On 2012-08-07 16:10, Tobias Stroh wrote: > I think it is a matter of weighting the ease of setting it up vs. the > power needed.
I think that's only an argument for non-packaged installation methods. "apt-get install backuppc" would produce a working install with database from a fresh install. I don't see why the rpm package couldn't do the same. > And if you are certain, that you will never have more then one backuppc > server using one database, you might as well get rid of the network > overhead. Network overhead via local socket is tiny. Compared to loading and unloading sqlite databases, MySQL is a a huge gain. > For simple queries it might even be faster than mysql and for more > complicated ones PostgreSQL would be better, I think. Yes, but in modern installations MySQL, like BackupPC, is very easy to set up and use. Package managers script actions to create DBs and users, for instance. Most of us know that PostgreSQL is theoretically better, but for most jobs we still just install MySQL because it's good enough. That's an argument to improve PostgreSQL package management, as well. Regards, Tyler -- "Copyright is a bargain, not property. We agreed not to copy because they agreed it would only be for a short period of time. They have broken their end of the bargain; we are now breaking ours." -- Russell Nelson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-devel mailing list [email protected] List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
