Continuent To Bring Open Source DB Replication To the Oracle World 83
Robert Hodges, CTO of Continuent, has an interesting blog entry about a new approach to database replication that they are undertaking. The new approach aims to provide easier access to replication for low-end Oracle users in addition to the alpha offering they already have for MySQL. "It's not a coincidence that we chose to implement MySQL and Oracle replication at the same time. MySQL has revolutionized the simplicity and accessibility of databases in general and replication in particular. For example, MySQL users have created cost-effective read scaling solutions using master/slave replication for years. MySQL replication is not free of problems, but there is no question MySQL AB helped by the community got a lot of the basics really right. On the other hand, Oracle replication products offer state-of-the-art solutions for availability, heterogeneous replication, application upgrade, and other problems, albeit for high-end users. For example, Oracle Streams and Golden Gate TDM offer very advanced solutions to the problem of data migration with minimal downtime. The big problem with these solutions is not capabilities but administrative complexity and cost."
this does not match my experience (Score:4, Informative)
If there is one thing that really sucks in mysql it's replication, and no, they did not get it right.
Even running top notch hardware about as redundant as you can get after running for a couple of months the master and slave can be out of sync.
I think this is one of the major remaining issues with mysql.
Re:MySQL + Oracle = MyOracle (Score:3, Informative)
I'll have to respectfully disagree. I think Oracle brings numerous features to the table that MySQL doesn't have - and running a small database with Oracle does not come with a lot of overhead.
I run a number of small oracle installs that use very little in the way of resources. So I'm not sure why you think Oracle can't manage small databases.
I'm not a big fan of Oracle for a few reasons - but those mostly have to do with closed vs. open and some of their high-end stuff- specifically dealing with RAC. Dealing with straightforward, basic Oracle databases - small or large is dead easy and rock solid.
I work with MySQL also. It's very nice, but I am unaware of any area where it exceeds Oracle from a technical perspective. I do like very much the fact that it is open software. But I see no gains for anyone with some kind of Oracle/MySQL hybrid.
Re:MySQL + Oracle = MyOracle (Score:2, Informative)
if i read the oracle express license [oracle.com] correctly
" License Rights
We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited license to use the programs for: (a) purposes of developing, prototyping and running your applications for your own internal data processing operations; "
Note: Limited, Maybe even a time limit? Not sure.
Note: Internal, that more or less excludes running it you web shop.
Free as in beer, but very limited.
Re:MySQL + Oracle = MyOracle (Score:3, Informative)
That's part a - then next part b says that the db can be distributed freely with the software. IANAL - but I would think it can be used as the back end for a web site.
The limits listed below that in regard to amount of data, ram and processors are also pretty strict. I'm not an Oracle cheer-leader. But I do work with their products daily and I cringe when I see people say that MySQL or even PostgreSQL (which I absolutely love) are on par with Oracle. They aren't. They may be eventually but they are not there yet.
That kind of started this whole discussion and then price came into it. That is really irrelevant to what started the thread - but even lumping that in Oracle does provide options - narrow as they may be.
I'm done being an Oracle DBA in a few weeks - and my new job will have me working almost exclusively with FOSS products. I can't wait. But I've worked with both enough that I don't really have illusions about either and just hate to see assumptions that are wrong being tossed around about either.
Re:MySQL + Oracle = MyOracle (Score:3, Informative)
What does MySQL have that Oracle needs or would improve it? I can't think of anything - seriously. I'm not trying to troll, fill me in on where MySQL is better than Oracle.
Ease of use and cost.
Sure, you think Oracle is easy, but you are an Oracle DBA. MySQL is trivially easy for a developer to set up and get running. I mean, 'apt-get install mysql-server' easy. I just typed 'apt-get install oracle' and, surprise, I have no Oracle. So Oracle is harder.
Oracle is also obscenely expensive. Don't get me wrong--if you need it, it's worth every penny. But 3 of my last 4 clients could not stop bitching about the cost of Oracle licenses and Oracle DBAs, yet MySQL or PostgreSQL would have easily met their needs. (The 4th client, a massive financial institution, did not complain about the cost of Oracle licenses, and they definitely needed to be using Oracle.)
My current client's largest database has only about 4 million records in it, but it has a simple, well-designed schema and queries are very cheap. Yet they have 4 Oracle DBAs, and god knows how many Oracle licenses. They have old Oracle instances where they pay per-CPU license fees on an ancient CPUs. There is no reason in the world they couldn't just retire those boxes, move the simple DBs to Postgres, and send those licenses back to Oracle. They'll never do that, but they could easily save a quarter million dollars per year if they would.
Re:Looks a bit slashvertisment-y (Score:3, Informative)
Re:As always, the answer is 'It depends' (Score:3, Informative)