Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> Thus spake asantos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I find MySQL to be reliable and stable.
>
> Good luck to you, then.
> You will need it.
You may be wishing alot of people luck as I've used it fir 18 months
with no problems ....
>
> > 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.
I wont ask why ....
Why the negative attitude, many people use MySQL with qmail / vpopmail
combo with very few problems.
Please, suggest idea's, based on facts, without hersay and insults.
Otherwise you just appear as a ranter with a chip on his / her shoulder.
Greg
>
> 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
