Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > I would definitively avoid MySQL for transaction-heavy, mission-critical > stuff. FWIW, no we have SQLite for lightweight, read-fast db, I would > definitively avoid MySQL, period.
Please do not spread FUD on lists used by people liable to believe it. Read-heavy applications benefit most from clusters of replicated servers, something impossible/improbable with SQLite, and something MySQL is superb at. FWIW, Google AdWords runs on MySQL. I don't know (obviously) if it uses transactions, but I'm betting it does. However AdWords is pretty much the definition of "mission-critical". It comprises nearly 100% of Google's income. Our business uses MySQL exclusively within its Unix department, and our primary server has been running for nearly two years and has never failed. MySQL has only ever been restarted for a handful of security and version updates, resulting in a 2-year downtime of approximately 20 seconds. It currently handles about 1000 requests/second, mostly transactional. So I reiterate: Don't spread FUD. MySQL has a niche, and that particular niche has an absolutely HUGE market. -Rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
