[Systems] DBMS on sunjammer

[Sascha Silbe]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 03:28:50PM -0500, Bernie Innocenti wrote:

>> Out of curiousity, is there a reason we're running mysql instead of 
>> postgresql? Is it better suited to some of the applications we are 
>> running?
> It's the same old story: almost none of the web applications we use 
> support PostgreSQL.
OK, good point. :)
I still wonder why they all have to link directly to the native database 
library instead of using the database abstraction layer almost every 
language has, but no point ranting about that here...

> Besides, I have a lot more hands-on experience on MySQL,
Always a good reason, of course. And I suspect your MySQL experience far 
outweighs my PostgreSQL one.

> What I really dislike is having to run both on the same machine. At 
> this time PostgreSQL is not even being backed up!
The latter is especially bad, we should fix that ASAP.
  From scanning the documentation, there are three options that would 
make sense for us:
- SQL dump (smallest, (mostly) standard format, only full backup)
- LVM snapshot (only full backup)
- file-level full backup + write ahead logs (more complex to set up, 
large, continuous backup)

Depending on how bad it is to loose recent data I'd suggest either the 
SQL dump (easy to set up, potentially useful for migrations) or the 
continuous backup (which can be "upgraded" to hot standby servers, i.e. 
high availability).

> We still have a ridiculously small dataset :-)
In that case running two DBMS shouldn't matter too much anyway. ;)

CU Sascha

-- 
http://sascha.silbe.org/
http://www.infra-silbe.de/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/private/systems/attachments/20091209/d140a6ab/attachment.pgp