Thus spake asantos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I find MySQL to be reliable and stable.
Good luck to you, then.
You will need it.
> I only keep logs for 6 months, so in
> the last 6 months I've had MySQL 3.22.23 running for vpopmail-3.4.11-2 over
> qmail-1.03+ezmlm-0.53, managing more than 260 virtual domains (about 500
> Maildirs, many of which are "catch-all" accounts for a single domain), with
> a overall trafic of more than 85000 messages a month, of which roughly 90%
> are incoming. Not a single failure in the above software. That's on Linux
> 2.2.14 SMP.
> Is this the cue for "profile, don't speculate"?
If your servers never crash and you never have unexpected hardware
failures, mysql may be for you.
Mysql users are consistently being bitten by data loss when one of their
servers crashes. Mysql is notorious for being "SQL for kids", i.e. fine
for playing around but not for production use. Use an SQL database that
offers transactional integrity instead.
Mysql recently added transactional integrity by integrating Berkeley DB,
which is the single database that caused the most data loss on all of my
machines combined. I would never use anything relying on Berkeley DB
ever again. You just need to look at their source code to see what I
mean.
But in the end, the choice is yours. But don't whine when you use Mysql
and lose all your data eventually. Keep good and current backups. If
your data are read-only, then Mysql may even be a prudent choice.
Felix
