I acknowledge I have pretty limited experience with MySQL replication, but I think it sucks. Oracle, in the use I've had, replicates nicely, recovers well, with relative ease; MySQL requires a *ton* of user intervention to replicate after a failure. What I do have experience with, OpenLDAP 2.4, I've found replication super easy. Don't start crying that LDAP is different than SQL. The fact of the matter is that *SQL should replicate as simply as OpenLDAP 2.4 does. Brain dead. Recovers from any point. Not only that, there can be *any* back end (OpenLDAP supports multiple, which can differ from Master to slave.) Just my two cents. If I did so, I apologize, I'm the furthest thing from an expert. Just ask anyone who knows me. :) Eric Crist On Sep 26, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Marc Skinner wrote: > im no db expert/admin ... > > but to my knowledge, oracle gives you stored procedures, and active/ > active if you deploy with RAC. > > what exactly do you mean by replication? b/c i have done a lot of > master/slave replication with mysql, and it works very well. i have > had masters die and through the use of transaction logs been able to > totally recover and convert a slave to master in a matter of hours > (40gb database). > if ha is important and you can't have any downtime, you will need to > pony up the cash for a 2 node RAC deployment. if you are ok with > the time needed to replay transaction logs (typically in the hours - > on big db's) you can use an active/passive cluster. > > of course the other things that might be of interest - with oracle > you get pretty gui's, polished reporting etc. > > it is also my understanding that companies like yahoo, slashdot and > others of that size - use mysql for tb size databases with no > problems. so it is very capable of performing enterprise db > functions. > > if you find anything concrete - post it back - i think that would be > interesting to see. > > thanks! > > > Eric F Crist wrote: >> R.E.P.L.I.C.A.T.I.O.N. >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Mike Miller wrote: >> >> >>> We have a lot of data -- apparently about 9,000 tables in an >>> RDBMS. It's >>> in Oracle now. As a fan of open source solutions, I would prefer >>> to use >>> MySQL or other open source RDBMS, but at what cost? Before I even >>> consider moving data to MySQL from Oracle, I want to know what >>> Oracle can >>> do that MySQL (or other FOSS product) cannot do. Have any of you >>> studied >>> this or do you know of any reasonably serious comparative research >>> or >>> reviews? Thanks. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >>> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >>> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >>> >> >> --- >> Eric Crist >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >> > --- Eric Crist