>sqlite will be better for lower powered hardware, according to the devs. > Based on what exactly? Better in what way? If it's better for low-spec hardware, why wouldn't it be better for high-spec hardware? Is there a linear performance comparison with all sizes of library? Why isn't every DB on the planet powered by SQLite if it's the best?
>it will result in fewer software conflicts, according to the devs. *Might* be true, but then again, it may cause more software conflicts. MySQL has had some known issues, largely resolved by other app software changes, rather than SBS changes. Who's to say that a SQLite solution won't have similar/different conflicts? The solution does pretty much the same thing. >> > strawman. my point was about a separate mysql process. i have seen >> > the problems first hand. going to sqlite should, in theory, help. > How does SQLite, in theory, help? I did a quick Google, and found cases where Windows Defender/MSE was causing software conflicts due to locking sqlite DB's, just the same as the MySQL issue. Here's one example: http://www.pubbs.net/201010/sqlite/8126-sqlite-antivirus-scannerwindows-lock-interference-problem.html >> > shall see. also, i didn't like how sbs would leave processes running >> > that were no longer needed when SBS was closed. >> > I don't think it does, by default, unless you have a problem. _______________________________________________ beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta
