From: Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Good luck to you, then.
>You will need it.


No luck involved.

>If your servers never crash and you never have unexpected hardware
>failures, mysql may be for you.


I've had hardware failures on the servers, and power failures. No problem
with MySQL. But see below.

>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.


Which just goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about. The
architecture that I described in the previous message does not require
transactions (nor the code bloat that cames with support for it). It's a
single, non relational, lookup:

select pw_name, pw_passwd, pw_uid.... from vpopmail where pw_name='abcdef'
and pw_domain='ghijk.com';

The (infrequent) updates to the database occur when a user is added or a
password is changed, and even then its a single row update. Transactional ou
relational integrity are not needed.

That being said, I encouraje you to thing about the nature and filosophy of
qmail: simple modules, interconnected, each doing its part of the work. Why
in hell would I need Oracle or Sybase or whatever when what I need is a
simple lookup and a modicum of scaling capability?

>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.


I don't use MySQL for a work that is not cut for it. I don't even really
care about SQL in the present case. And I mistrust beta versions. That's why
I don't get burned, as the track record I mentioned proves.

>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.


Who's whining? Again, "profile, don't speculate". And please try and be
consistent, you wrote a 3kb message concluding with a single sentence
contradiction to everything else in the message.

Armando


Reply via email to