Re: [Maria-discuss] MySQL's future in Debian and Ubuntu
On Feb 13, 2012 2:21 PM, "Eddie Bachle" <enb10@albion.edu> wrote:
In general, I am generally an simply an observer on most of these mailing
lists, however my concerns with a switch are far less technical and far more practical. I work currently for a college in Michigan which utilizes almost solely Windows servers simply because it is what the IT staff here knows. As a student here, I was brought in to assist with the web server administration, and as time went by because I have a degree of Linux knowledge, I was given permission to put together a Ubuntu LAMP server to serve a couple of interested parties on campus who wanted simply to demo several small scale web apps that were Linux exclusive. This server would serve as an exception to the general rule of our server architecture. However as time has went by and my knowledge looks more like it will be a fixture here after graduation, along with the simple instability of PHP and Apache on the Windows platform, my boss is giving far more consideration to moving to Linux.
As Linux gains more public recognition, more and more Windows-only
organizations will consider using it as an alternative, especially for their web servers. This is especially true because of the fact that each of the necessarily main components of a web server exist in Linux in the same form as the do on Windows and often run much better. Then, the only piece one would need to learn would be the new operating system, not the database, HTTP server, or PHP scripting language software. However, this is going to be a more difficult proposition if the aforementioned advantage is somewhat eliminated. Were I to have to tell my boss that we could switch to Ubuntu but it would mean that would need to use a "MySQL compatible" database if we want to use the native database (which we likely would because it's tested to be stable and it is supported by the developers), then she would be much more hesitant.
There simply is a much greater sense of trepidation for those who are not
significantly Linux savvy if there exists a possibility that they would have to make something work in an unfamiliar environment, especially if it were to happen unexpectedly. If we ported our www website server over to Ubuntu and then 6 months down the road we were to upgrade our Joomla version and there became an issue with MariaDB because it lacks some MySQL feature that it needs, or even that Joomla would fail to recognize Maria as being equivalent to MySQL at some point, then that would be a huge detraction against switching.
Unless assurances that any software that asks for MySQL will recognize
and accept MariaDB equivalents, and that this should always be the case, and that it will retain the stability and recognized benefits of MySQL, I would encourage extreme caution in encouraging a switch. Linux is beginning to grow into areas it previously didn't reach and bringing a far superior web server experience as well as simply a better operating system experience for many and I would not like to see that growth compromised. I would like to say we would still switch, or still heavily consider it for the grains that could be made by using Ubuntu, however realistically, the lack of native MySQL in any OS would be a huge mark against it. Also that being said, if the technical concerns are answered adequately for a vast majority of applications and hardware/OS setups, then I would be totally behind switching to a more open source friendly and compatible database software as there would be little love lost between me and MySQL.
I hope this perspective helps a bit in considering this decision,
Do remember that there's an alternative to MySQL/MariaDB: PostgreSQL. I'm actually busy migrating the Windows infrastructure, and my target database is PostgreSQL. Note: I am *not* recommending that Ubuntu replaced its default database from MySQL to PostgreSQL; If a company already deployed a MySQL-based app, then it should migrate to MariaDB, if only to prevent being trapped by Oracle into migrating into Oracle. But for those still exploring a migration to Linux, I won't hesitate to push them toward PostgreSQL instead. There are clear benefits of PostgreSQL over MySQL for the enterprise, and vv. Rgds,
I currently use Mysql but dont have technical knowledge about it, I just use it because the programs I use for web development uses it (like wordpress), so, If I would get the same features and stability while on MariaDB, I would encourage the move. Most people who are not database-savvy wont even notice if this is done well...myself included And for those who are database savvy, well you can download and install it from the partner repo that will be available by then. I also found an interview Linux.com did to the creator of MariaDB, interesting read and bold statements from the dude :D https://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/biz-enterprise/544438:special-qaa-with... cheers 2012/2/13 Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info>
On Feb 13, 2012 2:21 PM, "Eddie Bachle" <enb10@albion.edu> wrote:
In general, I am generally an simply an observer on most of these
mailing lists, however my concerns with a switch are far less technical and far more practical. I work currently for a college in Michigan which utilizes almost solely Windows servers simply because it is what the IT staff here knows. As a student here, I was brought in to assist with the web server administration, and as time went by because I have a degree of Linux knowledge, I was given permission to put together a Ubuntu LAMP server to serve a couple of interested parties on campus who wanted simply to demo several small scale web apps that were Linux exclusive. This server would serve as an exception to the general rule of our server architecture. However as time has went by and my knowledge looks more like it will be a fixture here after graduation, along with the simple instability of PHP and Apache on the Windows platform, my boss is giving far more consideration to moving to Linux.
As Linux gains more public recognition, more and more Windows-only
organizations will consider using it as an alternative, especially for their web servers. This is especially true because of the fact that each of the necessarily main components of a web server exist in Linux in the same form as the do on Windows and often run much better. Then, the only piece one would need to learn would be the new operating system, not the database, HTTP server, or PHP scripting language software. However, this is going to be a more difficult proposition if the aforementioned advantage is somewhat eliminated. Were I to have to tell my boss that we could switch to Ubuntu but it would mean that would need to use a "MySQL compatible" database if we want to use the native database (which we likely would because it's tested to be stable and it is supported by the developers), then she would be much more hesitant.
There simply is a much greater sense of trepidation for those who are
not significantly Linux savvy if there exists a possibility that they would have to make something work in an unfamiliar environment, especially if it were to happen unexpectedly. If we ported our www website server over to Ubuntu and then 6 months down the road we were to upgrade our Joomla version and there became an issue with MariaDB because it lacks some MySQL feature that it needs, or even that Joomla would fail to recognize Maria as being equivalent to MySQL at some point, then that would be a huge detraction against switching.
Unless assurances that any software that asks for MySQL will recognize
and accept MariaDB equivalents, and that this should always be the case, and that it will retain the stability and recognized benefits of MySQL, I would encourage extreme caution in encouraging a switch. Linux is beginning to grow into areas it previously didn't reach and bringing a far superior web server experience as well as simply a better operating system experience for many and I would not like to see that growth compromised. I would like to say we would still switch, or still heavily consider it for the grains that could be made by using Ubuntu, however realistically, the lack of native MySQL in any OS would be a huge mark against it. Also that being said, if the technical concerns are answered adequately for a vast majority of applications and hardware/OS setups, then I would be totally behind switching to a more open source friendly and compatible database software as there would be little love lost between me and MySQL.
I hope this perspective helps a bit in considering this decision,
Do remember that there's an alternative to MySQL/MariaDB: PostgreSQL.
I'm actually busy migrating the Windows infrastructure, and my target database is PostgreSQL.
Note: I am *not* recommending that Ubuntu replaced its default database from MySQL to PostgreSQL; If a company already deployed a MySQL-based app, then it should migrate to MariaDB, if only to prevent being trapped by Oracle into migrating into Oracle. But for those still exploring a migration to Linux, I won't hesitate to push them toward PostgreSQL instead. There are clear benefits of PostgreSQL over MySQL for the enterprise, and vv.
Rgds,
-- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
-- X1R1
For those who have not followed this up closely, a little history. Remember that MariaDB is not just "compatible" with MySQL, but it kind of IS MySQL, forked and re-branded. In 2009, even before Oracle has purchased Sun, Monty Widenius (one of the original creators of MySQL and architects) has left the Sun (than the owner of MySQL) and started MariaDB, intended as a replacement for the full MySQL server. It seems that since that, most of the MySQL developers left and joined either Drizzle or MariaDB. Drizzle is another fork, but was targeted to a “limited but important market”, created by Brian Aker almost the same time when MySQL was bought by Sun (back in 2008) Most of the differences would be which patches are applied when, some the overall "what do the developers want the end product to be", and in the case of Ubuntu linux, the actual names of the packages in the repositories (and the eventually cross references in other packages dependencies) 2012/2/14 Diego Xirinachs <dxiri343@gmail.com>
I currently use Mysql but dont have technical knowledge about it, I just use it because the programs I use for web development uses it (like wordpress), so, If I would get the same features and stability while on MariaDB, I would encourage the move.
Most people who are not database-savvy wont even notice if this is done well...myself included
And for those who are database savvy, well you can download and install it from the partner repo that will be available by then.
I also found an interview Linux.com did to the creator of MariaDB, interesting read and bold statements from the dude :D
https://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/biz-enterprise/544438:special-qaa-with...
cheers
2012/2/13 Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info>
On Feb 13, 2012 2:21 PM, "Eddie Bachle" <enb10@albion.edu> wrote:
In general, I am generally an simply an observer on most of these
mailing lists, however my concerns with a switch are far less technical and far more practical. I work currently for a college in Michigan which utilizes almost solely Windows servers simply because it is what the IT staff here knows. As a student here, I was brought in to assist with the web server administration, and as time went by because I have a degree of Linux knowledge, I was given permission to put together a Ubuntu LAMP server to serve a couple of interested parties on campus who wanted simply to demo several small scale web apps that were Linux exclusive. This server would serve as an exception to the general rule of our server architecture. However as time has went by and my knowledge looks more like it will be a fixture here after graduation, along with the simple instability of PHP and Apache on the Windows platform, my boss is giving far more consideration to moving to Linux.
As Linux gains more public recognition, more and more Windows-only
organizations will consider using it as an alternative, especially for their web servers. This is especially true because of the fact that each of the necessarily main components of a web server exist in Linux in the same form as the do on Windows and often run much better. Then, the only piece one would need to learn would be the new operating system, not the database, HTTP server, or PHP scripting language software. However, this is going to be a more difficult proposition if the aforementioned advantage is somewhat eliminated. Were I to have to tell my boss that we could switch to Ubuntu but it would mean that would need to use a "MySQL compatible" database if we want to use the native database (which we likely would because it's tested to be stable and it is supported by the developers), then she would be much more hesitant.
There simply is a much greater sense of trepidation for those who are
not significantly Linux savvy if there exists a possibility that they would have to make something work in an unfamiliar environment, especially if it were to happen unexpectedly. If we ported our www website server over to Ubuntu and then 6 months down the road we were to upgrade our Joomla version and there became an issue with MariaDB because it lacks some MySQL feature that it needs, or even that Joomla would fail to recognize Maria as being equivalent to MySQL at some point, then that would be a huge detraction against switching.
Unless assurances that any software that asks for MySQL will recognize
and accept MariaDB equivalents, and that this should always be the case, and that it will retain the stability and recognized benefits of MySQL, I would encourage extreme caution in encouraging a switch. Linux is beginning to grow into areas it previously didn't reach and bringing a far superior web server experience as well as simply a better operating system experience for many and I would not like to see that growth compromised. I would like to say we would still switch, or still heavily consider it for the grains that could be made by using Ubuntu, however realistically, the lack of native MySQL in any OS would be a huge mark against it. Also that being said, if the technical concerns are answered adequately for a vast majority of applications and hardware/OS setups, then I would be totally behind switching to a more open source friendly and compatible database software as there would be little love lost between me and MySQL.
I hope this perspective helps a bit in considering this decision,
Do remember that there's an alternative to MySQL/MariaDB: PostgreSQL.
I'm actually busy migrating the Windows infrastructure, and my target database is PostgreSQL.
Note: I am *not* recommending that Ubuntu replaced its default database from MySQL to PostgreSQL; If a company already deployed a MySQL-based app, then it should migrate to MariaDB, if only to prevent being trapped by Oracle into migrating into Oracle. But for those still exploring a migration to Linux, I won't hesitate to push them toward PostgreSQL instead. There are clear benefits of PostgreSQL over MySQL for the enterprise, and vv.
Rgds,
-- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
-- X1R1
-- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
-- Fábio Leitão ..-. .- -... .. --- .-.. . .. - .- --- ...-.-
From MariaDB FAQ page: http://kb.askmonty.org/en/why-is-the-project-called-mariadb
"The 'MySQL' name is trademarked by Oracle, and they have chosen to keep that trademark to themselves. The name MySQL (just like the MyISAM storage engine) comes from Monty's first daughter "My". MariaDB continues this tradition by being named after his younger daughter." If you need to confirm the compatibly and known incompatibilities between them, http://kb.askmonty.org/en/mariadb-versus-mysql-compatibility 2012/2/14 Fabio T. Leitao <fabio.tleitao@gmail.com>
For those who have not followed this up closely, a little history.
Remember that MariaDB is not just "compatible" with MySQL, but it kind of IS MySQL, forked and re-branded.
In 2009, even before Oracle has purchased Sun, Monty Widenius (one of the original creators of MySQL and architects) has left the Sun (than the owner of MySQL) and started MariaDB, intended as a replacement for the full MySQL server.
It seems that since that, most of the MySQL developers left and joined either Drizzle or MariaDB. Drizzle is another fork, but was targeted to a “limited but important market”, created by Brian Aker almost the same time when MySQL was bought by Sun (back in 2008)
Most of the differences would be which patches are applied when, some the overall "what do the developers want the end product to be", and in the case of Ubuntu linux, the actual names of the packages in the repositories (and the eventually cross references in other packages dependencies)
2012/2/14 Diego Xirinachs <dxiri343@gmail.com>
I currently use Mysql but dont have technical knowledge about it, I just use it because the programs I use for web development uses it (like wordpress), so, If I would get the same features and stability while on MariaDB, I would encourage the move.
Most people who are not database-savvy wont even notice if this is done well...myself included
And for those who are database savvy, well you can download and install it from the partner repo that will be available by then.
I also found an interview Linux.com did to the creator of MariaDB, interesting read and bold statements from the dude :D
https://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/biz-enterprise/544438:special-qaa-with...
cheers
2012/2/13 Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info>
On Feb 13, 2012 2:21 PM, "Eddie Bachle" <enb10@albion.edu> wrote:
In general, I am generally an simply an observer on most of these
mailing lists, however my concerns with a switch are far less technical and far more practical. I work currently for a college in Michigan which utilizes almost solely Windows servers simply because it is what the IT staff here knows. As a student here, I was brought in to assist with the web server administration, and as time went by because I have a degree of Linux knowledge, I was given permission to put together a Ubuntu LAMP server to serve a couple of interested parties on campus who wanted simply to demo several small scale web apps that were Linux exclusive. This server would serve as an exception to the general rule of our server architecture. However as time has went by and my knowledge looks more like it will be a fixture here after graduation, along with the simple instability of PHP and Apache on the Windows platform, my boss is giving far more consideration to moving to Linux.
As Linux gains more public recognition, more and more Windows-only
organizations will consider using it as an alternative, especially for their web servers. This is especially true because of the fact that each of the necessarily main components of a web server exist in Linux in the same form as the do on Windows and often run much better. Then, the only piece one would need to learn would be the new operating system, not the database, HTTP server, or PHP scripting language software. However, this is going to be a more difficult proposition if the aforementioned advantage is somewhat eliminated. Were I to have to tell my boss that we could switch to Ubuntu but it would mean that would need to use a "MySQL compatible" database if we want to use the native database (which we likely would because it's tested to be stable and it is supported by the developers), then she would be much more hesitant.
There simply is a much greater sense of trepidation for those who are
not significantly Linux savvy if there exists a possibility that they would have to make something work in an unfamiliar environment, especially if it were to happen unexpectedly. If we ported our www website server over to Ubuntu and then 6 months down the road we were to upgrade our Joomla version and there became an issue with MariaDB because it lacks some MySQL feature that it needs, or even that Joomla would fail to recognize Maria as being equivalent to MySQL at some point, then that would be a huge detraction against switching.
Unless assurances that any software that asks for MySQL will recognize
and accept MariaDB equivalents, and that this should always be the case, and that it will retain the stability and recognized benefits of MySQL, I would encourage extreme caution in encouraging a switch. Linux is beginning to grow into areas it previously didn't reach and bringing a far superior web server experience as well as simply a better operating system experience for many and I would not like to see that growth compromised. I would like to say we would still switch, or still heavily consider it for the grains that could be made by using Ubuntu, however realistically, the lack of native MySQL in any OS would be a huge mark against it. Also that being said, if the technical concerns are answered adequately for a vast majority of applications and hardware/OS setups, then I would be totally behind switching to a more open source friendly and compatible database software as there would be little love lost between me and MySQL.
I hope this perspective helps a bit in considering this decision,
Do remember that there's an alternative to MySQL/MariaDB: PostgreSQL.
I'm actually busy migrating the Windows infrastructure, and my target database is PostgreSQL.
Note: I am *not* recommending that Ubuntu replaced its default database from MySQL to PostgreSQL; If a company already deployed a MySQL-based app, then it should migrate to MariaDB, if only to prevent being trapped by Oracle into migrating into Oracle. But for those still exploring a migration to Linux, I won't hesitate to push them toward PostgreSQL instead. There are clear benefits of PostgreSQL over MySQL for the enterprise, and vv.
Rgds,
-- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
-- X1R1
-- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
-- Fábio Leitão ..-. .- -... .. --- .-.. . .. - .- --- ...-.-
-- Fábio Leitão ..-. .- -... .. --- .-.. . .. - .- --- ...-.-
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Fabio T. Leitao <fabio.tleitao@gmail.com> wrote:
For those who have not followed this up closely, a little history.
Remember that MariaDB is not just "compatible" with MySQL, but it kind of IS MySQL, forked and re-branded.
In 2009, even before Oracle has purchased Sun, Monty Widenius (one of the original creators of MySQL and architects) has left the Sun (than the owner of MySQL) and started MariaDB, intended as a replacement for the full MySQL server.
It seems that since that, most of the MySQL developers left and joined either Drizzle or MariaDB. Drizzle is another fork, but was targeted to a “limited but important market”, created by Brian Aker almost the same time when MySQL was bought by Sun (back in 2008)
Hi Fabio You contributed a fairly good history, so it inspired me to fill in missing pieces. There is also a fourth MySQL fork: Percona Server. It is interesting to note people in this thread and in general the Linux distro people seem to omit this when talking about MySQL forks. As far as I'm aware it is the most popular of the forks (after MySQL itself), and used by many demanding Percona customers, especially the big and sexy Web companies (but not only). Out of these four it should first be mentioned that Drizzle is not at all a compatible fork of MySQL. Some would say the things that are not compatible are enhancements :-) But nevertheless, while Drizzle feels very familiar to a MySQL user, you couldn't take away MySQL, drop in Drizzle and expect that nobody would notice. Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many think is great, especially when you want to play with new features). Personally I think the main benefit of Percona Server is that they have a 5.5 version out there for some time - exactly a year ago it seems! While MariaDB has focused more on their own work (and perhaps also therefore the merge effort for them is much larger) they haven't yet produced a 5.5 release (even alpha). This should be taken into account, since many MySQL users already use MySQL 5.5 and features like semi-sync replication, they would consider MariaDB a downgrade. The difference is not big, but it is commonly accepted that (InnoDB) performance wise a vanilla MySQL 5.5 is better than Percona Server 5.1 or MariaDB 5.3. Otoh Percona Server 5.5 improves on MySQL 5.5. The other strong advantage Percona has at the moment is their recent adoption of Galera clustering technology (see Percona XtraDB Cluster). This is a revolutionary technology when it comes to High-Availability with MySQL and even scalability of MySQL. In fact it has many of the good properties seen in many NoSQL solutions (but is still good old SQL, Galera is just about the clustering). I'm personally a big fan of Galera and don't intend to use anything else going forward. Just wanted to complete the discussion with these perspectives from a MySQL heavy user. henrik -- henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559
Hi! On 16 Feb 2012, at 07:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Fabio T. Leitao <fabio.tleitao@gmail.com> wrote:
For those who have not followed this up closely, a little history.
Remember that MariaDB is not just "compatible" with MySQL, but it kind of IS MySQL, forked and re-branded.
In 2009, even before Oracle has purchased Sun, Monty Widenius (one of the original creators of MySQL and architects) has left the Sun (than the owner of MySQL) and started MariaDB, intended as a replacement for the full MySQL server.
It seems that since that, most of the MySQL developers left and joined either Drizzle or MariaDB. Drizzle is another fork, but was targeted to a “limited but important market”, created by Brian Aker almost the same time when MySQL was bought by Sun (back in 2008)
Hi Fabio
You contributed a fairly good history, so it inspired me to fill in missing pieces.
There is also a fourth MySQL fork: Percona Server. It is interesting to note people in this thread and in general the Linux distro people seem to omit this when talking about MySQL forks. As far as I'm aware it is the most popular of the forks (after MySQL itself), and used by many demanding Percona customers, especially the big and sexy Web companies (but not only).
I don't think this is a fair statement as MariaDB also has many popular users out there. Let's not make this a popularity contest either
Out of these four it should first be mentioned that Drizzle is not at all a compatible fork of MySQL. Some would say the things that are not compatible are enhancements :-) But nevertheless, while Drizzle feels very familiar to a MySQL user, you couldn't take away MySQL, drop in Drizzle and expect that nobody would notice.
Nobody? WordPress users for example, might (see: https://launchpad.net/wordpress-drizzle a plugin that you will require). I think there's a Drupal patch that's almost quite ready also...
Personally I think the main benefit of Percona Server is that they have a 5.5 version out there for some time - exactly a year ago it seems! While MariaDB has focused more on their own work (and perhaps also therefore the merge effort for them is much larger) they haven't yet produced a 5.5 release (even alpha). This should be taken into account, since many MySQL users already use MySQL 5.5 and features like semi-sync replication, they would consider MariaDB a downgrade.
MariaDB 5.5 beta should be out by the end of this month. It will not be GA in time for the LTS release, but it will be out soon (its worth noting that all these discussions is what has put the team to work on milestones in a quicker fashion). It will also include all enhancements up to MariaDB 5.3 naturally, so you get all the improvements that come with it What should also be taken into consideration is support for an existing GA release. I've asked Percona (Stewart Smith, Director, Server Development) what the plans are and generally Percona will officially support 2 GA releases just like Oracle. Unless a customer asks for it, there wouldn't be a fix. LTS releases might I remind you need 5 years of support. Percona Server 5.1 will remain supported till Percona Server 5.6 is released, and beyond that, its just a customer request possibly. There is no defined policy yet to be fair
The other strong advantage Percona has at the moment is their recent adoption of Galera clustering technology (see Percona XtraDB Cluster). This is a revolutionary technology when it comes to High-Availability with MySQL and even scalability of MySQL. In fact it has many of the good properties seen in many NoSQL solutions (but is still good old SQL, Galera is just about the clustering). I'm personally a big fan of Galera and don't intend to use anything else going forward.
This alpha feature is very interesting, but the idea of having a 3-node cluster pitches this as a NDB replacement rather than just a MySQL replacement. But as an aside, I do agree with you - I am totally stoked with the Galera technology coming out of Codership! cheers, -c -- Colin Charles, http://bytebot.net/blog/ | twitter: @bytebot | skype: colincharles MariaDB: Community developed. Feature enhanced. Backward compatible. Download it at: http://www.mariadb.org/ Open MariaDB/MySQL documentation at the Knowledgebase: http://kb.askmonty.org/
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Colin Charles <colin@montyprogram.com> wrote:
There is also a fourth MySQL fork: Percona Server. It is interesting to note people in this thread and in general the Linux distro people seem to omit this when talking about MySQL forks. As far as I'm aware it is the most popular of the forks (after MySQL itself), and used by many demanding Percona customers, especially the big and sexy Web companies (but not only).
I don't think this is a fair statement as MariaDB also has many popular users out there. Let's not make this a popularity contest either
I don't know how you mean it would be unfair, I think it is factually true and relevant statement. It just seemed odd to read 20+ messages about MySQL forks and people seemed to not be aware of the one that most people used. I know MariaDB has lots of users (too), but if you look at something like Planet MySQL, it seems the mindshare (people who blog about it) is mainly within Monty Program and SkySQL employees - and perhaps me as a former employee mentioning it occasionally :-) This is not supposed to be an argument against using MariaDB, just that the discussion seemed a bit uninformed when considering the whole. FWIW I think most of the positive attributes of MariaDB have been well represented in the thread already.
Out of these four it should first be mentioned that Drizzle is not at all a compatible fork of MySQL. Some would say the things that are not compatible are enhancements :-) But nevertheless, while Drizzle feels very familiar to a MySQL user, you couldn't take away MySQL, drop in Drizzle and expect that nobody would notice.
Nobody? WordPress users for example, might (see: https://launchpad.net/wordpress-drizzle a plugin that you will require). I think there's a Drupal patch that's almost quite ready also...
It seems like you omitted "couldn't" while reading? But yes, that's exactly the point.
MariaDB 5.5 beta should be out by the end of this month.
Yes, but that was also said last Summer. Let's just stick with what we have on the table.
What should also be taken into consideration is support for an existing GA release. I've asked Percona (Stewart Smith, Director, Server Development) what the plans are and generally Percona will officially support 2 GA releases just like Oracle. Unless a customer asks for it, there wouldn't be a fix. LTS releases might I remind you need 5 years of support. Percona Server 5.1 will remain supported till Percona Server 5.6 is released, and beyond that, its just a customer request possibly. There is no defined policy yet to be fair
[needs citation] http://www.mysql.com/support/ Maintenance Releases, Bug Fixes, Patches, Updates: 1-5 Years and 6-8 Years w Extended support So it is 5 years just like it's always been (since MySQL 5.0 at least). Just like with the original topic of this thread, Oracle does not state anything about the Community version, but I don't have any information that they would have started dropping support earlier for that. Until Oracle took over Community version was supported for the same 5 years, and since MySQL 5.1 the support is actually better since there are more frequent updates!
This alpha feature is very interesting, but the idea of having a 3-node cluster pitches this as a NDB replacement rather than just a MySQL replacement.
This is only true if you think the NDB engine is a good replacement for InnoDB. We always had to work hard to advocate against such misconceptions when I was selling NDB. But it is true that the quality of HA properties is comparable to NDB cluster. To stay consistent with my own propositions above, I suppose I shouldn't say that "I'm sure it will be GA next month" :-)
But as an aside, I do agree with you - I am totally stoked with the Galera technology coming out of Codership!
Yes. And the main value is that it enhances the level of HA *for InnoDB*. Anyway, it was just another example why Percona should be considered, as they are often seen driving the state of the art in MySQL, such as with this example. henrik -- henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many think is great, especially when you want to play with new features).
The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-) B -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk88sV4ACgkQABMWRpwdNuk9vgCeJmJ/+/yxT7umuAviAQq8zObH GbMAoK6zWodhzZf/y0rBkR4zDbJh42uX =/R3L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Bjoern Boschman <bjoern@boschman.de> wrote:
On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many think is great, especially when you want to play with new features).
The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-)
Ok, fair point, but MariaDB really goes out of its way to have lots of them: PBXT, OQGraph engine, Sphinx, Aria... You won't find these (unless you contract Percona to provide them for you) in Percona Server. These are not that commonly used but more niche. But they are the reason I commonly label MariaDB as "has more stuff". henrik -- henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 16.02.2012 08:40, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Bjoern Boschman <bjoern@boschman.de> wrote:
On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many think is great, especially when you want to play with new features).
The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-)
Ok, fair point, but MariaDB really goes out of its way to have lots of them: PBXT, OQGraph engine, Sphinx, Aria... You won't find these (unless you contract Percona to provide them for you) in Percona Server. These are not that commonly used but more niche. But they are the reason I commonly label MariaDB as "has more stuff".
More features even though they only apply to niche user are in general nothing bad. Some features like microsecond datetime is really something I'm gonna have a look at :-) But I don't really get the point of MariaDB grants 5 year GA support vs. Percona grants only 2 years. I'd guess that for > 90% of all available packages within the Debian project no assured support exists at all? B -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk88xF8ACgkQABMWRpwdNunURACgoQOic29AFWc8DgGWnrXiVswa 6oEAnA+iF1Y617+Zup+UUbpFLiPqXIj3 =ddTc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Bjoern Boschman <bjoern@boschman.de> wrote:
More features even though they only apply to niche user are in general nothing bad.
Many DBAs tend to be very conservative and like a less is more approach, but personally I agree with you. I wish there was fork with everything: all the features from MariaDB *and* MySQL 5.5. And Percona, they still have some unique stuff beyond those two, like Galera.
But I don't really get the point of MariaDB grants 5 year GA support vs. Percona grants only 2 years. I'd guess that for > 90% of all available packages within the Debian project no assured support exists at all?
Clearly I was unclear in my previous email. The 2 year support is not true for any of the alternatives. MySQL gives 5 years (and more for customers that pay), Percona trails MySQL so they also end up doing 5 years (and more for paying customers). MariaDB also does 5, apparently. So the original statement of 2 years was just not correct. Why this is important is a good question, however it seems the origin of this discussion comes from the fact that Ubuntu indeed wants to support their product, coupled with a feeling that the relationship with Oracle MySQL makes that goal hard to achieve. henrik -- henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559
Hi! On 16 Feb 2012, at 17:24, Henrik Ingo wrote:
Clearly I was unclear in my previous email. The 2 year support is not true for any of the alternatives. MySQL gives 5 years (and more for customers that pay), Percona trails MySQL so they also end up doing 5 years (and more for paying customers). MariaDB also does 5, apparently.
Oracle supports MySQL for 5 years from date of release commercially. There is supposedly only two GA releases supported at any one given time (in active support for community use). Of course we have no idea if this is true yet or not since 5.1 and 5.5 are still supported. We will know "firmly" what their plans are when 5.6 is released. Will it then be that 5.1 will drop from active GA support? I have no idea (as I don't work for Oracle). Only time can/will tell -- Colin Charles, http://bytebot.net/blog/ | twitter: @bytebot | skype: colincharles MariaDB: Community developed. Feature enhanced. Backward compatible. Download it at: http://www.mariadb.org/ Open MariaDB/MySQL documentation at the Knowledgebase: http://kb.askmonty.org/
Great stuff, What ever the choice, even if it is to keep MySQL alone, lets remember MySQL will not be dropped ! Any one would still be able to install the Oracle GA if they wanted to (from some repository, probably partner, or even main) If indeed there is a replacement, I can only talk about what I have experienced firsthand... it mus have ALL THE SAME COMMANDS AND PARAMETERS AND DB ENGINES so that every init.d, upstart and shell scripts must work unware of the change, even the DBA might not be aware of the change unless he types a $ mysql --version MariaDB has met those criteria for me. Other DB engines are welcome frosting in the cake. :) Yet, at the same time, it MUST BE VERY CLEARLY DOCUMENTED the change itself, the underlying reazon to do so, the possible good and bad impact (such as know issues)... it could even explain the alternatives, between other DBs in the MySQL environment, including the "official" Oracle MySQL or even PG. And I am sorry to all PG users, I know its an excelent DB, but no one but who is not already a PostgreSQL user even consider it as an alternative. Apple has changed its embended DB from MySQL to PG in the MacOSX Server when Oracle has purchased SUN. Anyone could still choose to manually install MySQL (or any other), but it has a caused major issues in their user base and crippled several programs that were already pretty stable in the previous release. Not the change of flavors (to PG) but the buggy implementation of the change and the fact that it was so poorly documented. Lets try not to repeat their mistakes here. 2012/2/16 Colin Charles <colin@montyprogram.com>
Hi!
On 16 Feb 2012, at 17:24, Henrik Ingo wrote:
Clearly I was unclear in my previous email. The 2 year support is not true for any of the alternatives. MySQL gives 5 years (and more for customers that pay), Percona trails MySQL so they also end up doing 5 years (and more for paying customers). MariaDB also does 5, apparently.
Oracle supports MySQL for 5 years from date of release commercially. There is supposedly only two GA releases supported at any one given time (in active support for community use). Of course we have no idea if this is true yet or not since 5.1 and 5.5 are still supported. We will know "firmly" what their plans are when 5.6 is released. Will it then be that 5.1 will drop from active GA support? I have no idea (as I don't work for Oracle). Only time can/will tell
-- Colin Charles, http://bytebot.net/blog/ | twitter: @bytebot | skype: colincharles MariaDB: Community developed. Feature enhanced. Backward compatible. Download it at: http://www.mariadb.org/ Open MariaDB/MySQL documentation at the Knowledgebase: http://kb.askmonty.org/
-- Fábio Leitão ..-. .- -... .. --- .-.. . .. - .- --- ...-.-
I agree 100%. Even though I'm a huge fan of PostgreSQL*,* if the standard database has been MySQL, then the next release must stay MySQL or something that's a drop-in replacement of (e.g. MariaDB). After all, those using PostgreSQL are skillful enough to know how to install PostgreSQL when they need it ;-) Rgds, On Feb 17, 2012 1:44 AM, "Fabio T. Leitao" <fabio.tleitao@gmail.com> wrote:
Great stuff,
What ever the choice, even if it is to keep MySQL alone, lets remember MySQL will not be dropped ! Any one would still be able to install the Oracle GA if they wanted to (from some repository, probably partner, or even main)
If indeed there is a replacement, I can only talk about what I have experienced firsthand... it mus have ALL THE SAME COMMANDS AND PARAMETERS AND DB ENGINES so that every init.d, upstart and shell scripts must work unware of the change, even the DBA might not be aware of the change unless he types a $ mysql --version
MariaDB has met those criteria for me.
Other DB engines are welcome frosting in the cake. :)
Yet, at the same time, it MUST BE VERY CLEARLY DOCUMENTED the change itself, the underlying reazon to do so, the possible good and bad impact (such as know issues)... it could even explain the alternatives, between other DBs in the MySQL environment, including the "official" Oracle MySQL or even PG.
And I am sorry to all PG users, I know its an excelent DB, but no one but who is not already a PostgreSQL user even consider it as an alternative.
Apple has changed its embended DB from MySQL to PG in the MacOSX Server when Oracle has purchased SUN. Anyone could still choose to manually install MySQL (or any other), but it has a caused major issues in their user base and crippled several programs that were already pretty stable in the previous release. Not the change of flavors (to PG) but the buggy implementation of the change and the fact that it was so poorly documented.
Lets try not to repeat their mistakes here.
2012/2/16 Colin Charles <colin@montyprogram.com>
Hi!
On 16 Feb 2012, at 17:24, Henrik Ingo wrote:
Clearly I was unclear in my previous email. The 2 year support is not true for any of the alternatives. MySQL gives 5 years (and more for customers that pay), Percona trails MySQL so they also end up doing 5 years (and more for paying customers). MariaDB also does 5, apparently.
Oracle supports MySQL for 5 years from date of release commercially. There is supposedly only two GA releases supported at any one given time (in active support for community use). Of course we have no idea if this is true yet or not since 5.1 and 5.5 are still supported. We will know "firmly" what their plans are when 5.6 is released. Will it then be that 5.1 will drop from active GA support? I have no idea (as I don't work for Oracle). Only time can/will tell
-- Colin Charles, http://bytebot.net/blog/ | twitter: @bytebot | skype: colincharles MariaDB: Community developed. Feature enhanced. Backward compatible. Download it at: http://www.mariadb.org/ Open MariaDB/MySQL documentation at the Knowledgebase: http://kb.askmonty.org/
-- Fábio Leitão ..-. .- -... .. --- .-.. . .. - .- --- ...-.-
-- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
I think it would be fair to take into account both the things Colin and Stewart have said as many of them are correct, but their words should also be taken with a grain of salt as they work for the companies that would benefit heavily from having 'their' fork be the replacement of mysql. That's not to accuse them of anything, just to keep in mind when making a decision. The fork that 'wins' this decision might well be the more succesful one in the long run simply because of being the default mysql version in two of the most widely used linux distributions. Personally I don't know which fork I'd appreciate more. At this point here's where we stand with both forks imho (feel free to correct me when I say something stupid/incorrect ;) ): Percona server's direction is heavily influenced by the commercial value for Percona. They implement new features when customers pay for them, and their development seems to be driven by that largely. The community benefits from the 'fallout' of those features being released as open source. The largest benefit is a release cycle that seems a bit more regular then mariadb's. As for MariaDB, I like their much more community driven development that seems less commercially driven, but the main disadvantage is their release cycle: the oldest commits from the 5.3 changelog stem from 2009 (!), and the 5.3.0 beta was released in July of last year [1]. Then again, guaranteed support for 5 years is a good thing. At this point I think MariaDB would probably be a better match for being in the main ubuntu/debian distro's as their whole ecosystem seems to match better. Let it be clear that I have no commercial benefits from either one over the other, just voicing my opinion. cheers, Walter [1] http://kb.askmonty.org/en/mariadb-530-changelog-p6 On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:40, Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Bjoern Boschman <bjoern@boschman.de> wrote:
On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many think is great, especially when you want to play with new features).
The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-)
Ok, fair point, but MariaDB really goes out of its way to have lots of them: PBXT, OQGraph engine, Sphinx, Aria... You won't find these (unless you contract Percona to provide them for you) in Percona Server. These are not that commonly used but more niche. But they are the reason I commonly label MariaDB as "has more stuff".
henrik
-- henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc
My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
-- Walter Heck -- follow @walterheck on twitter to see what I'm up to! -- Check out my new startup: Server Monitoring as a Service @ http://tribily.com Follow @tribily on Twitter and/or 'Like' our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/tribily
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 16.02.2012 09:55, Walter Heck wrote:
I think it would be fair to take into account both the things Colin and Stewart have said as many of them are correct, but their words should also be taken with a grain of salt as they work for the companies that would benefit heavily from having 'their' fork be the replacement of mysql. That's not to accuse them of anything, just to keep in mind when making a decision. The fork that 'wins' this decision might well be the more succesful one in the long run simply because of being the default mysql version in two of the most widely used linux distributions.
well spoken. At some point I also guess that "our" descission may even influence the other two major's: SuSE and DeadRed? B -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk88xZAACgkQABMWRpwdNul//QCg0Iw4xdpLMed97c7EXcyyQYX3 JCsAn2nnEuQybUafR8air58qF84/4D34 =fHwe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Walter Heck <walterheck@gmail.com> wrote:
As for MariaDB, I like their much more community driven development that seems less commercially driven, ... At this point I think MariaDB would probably be a better match for being in the main ubuntu/debian distro's as their whole ecosystem seems to match better.
Nuances, but I always like to separate the following: I wouldn't say that MariaDB is any more a community fork than Percona is. MariaDB is 100% controlled by Monty and his company, just like Percona Server is controlled and developed by Percona. Both companies are community friendly and open source minded. However, MariaDB has a strategy of being very inclusive while Percona has a strategy of not deviating too much from "upstream" MySQL. This is great, because including things like more storage engines in MariaDB exposes them to more users - so MariaDB does a great service to those engines in the MySQL ecosystem. I believe it is important to make this distinction though, because many people in Linux distribution space have a tendency to cheer for the community projects. That would be "neither of the above". (see Drizzle :-) Otoh even MariaDB is not - unfortunately - even close at capturing the wholeness of what is out there in the MySQL ecosystem. I've already mentioned major things like MySQL 5.5 or Galera, otoh there are lots of smaller patches too like those from Anders Karlsson or TaoBao. So like I said, it is unfortunate we don't have a distribution that would really cover the whole community. Hence it is a bit of a paradox really: In theory MariaDB should satisfy more users, since it tries to include more features. In practice however I've repeatedly found that Percona has been (much) faster to include stuff that really matters, like MySQL 5.5, HandlerSocket and Galera. (HandlerSocket is also in the MariaDB 5.3 Release Candidate now.) So yes, it is difficult to say that either is better than the other. "In theory, things always work according to the theory, but in practice they don't."
Let it be clear that I have no commercial benefits from either one over the other, just voicing my opinion.
Good idea to do disclosures! Always a big fan of those: I believe as an ex employee I own some shares on the MariaDB side. (The paperwork is still unclear.) So I could greatly benefit if all the Linux distributions would default to MariaDB and it would then achieve world domination. I have no financial ties to Percona. When I worked for MySQL and Sun I had some options that I lost when resigning. I currently work for an organization that is a heavy MySQL end user and have tried to provide this perspective in my writings in this thread. henrik -- henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559
Hi!
"Henrik" == Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi> writes:
Henrik> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Walter Heck <walterheck@gmail.com> wrote:
As for MariaDB, I like their much more community driven development that seems less commercially driven, Henrik> ... At this point I think MariaDB would probably be a better match for being in the main ubuntu/debian distro's as their whole ecosystem seems to match better.
Henrik> Nuances, but I always like to separate the following: Henrik> I wouldn't say that MariaDB is any more a community fork than Percona Henrik> is. MariaDB is 100% controlled by Monty and his company, just like Henrik> Percona Server is controlled and developed by Percona. Both companies Henrik> are community friendly and open source minded. However, MariaDB has a Henrik> strategy of being very inclusive while Percona has a strategy of not Henrik> deviating too much from "upstream" MySQL. This is great, because Henrik> including things like more storage engines in MariaDB exposes them to Henrik> more users - so MariaDB does a great service to those engines in the Henrik> MySQL ecosystem. MariaDB is not controlled by me or Monty Program Ab. Anyone outside of Monty Program Ab can get commits rights to MariaDB and there is people outside of the company that has commit rights and has done commits. MariaDB is in this regard driven as most other open source projects. What it's true is that Monty Program Ab takes responsibility to support a version for 5 years after it been declared stable and will fix any security issues that is reported (even if there is no paying customers for it). This is however not the same thing as having 100% control of it. <cut> Henrik> Otoh even MariaDB is not - unfortunately - even close at capturing the Henrik> wholeness of what is out there in the MySQL ecosystem. I've already Henrik> mentioned major things like MySQL 5.5 or Galera, otoh there are lots Henrik> of smaller patches too like those from Anders Karlsson or TaoBao. So Henrik> like I said, it is unfortunate we don't have a distribution that would Henrik> really cover the whole community. We are talking with Galera of adding it to MariaDB 5.5. You know very well about this as you where present when this was discussed only 2 weeks ago. The main reason we haven't done it yet is that we want to make the changes to the upper level less intrusive to make the code it easier to manage long term and we are working with Galera to get these changes done. Henrik> Hence it is a bit of a paradox really: In theory MariaDB should Henrik> satisfy more users, since it tries to include more features. In Henrik> practice however I've repeatedly found that Percona has been (much) Henrik> faster to include stuff that really matters, like MySQL 5.5, Henrik> HandlerSocket and Galera. (HandlerSocket is also in the MariaDB 5.3 Henrik> Release Candidate now.) How about microseconds, MyISAM new key cache, group commit, optimizer enchancements, dynamic columns, thread pool etc. MariaDB 5.3 and 5.5 has a LOT of critical features that Percona will never implement. Handler socket was added in MariaDB about the same time Percona added it, no big difference there. Regards, Monty
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:55:58 +0200, Walter Heck <walterheck@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it would be fair to take into account both the things Colin and Stewart have said as many of them are correct, but their words should also be taken with a grain of salt as they work for the companies that would benefit heavily from having 'their' fork be the replacement of mysql. That's not to accuse them of anything, just to keep in mind when making a decision. The fork that 'wins' this decision might well be the more succesful one in the long run simply because of being the default mysql version in two of the most widely used linux distributions.
Just to be clear: I'm not aiming for Percona Server to become upstream. The benefit of Percona Server is in having extra performance and features to better help you diagnose what's going on inside your server. We intentionally closely track Oracle MySQL releases and don't deviate hugely.
Percona server's direction is heavily influenced by the commercial value for Percona. They implement new features when customers pay for them, and their development seems to be driven by that largely. The community benefits from the 'fallout' of those features being released as open source. The largest benefit is a release cycle that seems a bit more regular then mariadb's.
We do put customer priorities first although we do also do development for the general good of the wider community - but it's just commercial sense to prioritise work for paying customers (we like making enough money to hire new people and pay them well). It's not just fallout though, it is a pretty core belief of those of us who work here that free software is the best way to develop software and that every bit of software we ship is licensed under a free software license. -- Stewart Smith
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:33:50 +0100, Bjoern Boschman <bjoern@boschman.de> wrote:
On 16.02.2012 00:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
Percona Server is like MariaDB in that both of them are compatible with MySQL and you could do a plug-and-play replacement. Percona Server is much closer to MySQL (which many think is great), shall I say more focused. MariaDB has more deviation in the code base and also adds more stuff like additional storage engines (which many think is great, especially when you want to play with new features).
The additional storage engine also applies to percona :-)
We use the name XtraDB to refer to our modified InnoDB (this avoids confusion and trademark issues). We don't ship any other engines though, we simply don't see the demand. -- Stewart Smith
Hi! On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:28, Fabio T. Leitao wrote:
Remember that MariaDB is not just "compatible" with MySQL, but it kind of IS MySQL, forked and re-branded.
I like to say that it is MySQL, branched and re-branded with additional features. It is not a fork. We rebase with MySQL on a regular basis, so you get MySQL + all the additional features we've included cheers, -c -- Colin Charles, http://bytebot.net/blog/ | twitter: @bytebot | skype: colincharles MariaDB: Community developed. Feature enhanced. Backward compatible. Download it at: http://www.mariadb.org/ Open MariaDB/MySQL documentation at the Knowledgebase: http://kb.askmonty.org/
participants (9)
-
Bjoern Boschman -
Colin Charles -
Diego Xirinachs -
Fabio T. Leitao -
Henrik Ingo -
Michael Widenius -
Pandu Poluan -
Stewart Smith -
Walter Heck