totally see your point. i do agree that mysql recovery is a manual process, but free with a couple hours of work might be ok compared to the $60-240k (depending on how many sockets) for oracles "seemless" failover. its all about what your really trying to accomplish, budget, etc. Eric F Crist wrote: > 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 > > > >