?
I think the Dolphin is blue, that might be your problem right there! =)
We all have our strengths and weaknesses, which is pretty
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Rick Faircloth wrote:
...
It's just the nature of business, it seems, that big businesses like working
with
big businesses. Less efficient? perhaps... More costly? perhaps... more
comforting?
probably... Sleeping soundly at night is worth a lot of money...
For Oracle and other non-free vendors, there is a benchmark:
http://www.tpc.org/
FWIW, David obviously had MySQL mis-configured. :)
Or else maybe he didn't *believe* it would work very well, and thus, it didn't.
And FWIW*2, there are a couple open source versions of CF now.
The best reason
Oh you're totally right, I obviously had it misconfigured. I must've not
even thought to research and implement strategic configuration of the MySQL
instance itself. Man I wish I had thought of that in the enormous amount of
research and testing we had to do. It sounds like such a simple, obvious
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:44 AM, David McGuigandavidmcgui...@gmail.com wrote:
We iterated through a kaleidoscope of configuration strategies and were on
more than ample hardware ( 2 xeon quads, 16GB ram, a RAID 5 of 15k drives )
but even the ones that should've been ideal on paper, though they
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:40 PM, David McGuigan wrote:
Companies use open source ( and free ) software for a variety of reasons.
Usually out of either stubbornness or a genetic allergy to Microsoft.
Most of the other Google apps though have seemed really slow to me ( and
been down completely
I'm not against open source in any way shape or form! SOME of it is
fantastic. But that doesn't mean I think that all open source products are
great or even decent. Honestly it seems like a lot of them are pretty
fruitless, and more the personal hobbies and indulgences of the developers
than
Companies use open source ( and free ) software for a variety of reasons.
Usually out of either stubbornness or a genetic allergy to Microsoft.
Most of the companies I work for INSIST on *everything* Microsoft
because in their eyes, *only* Microsoft is suitable for stuffed shirt
corporate
This seems to have gone way off topic. But we got the same notice from them. I
would have thought they would have thoroughly researched that pricing change
before they contacted us, but I am not positive we even need the license
upgrade they said we needed. When I asked them about it they told
.16 seconds in 2009 is the equivalent of ~20 minutes in 1990's time. I'm
kind of kidding.
But are we sure that Google's search ( which is probably its best performing
software ) uses MySQL anyway? I thought it used BigTable or whatev (
http://labs.google.com/papers/bigtable.html )
Most of the
We use Oracle instead of SQL Server for the same reason :-)
mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles:
http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/
2009/9/5 David McGuigan davidmcgui...@gmail.com:
Now I kind of see SQL Server the same way I see ColdFusion. You pay for it
because it's better.
Like most things, the answer to all your questions is it depends.
If you have an app that doesn't have a big load, SQL Server Express
might do fine for you. It is free but will only use 1 processor core,
1 GB of RAM and has a 4 GB database size limitation.
Porting over to MySql can be very easy
How hard is it to switch from SQL Server to MySQL?
That is a very open ended question. The answer to which could run the gamut
from Not that hard at all to A freakin' nightmare.
It all depends on how you are using SQL Sever. Do you use SSIS? Do you use
any SQL or T-SQL that is particular to
Strike the red gate reference IIRC they are pretty much SQL Server centric.
Sorry about that...
G!
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Gerald Guido gerald.gu...@gmail.comwrote:
How hard is it to switch from SQL Server to MySQL?
That is a very open ended question. The answer to which could
Yes the proc license is really the only way to go... The difficulty in
switching depends greatly on your code. IT could be quite easy - or require
rewriting every query.
I recently helped a customer go from MySQL to MSSQL and I wrote a couple of
posts on it. It will give you an idea of the type
This link: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspxMentions a Web
edition for $15 per month ( per processor, not core I believe ),
specifically targeted at web apps deployment.
If you end up exploring that and find out
SQL Server Express isn't an option due to size limitations, although we
may scale back from Standard edition to Workgroup. We chose Standard
initially in order to take advantage of SSIS, but we haven't had the
time to become proficient with SSIS and have moved our old DTS scheduled
jobs to CF
Yes the proc license is really the only way to go... The difficulty in
switching depends greatly on your code. IT could be quite easy - or require
rewriting every query.
I recently helped a customer go from MySQL to MSSQL and I wrote a couple of
posts on it. It will give you an idea of the type
There are about 1,000 reasons I can think of, but I only have limited
experience with SQL Server ( just enough to observe these differences ):
Less administration and maintenance.
Less tuning necessary for pureformance.
Exponentially superior performance out of the box.
A single, superhero
curious as to why anyone would want to switch from MySQL to
MSSQL..
Because it has a much richer set of features, perhaps? Because it can
do a lot of things that MySQL can't?
a quick look at mysql.com/customers showed the following:
facebook
feedster
flickr
fotolog
and that was
curious as to why anyone would want to switch from MySQL to MSSQL..
a quick look at mysql.com/customers showed the following:
facebook
feedster
flickr
fotolog
Let's be very clear about the different versions of MySQL. Chances are
when someone says they are using MySQL, they probably
Out of the companies you listed, I've only ever used Facebook, Flickr,
Google, eBay, iStockPhoto, Ticketmaster, and Yahoo.
I'm not saying this is a litmus test, but with the exception of maybe Yahoo
( but I haven't really used Yahoo THAT much ), I have always consciously
THOUGHT as I used
25 matches
Mail list logo
