<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_18_1646254</id>
	<title>First MySQL 5.5 Beta Released</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261157340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>joabj writes <i>"While MySQL is the subject of much high-profile <a href="http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2009/092209-ellison-we-wont-spin-off.html">wrangling</a> between the EU and Oracle (and the MySQL <a href="//developers.slashdot.org/story/09/12/13/1530211/Widenius-Warns-Against-MySQL-Falling-Into-Oracles-Hands">creator himself</a>), the MySQL developers have been quietly moving the widely-used database software forward. <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142461/MySQL\_developers\_release\_5.5\_beta">The new beta version of MySQL</a>, the first publicly available, features such improvements as near-asynchronous replication and more options for partitioning. A <a href="http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/Development\_Cycle">new release model</a> has been enacted as well, bequeathing this version the title of  'MySQL Server 5.5.0-m2.' <a href="http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.5.html">Downloads here</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>joabj writes " While MySQL is the subject of much high-profile wrangling between the EU and Oracle ( and the MySQL creator himself ) , the MySQL developers have been quietly moving the widely-used database software forward .
The new beta version of MySQL , the first publicly available , features such improvements as near-asynchronous replication and more options for partitioning .
A new release model has been enacted as well , bequeathing this version the title of 'MySQL Server 5.5.0-m2 .
' Downloads here .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>joabj writes "While MySQL is the subject of much high-profile wrangling between the EU and Oracle (and the MySQL creator himself), the MySQL developers have been quietly moving the widely-used database software forward.
The new beta version of MySQL, the first publicly available, features such improvements as near-asynchronous replication and more options for partitioning.
A new release model has been enacted as well, bequeathing this version the title of  'MySQL Server 5.5.0-m2.
' Downloads here.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489824</id>
	<title>The Summary should have mentioned this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261161840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>MySQL 5.5 will also support the ANSI/ISO SQL standard method of programmatically returning errors inside SQL procedures, called Signal/Resignal, which some users have called for.</p></div><p>This was never really an issue, because MySQL always had it's way of preforming whatever you needed it to do, but I used it in Oracle and it really does make a difference. Here's a link that will show you a bit of what it does, for those who don't know.</p><p>All in all, I'm glad things are moving forward. Still not the forerunner but still in the game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : MySQL 5.5 will also support the ANSI/ISO SQL standard method of programmatically returning errors inside SQL procedures , called Signal/Resignal , which some users have called for.This was never really an issue , because MySQL always had it 's way of preforming whatever you needed it to do , but I used it in Oracle and it really does make a difference .
Here 's a link that will show you a bit of what it does , for those who do n't know.All in all , I 'm glad things are moving forward .
Still not the forerunner but still in the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: MySQL 5.5 will also support the ANSI/ISO SQL standard method of programmatically returning errors inside SQL procedures, called Signal/Resignal, which some users have called for.This was never really an issue, because MySQL always had it's way of preforming whatever you needed it to do, but I used it in Oracle and it really does make a difference.
Here's a link that will show you a bit of what it does, for those who don't know.All in all, I'm glad things are moving forward.
Still not the forerunner but still in the game.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489638</id>
	<title>frist psotgres</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261161420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares?  Psotgres is miles better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares ?
Psotgres is miles better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares?
Psotgres is miles better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30497796</id>
	<title>Re:frist psotgres</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1261226580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, most desktop people who are just after ease of use end up using Excel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , most desktop people who are just after ease of use end up using Excel : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, most desktop people who are just after ease of use end up using Excel :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30514944</id>
	<title>Re:frist psotgres</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1261424220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What are the compelling differences?</p></div><p>Security. Scalability. And recently, raw performance with more much more room through to exist. Superior query plan general for non-trivial queries; which also goes to the first three items listed. Extensibility such that MySQL can't even be compared. Geospacial capabilities with indicies + ACID. PLs for stored procedures and a multitude of choices and capabilities. Real life deployments where ACID accounts; compared to MySQL where people generally use it as a large, non-ACID storage retrieval system where data inconsistencies are typically also allowed, rather than an ACID-compliant RDBMS.</p><p>In all seriousness, for the vast, vast majority of users, the only literal advantage MySQL has over PostgreSQL is DB upgrade paths, and even then, huge strides are being made on the PostgreSQL front. See <a href="http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pg-migrator/" title="pgfoundry.org">PG Migrator</a> [pgfoundry.org]. Huge improvements have been made since the 7.x days. See the <a href="http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/index.html" title="postgresql.org">docs</a> [postgresql.org] for more info.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the compelling differences ? Security .
Scalability. And recently , raw performance with more much more room through to exist .
Superior query plan general for non-trivial queries ; which also goes to the first three items listed .
Extensibility such that MySQL ca n't even be compared .
Geospacial capabilities with indicies + ACID .
PLs for stored procedures and a multitude of choices and capabilities .
Real life deployments where ACID accounts ; compared to MySQL where people generally use it as a large , non-ACID storage retrieval system where data inconsistencies are typically also allowed , rather than an ACID-compliant RDBMS.In all seriousness , for the vast , vast majority of users , the only literal advantage MySQL has over PostgreSQL is DB upgrade paths , and even then , huge strides are being made on the PostgreSQL front .
See PG Migrator [ pgfoundry.org ] .
Huge improvements have been made since the 7.x days .
See the docs [ postgresql.org ] for more info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the compelling differences?Security.
Scalability. And recently, raw performance with more much more room through to exist.
Superior query plan general for non-trivial queries; which also goes to the first three items listed.
Extensibility such that MySQL can't even be compared.
Geospacial capabilities with indicies + ACID.
PLs for stored procedures and a multitude of choices and capabilities.
Real life deployments where ACID accounts; compared to MySQL where people generally use it as a large, non-ACID storage retrieval system where data inconsistencies are typically also allowed, rather than an ACID-compliant RDBMS.In all seriousness, for the vast, vast majority of users, the only literal advantage MySQL has over PostgreSQL is DB upgrade paths, and even then, huge strides are being made on the PostgreSQL front.
See PG Migrator [pgfoundry.org].
Huge improvements have been made since the 7.x days.
See the docs [postgresql.org] for more info.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495676</id>
	<title>Re:frist psotgres</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay I'll bite.  I'm not familiar with postgresql versions since about 7.x.</p><p>From http://www.postgresql.org/about/:</p><ul><li>An enterprise class database, PostgreSQL boasts sophisticated features such as Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC), point in time recovery, tablespaces, asynchronous replication, nested transactions (savepoints), online/hot backups, a sophisticated query planner/optimizer, and write ahead logging for fault tolerance. It supports international character sets, multibyte character encodings, Unicode, and it is locale-aware for sorting, case-sensitivity, and formatting. It is highly scalable both in the sheer quantity of data it can manage and in the number of concurrent users it can accommodate. There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data. Some general PostgreSQL limits are included in the table below.</li></ul><p>Which of these are not also true of mysql?  The InnoDB storage engine also has MVCC, snapshot recovery, hot backups, etc.</p><p>What are the compelling differences?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay I 'll bite .
I 'm not familiar with postgresql versions since about 7.x.From http : //www.postgresql.org/about/ : An enterprise class database , PostgreSQL boasts sophisticated features such as Multi-Version Concurrency Control ( MVCC ) , point in time recovery , tablespaces , asynchronous replication , nested transactions ( savepoints ) , online/hot backups , a sophisticated query planner/optimizer , and write ahead logging for fault tolerance .
It supports international character sets , multibyte character encodings , Unicode , and it is locale-aware for sorting , case-sensitivity , and formatting .
It is highly scalable both in the sheer quantity of data it can manage and in the number of concurrent users it can accommodate .
There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data .
Some general PostgreSQL limits are included in the table below.Which of these are not also true of mysql ?
The InnoDB storage engine also has MVCC , snapshot recovery , hot backups , etc.What are the compelling differences ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay I'll bite.
I'm not familiar with postgresql versions since about 7.x.From http://www.postgresql.org/about/:An enterprise class database, PostgreSQL boasts sophisticated features such as Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC), point in time recovery, tablespaces, asynchronous replication, nested transactions (savepoints), online/hot backups, a sophisticated query planner/optimizer, and write ahead logging for fault tolerance.
It supports international character sets, multibyte character encodings, Unicode, and it is locale-aware for sorting, case-sensitivity, and formatting.
It is highly scalable both in the sheer quantity of data it can manage and in the number of concurrent users it can accommodate.
There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data.
Some general PostgreSQL limits are included in the table below.Which of these are not also true of mysql?
The InnoDB storage engine also has MVCC, snapshot recovery, hot backups, etc.What are the compelling differences?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490096</id>
	<title>Re:frist psotgres</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1261162740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ease of use also counts for something when working with the masses...</p></div></blockquote><p>By that metric, MS Access wins every time...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ease of use also counts for something when working with the masses...By that metric , MS Access wins every time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ease of use also counts for something when working with the masses...By that metric, MS Access wins every time...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495028</id>
	<title>near-asynchronous replication?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261141080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>implementing that must've been a tough job</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>implementing that must 've been a tough job</tokentext>
<sentencetext>implementing that must've been a tough job</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495544</id>
	<title>You keep using that word...</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1261146000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but I don't think it means what you think it means...

<p> <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/bequeath" title="answers.com">Bequeath</a> [answers.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I do n't think it means what you think it means.. . Bequeath [ answers.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I don't think it means what you think it means...

 Bequeath [answers.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30492470</id>
	<title>Re:frist psotgres</title>
	<author>PerfectionLost</author>
	<datestamp>1261127940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would bump this for humor if I could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would bump this for humor if I could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would bump this for humor if I could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489716</id>
	<title>There is too much data</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1261161600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meyerson's law states that as the ration of data to metadata approaches any Reimann prime number, the corner cases of joins and sequential transactions will become NP-hard. Meaning, throw as much new hardware as you want at the problem, even Googles new top-secret quantumn coimputer, and yyou still get the mother of all performance bottlenecks. What we need now is an intelligent data garbage-collecting system that can cull expired or redundant data points. Otherwise, humanity is doomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meyerson 's law states that as the ration of data to metadata approaches any Reimann prime number , the corner cases of joins and sequential transactions will become NP-hard .
Meaning , throw as much new hardware as you want at the problem , even Googles new top-secret quantumn coimputer , and yyou still get the mother of all performance bottlenecks .
What we need now is an intelligent data garbage-collecting system that can cull expired or redundant data points .
Otherwise , humanity is doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meyerson's law states that as the ration of data to metadata approaches any Reimann prime number, the corner cases of joins and sequential transactions will become NP-hard.
Meaning, throw as much new hardware as you want at the problem, even Googles new top-secret quantumn coimputer, and yyou still get the mother of all performance bottlenecks.
What we need now is an intelligent data garbage-collecting system that can cull expired or redundant data points.
Otherwise, humanity is doomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490990</id>
	<title>What happened to 5.4?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261165800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a beta like 9 months ago, but no cigar. Where is the final release?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a beta like 9 months ago , but no cigar .
Where is the final release ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a beta like 9 months ago, but no cigar.
Where is the final release?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490242</id>
	<title>Re:frist psotgres</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261163100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, transactions. Those are a real bitch, aren't they? I mean, they get in the way all of the time, protecting your data's integrity. We can't fucking have atomicity. No fucking way. PostgreSQL totally lacks the random and unexpected data corruption that makes MySQL great.</p><p>And foreign key constraints! Stupid little motherfuckers, preventing arbitrary data entry and orphan records. In my MySQL database, I want to insert any sort of crap I feel like, even if it violates all sorts of constraints.</p><p>The worst, though, has to be all of the index types we have available. PostgreSQL gives so many, for all sorts of data. Fuck, nobody ever has to store, say, geospatial data and access it quickly. Never!</p><p>Oh, but don't forget the powerful PL/PgSQL language for writing functions. It's just fucking stupid to isolate frequently-used code in a single location. That might actually make testing and maintenance easy. That's a big No No in the MySQL world.</p><p>Fuck, I hate all of these low-end database features that PostgreSQL offers. It makes it so much more lacking compared to MySQL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , transactions .
Those are a real bitch , are n't they ?
I mean , they get in the way all of the time , protecting your data 's integrity .
We ca n't fucking have atomicity .
No fucking way .
PostgreSQL totally lacks the random and unexpected data corruption that makes MySQL great.And foreign key constraints !
Stupid little motherfuckers , preventing arbitrary data entry and orphan records .
In my MySQL database , I want to insert any sort of crap I feel like , even if it violates all sorts of constraints.The worst , though , has to be all of the index types we have available .
PostgreSQL gives so many , for all sorts of data .
Fuck , nobody ever has to store , say , geospatial data and access it quickly .
Never ! Oh , but do n't forget the powerful PL/PgSQL language for writing functions .
It 's just fucking stupid to isolate frequently-used code in a single location .
That might actually make testing and maintenance easy .
That 's a big No No in the MySQL world.Fuck , I hate all of these low-end database features that PostgreSQL offers .
It makes it so much more lacking compared to MySQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, transactions.
Those are a real bitch, aren't they?
I mean, they get in the way all of the time, protecting your data's integrity.
We can't fucking have atomicity.
No fucking way.
PostgreSQL totally lacks the random and unexpected data corruption that makes MySQL great.And foreign key constraints!
Stupid little motherfuckers, preventing arbitrary data entry and orphan records.
In my MySQL database, I want to insert any sort of crap I feel like, even if it violates all sorts of constraints.The worst, though, has to be all of the index types we have available.
PostgreSQL gives so many, for all sorts of data.
Fuck, nobody ever has to store, say, geospatial data and access it quickly.
Never!Oh, but don't forget the powerful PL/PgSQL language for writing functions.
It's just fucking stupid to isolate frequently-used code in a single location.
That might actually make testing and maintenance easy.
That's a big No No in the MySQL world.Fuck, I hate all of these low-end database features that PostgreSQL offers.
It makes it so much more lacking compared to MySQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30514778</id>
	<title>Re:Troll, I know, but wrong decade.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1261423440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you look at the current state of data storage, the new trend is for *less* features and for more speed, concurrency, throughput and *eventual consistency*.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Speed, concurrency, throughput, distributability, scalability, etc. are all features. So its not "less features" but "a different mix of features".</p><p>And, actually, the trend of having new DBs that sacrifice ACID features for speed and performance features, which then evolve to have ACID features added in as people build bigger systems with them and realize the cost of not having ACID guarantees is not new -- the whole history of MySQL is an illustration of that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the current state of data storage , the new trend is for * less * features and for more speed , concurrency , throughput and * eventual consistency * .
Speed , concurrency , throughput , distributability , scalability , etc .
are all features .
So its not " less features " but " a different mix of features " .And , actually , the trend of having new DBs that sacrifice ACID features for speed and performance features , which then evolve to have ACID features added in as people build bigger systems with them and realize the cost of not having ACID guarantees is not new -- the whole history of MySQL is an illustration of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the current state of data storage, the new trend is for *less* features and for more speed, concurrency, throughput and *eventual consistency*.
Speed, concurrency, throughput, distributability, scalability, etc.
are all features.
So its not "less features" but "a different mix of features".And, actually, the trend of having new DBs that sacrifice ACID features for speed and performance features, which then evolve to have ACID features added in as people build bigger systems with them and realize the cost of not having ACID guarantees is not new -- the whole history of MySQL is an illustration of that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30494120</id>
	<title>Re:Troll, I know, but wrong decade.</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1261135500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Any DB engine can do that. Just do a minimal install, remove all constraints and stop transaction logging. You'll be amazed how fast a DB engine can run.</p><p>BTW, *eventual* consistency is an oxymoron. Once it's gone it is gone. Unless you do a total wipe of all the tables and then reload them from the original data sources. Once a DB is corrupted, good luck cleaning it up. As many victims of identity theft have learned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Any DB engine can do that .
Just do a minimal install , remove all constraints and stop transaction logging .
You 'll be amazed how fast a DB engine can run.BTW , * eventual * consistency is an oxymoron .
Once it 's gone it is gone .
Unless you do a total wipe of all the tables and then reload them from the original data sources .
Once a DB is corrupted , good luck cleaning it up .
As many victims of identity theft have learned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Any DB engine can do that.
Just do a minimal install, remove all constraints and stop transaction logging.
You'll be amazed how fast a DB engine can run.BTW, *eventual* consistency is an oxymoron.
Once it's gone it is gone.
Unless you do a total wipe of all the tables and then reload them from the original data sources.
Once a DB is corrupted, good luck cleaning it up.
As many victims of identity theft have learned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490760</id>
	<title>Re:Have they fixed NDBCLUSTER yet?</title>
	<author>TheLinuxSRC</author>
	<datestamp>1261164960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are you using to cluster Postgres? I have looked at a couple of options <a href="http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Replication,\_Clustering,\_and\_Connection\_Pooling" title="postgresql.org">here</a> [postgresql.org] but didn't see an open source solution that was current and able to handle multi-master synchronous replication with some sort of automatic failover.<br> <br>Thanks for your response!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you using to cluster Postgres ?
I have looked at a couple of options here [ postgresql.org ] but did n't see an open source solution that was current and able to handle multi-master synchronous replication with some sort of automatic failover .
Thanks for your response !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you using to cluster Postgres?
I have looked at a couple of options here [postgresql.org] but didn't see an open source solution that was current and able to handle multi-master synchronous replication with some sort of automatic failover.
Thanks for your response!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490484</id>
	<title>Choose: Referential Integrity or Partitioning</title>
	<author>w\_mute</author>
	<datestamp>1261163940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still no support for foreign keys in partitioned tables.  Makes partitioning pretty much worthless in most real world deployments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still no support for foreign keys in partitioned tables .
Makes partitioning pretty much worthless in most real world deployments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still no support for foreign keys in partitioned tables.
Makes partitioning pretty much worthless in most real world deployments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495002</id>
	<title>Near-asynchronous?</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1261140720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that supposed to be near-synchronous?  What the hell is "near-asynchrynous"?  I don't even see how "near-asynchronous" would be possible.  If you aren't synchronous, you're asynchronous, and it's just a matter of how far away from synchronous you are.  That's like saying "he's traveling at near-not-the-speed-of-light".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that supposed to be near-synchronous ?
What the hell is " near-asynchrynous " ?
I do n't even see how " near-asynchronous " would be possible .
If you are n't synchronous , you 're asynchronous , and it 's just a matter of how far away from synchronous you are .
That 's like saying " he 's traveling at near-not-the-speed-of-light " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that supposed to be near-synchronous?
What the hell is "near-asynchrynous"?
I don't even see how "near-asynchronous" would be possible.
If you aren't synchronous, you're asynchronous, and it's just a matter of how far away from synchronous you are.
That's like saying "he's traveling at near-not-the-speed-of-light".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489796</id>
	<title>semi-synchronous replication</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261161780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"near-asynchronous replication" is wrong, should be "semi-synchronous replication" as stated in the article. Striving for almost having replication asynchronous sounds like a poor implementation of synchronous replication<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" near-asynchronous replication " is wrong , should be " semi-synchronous replication " as stated in the article .
Striving for almost having replication asynchronous sounds like a poor implementation of synchronous replication : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"near-asynchronous replication" is wrong, should be "semi-synchronous replication" as stated in the article.
Striving for almost having replication asynchronous sounds like a poor implementation of synchronous replication :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489704</id>
	<title>Editor Fail</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1261161600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Downloads are <b>not</b> here. Might try actually putting a full URL in there instead of <tt>MySQLServer5.5.0-m2</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Downloads are not here .
Might try actually putting a full URL in there instead of MySQLServer5.5.0-m2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Downloads are not here.
Might try actually putting a full URL in there instead of MySQLServer5.5.0-m2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30492946</id>
	<title>Seems Odd to me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261129920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5.5 Still Betaware? Will they label it with number 6 when it finally come out of beta closet? Well similar numbering scheme as Kernel had some time ago... but with MySQL it seems to be he major number that counts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5.5 Still Betaware ?
Will they label it with number 6 when it finally come out of beta closet ?
Well similar numbering scheme as Kernel had some time ago... but with MySQL it seems to be he major number that counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5.5 Still Betaware?
Will they label it with number 6 when it finally come out of beta closet?
Well similar numbering scheme as Kernel had some time ago... but with MySQL it seems to be he major number that counts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490584</id>
	<title>Re:frist psotgres</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1261164300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What ease of use issues? That hasn't been an issue in years. PostgreSQL is well supported even on Windows these days.</p><p>For the vast majority of users, PostgreSQL scales better, has far more features, supports far more PLs, is technically more advanced, has a vastly superior query optimizer, is more stable, is well supported, and doesn't have the politics surrounding it like MySQL does. Even better, it teaches proper ANSI SQL which carries over to any number of other engines, excepting MySQL.</p><p>Given there are no ease of use issues and all the above, why would any sane person care about MySQL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ease of use issues ?
That has n't been an issue in years .
PostgreSQL is well supported even on Windows these days.For the vast majority of users , PostgreSQL scales better , has far more features , supports far more PLs , is technically more advanced , has a vastly superior query optimizer , is more stable , is well supported , and does n't have the politics surrounding it like MySQL does .
Even better , it teaches proper ANSI SQL which carries over to any number of other engines , excepting MySQL.Given there are no ease of use issues and all the above , why would any sane person care about MySQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ease of use issues?
That hasn't been an issue in years.
PostgreSQL is well supported even on Windows these days.For the vast majority of users, PostgreSQL scales better, has far more features, supports far more PLs, is technically more advanced, has a vastly superior query optimizer, is more stable, is well supported, and doesn't have the politics surrounding it like MySQL does.
Even better, it teaches proper ANSI SQL which carries over to any number of other engines, excepting MySQL.Given there are no ease of use issues and all the above, why would any sane person care about MySQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495776</id>
	<title>Re:Have they fixed NDBCLUSTER yet?</title>
	<author>codealot</author>
	<datestamp>1261148160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NDB releases basically forked from mainline MySQL.  Latest is NDB 7.x, which is actually very good at what it does.  Not *quite* ready for what we need but getting very close.  ALTER ONLINE is a nifty feature... I've used it to add/drop indexes on the fly from tables in continuous use.</p><p>Earlier releases of NDB required that all indexes and data fit in main memory, but that has been remedied with disk data tables.  Currently, disk data tables can only store fixed-length data (all strings are padded to their full length).  Once that limitation is addressed, I'll be ready to look at it again.</p><p>If you applications need frequent table scans, forget about NDBCLUSTER.  If however you meticulously access all your data by primary key, I find NDB scales just fine with workload.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NDB releases basically forked from mainline MySQL .
Latest is NDB 7.x , which is actually very good at what it does .
Not * quite * ready for what we need but getting very close .
ALTER ONLINE is a nifty feature... I 've used it to add/drop indexes on the fly from tables in continuous use.Earlier releases of NDB required that all indexes and data fit in main memory , but that has been remedied with disk data tables .
Currently , disk data tables can only store fixed-length data ( all strings are padded to their full length ) .
Once that limitation is addressed , I 'll be ready to look at it again.If you applications need frequent table scans , forget about NDBCLUSTER .
If however you meticulously access all your data by primary key , I find NDB scales just fine with workload .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NDB releases basically forked from mainline MySQL.
Latest is NDB 7.x, which is actually very good at what it does.
Not *quite* ready for what we need but getting very close.
ALTER ONLINE is a nifty feature... I've used it to add/drop indexes on the fly from tables in continuous use.Earlier releases of NDB required that all indexes and data fit in main memory, but that has been remedied with disk data tables.
Currently, disk data tables can only store fixed-length data (all strings are padded to their full length).
Once that limitation is addressed, I'll be ready to look at it again.If you applications need frequent table scans, forget about NDBCLUSTER.
If however you meticulously access all your data by primary key, I find NDB scales just fine with workload.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491330</id>
	<title>Troll, I know, but wrong decade.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261167120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look at the current state of data storage, the new trend is for *less* features and for more speed, concurrency, throughput and *eventual consistency*. So not supporting strict ACID and/or parts of ANSI SQL can allow databases to perform faster.  Really depends on what you want to do with your data. No more one-size fits all db anymore. Even Oracle has different versions ( with a huge variance in price) for different use cases. <br> <br>
So depending on your use case, you can still make fun of it for not supporting many features, or for supporting too many features.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the current state of data storage , the new trend is for * less * features and for more speed , concurrency , throughput and * eventual consistency * .
So not supporting strict ACID and/or parts of ANSI SQL can allow databases to perform faster .
Really depends on what you want to do with your data .
No more one-size fits all db anymore .
Even Oracle has different versions ( with a huge variance in price ) for different use cases .
So depending on your use case , you can still make fun of it for not supporting many features , or for supporting too many features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the current state of data storage, the new trend is for *less* features and for more speed, concurrency, throughput and *eventual consistency*.
So not supporting strict ACID and/or parts of ANSI SQL can allow databases to perform faster.
Really depends on what you want to do with your data.
No more one-size fits all db anymore.
Even Oracle has different versions ( with a huge variance in price) for different use cases.
So depending on your use case, you can still make fun of it for not supporting many features, or for supporting too many features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491956</id>
	<title>Re:Have they fixed NDBCLUSTER yet?</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1261169460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree about the HA and if you've got a highly transactional application and need enterprise grade fail-over Oracle RAC or some variation of PostgreSQL might work great for you. But for many people MySQL is still a good option and has some nice/useful features (online fs-based backups sans datapump, previously mentioned replication). There's also an amazing amount of information available about MySQL tailored to just about any skill-level, including a number of alternative approaches to HA.
<br> <br>
My current project is taking advantage of sphinx, which makes nice use of MySQL and my previous project involved using a combination of replication and sharding to improve reliability and write throughput. Oracle scales nicely across multiple cpus, but because of licensing eventually our growth was limited by database costs. Both Postgre and MySQL have been welcome solutions with my personal preference being MySQL mostly for familiarity and built-in replication.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree about the HA and if you 've got a highly transactional application and need enterprise grade fail-over Oracle RAC or some variation of PostgreSQL might work great for you .
But for many people MySQL is still a good option and has some nice/useful features ( online fs-based backups sans datapump , previously mentioned replication ) .
There 's also an amazing amount of information available about MySQL tailored to just about any skill-level , including a number of alternative approaches to HA .
My current project is taking advantage of sphinx , which makes nice use of MySQL and my previous project involved using a combination of replication and sharding to improve reliability and write throughput .
Oracle scales nicely across multiple cpus , but because of licensing eventually our growth was limited by database costs .
Both Postgre and MySQL have been welcome solutions with my personal preference being MySQL mostly for familiarity and built-in replication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree about the HA and if you've got a highly transactional application and need enterprise grade fail-over Oracle RAC or some variation of PostgreSQL might work great for you.
But for many people MySQL is still a good option and has some nice/useful features (online fs-based backups sans datapump, previously mentioned replication).
There's also an amazing amount of information available about MySQL tailored to just about any skill-level, including a number of alternative approaches to HA.
My current project is taking advantage of sphinx, which makes nice use of MySQL and my previous project involved using a combination of replication and sharding to improve reliability and write throughput.
Oracle scales nicely across multiple cpus, but because of licensing eventually our growth was limited by database costs.
Both Postgre and MySQL have been welcome solutions with my personal preference being MySQL mostly for familiarity and built-in replication.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489574</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261161180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has it now moved the 2000s in terms of features now?  Or can I still poke fun at for being the kid on the bus who is just a little slower than the rest of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has it now moved the 2000s in terms of features now ?
Or can I still poke fun at for being the kid on the bus who is just a little slower than the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has it now moved the 2000s in terms of features now?
Or can I still poke fun at for being the kid on the bus who is just a little slower than the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490166</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261162920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how they came to <i>select all</i> of the features in this current build.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how they came to select all of the features in this current build .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how they came to select all of the features in this current build.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30496208</id>
	<title>Haven't even touched 5.1.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261152780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding me? With the crap they pulled with the buggy and rushed 5.1 release, I don't see our company touching any version &gt; 5.0.x with a 10 foot pole anytime soon. Our production servers are still running 5.0.x, and that will remain the case for a long long time thanks to the garbage they've been tossing around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding me ?
With the crap they pulled with the buggy and rushed 5.1 release , I do n't see our company touching any version &gt; 5.0.x with a 10 foot pole anytime soon .
Our production servers are still running 5.0.x , and that will remain the case for a long long time thanks to the garbage they 've been tossing around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding me?
With the crap they pulled with the buggy and rushed 5.1 release, I don't see our company touching any version &gt; 5.0.x with a 10 foot pole anytime soon.
Our production servers are still running 5.0.x, and that will remain the case for a long long time thanks to the garbage they've been tossing around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491490</id>
	<title>Re:Troll, I know, but wrong decade.</title>
	<author>LOLLinux</author>
	<datestamp>1261167780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So not supporting strict ACID and/or parts of ANSI SQL can allow databases to perform faster.</p></div><p>Yeah and who needs dumb things like data consistency and prevention of data corruption?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So not supporting strict ACID and/or parts of ANSI SQL can allow databases to perform faster.Yeah and who needs dumb things like data consistency and prevention of data corruption ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So not supporting strict ACID and/or parts of ANSI SQL can allow databases to perform faster.Yeah and who needs dumb things like data consistency and prevention of data corruption?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490986</id>
	<title>Re:frist psotgres</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1261165740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe it's just me, but I find 'Psotgres' to be far lacking compared to mysql.</p> </div><p>Factually, its just you. The fact is, MySQL is horribly lacking compared to PostgreSQL. MySQL is constantly chasing PostgreSQL's feature set. That's the facts. No trolling required.</p><p>Why do you think so many PostgreSQL supports are so rabid about how inferior MySQL is in just about every metric that matters for a RDBMS? Its like constantly watching <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford\_Pinto" title="wikipedia.org">Pinto</a> [wikipedia.org] owners rave about how great their car is when for the same money they could have gotten just about anything else and been better off, not to mention safer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's just me , but I find 'Psotgres ' to be far lacking compared to mysql .
Factually , its just you .
The fact is , MySQL is horribly lacking compared to PostgreSQL .
MySQL is constantly chasing PostgreSQL 's feature set .
That 's the facts .
No trolling required.Why do you think so many PostgreSQL supports are so rabid about how inferior MySQL is in just about every metric that matters for a RDBMS ?
Its like constantly watching Pinto [ wikipedia.org ] owners rave about how great their car is when for the same money they could have gotten just about anything else and been better off , not to mention safer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's just me, but I find 'Psotgres' to be far lacking compared to mysql.
Factually, its just you.
The fact is, MySQL is horribly lacking compared to PostgreSQL.
MySQL is constantly chasing PostgreSQL's feature set.
That's the facts.
No trolling required.Why do you think so many PostgreSQL supports are so rabid about how inferior MySQL is in just about every metric that matters for a RDBMS?
Its like constantly watching Pinto [wikipedia.org] owners rave about how great their car is when for the same money they could have gotten just about anything else and been better off, not to mention safer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30494800</id>
	<title>Re:frist psotgres</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261139280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Ease of use also counts for something when working with the masses...</p></div></blockquote><p>By that metric, MS Access wins every time...</p></div><p>very few people realize that when used correctly--that is, as a vb front-end for a sql server backend--nothing beats access for rad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ease of use also counts for something when working with the masses...By that metric , MS Access wins every time...very few people realize that when used correctly--that is , as a vb front-end for a sql server backend--nothing beats access for rad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ease of use also counts for something when working with the masses...By that metric, MS Access wins every time...very few people realize that when used correctly--that is, as a vb front-end for a sql server backend--nothing beats access for rad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489900</id>
	<title>Have they fixed NDBCLUSTER yet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261162140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last two times I tested it for a true shared-nothing HA cluster, NDBCLUSTER failed miserably without a lot of tweaking.  The optimizer was buggy to the point of being broken.  And basically the response I got from MySQL AB at the time was, "If you want to use NDBCLUSTER, you'd better get the Enterprise Support Package".  After pricing out what it would cost in support from MySQL AB AND the cost of having to go through and rewrite a bunch of our code to optimize it, it was cheaper to buy DB2.</p><p>Company I work for now uses PostgreSQL for main product lines.  But two of their package are third party and use MySQL including their billing system.  It works, but as it stands right now, neither of those systems are being taxed on a Dual-Quad Core DB server with 12GB RAM.  In fact, it barely runs at 5\% of resource utilization.  We still use MySQL for one of our website's CMS.  And it does the job well.</p><p>MySQL works well up until you need more than one box.  Replication can work in some circumstances, but as a HA solution, it looses any advantages it had in terms of cost vs. extremely proven and reliable systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last two times I tested it for a true shared-nothing HA cluster , NDBCLUSTER failed miserably without a lot of tweaking .
The optimizer was buggy to the point of being broken .
And basically the response I got from MySQL AB at the time was , " If you want to use NDBCLUSTER , you 'd better get the Enterprise Support Package " .
After pricing out what it would cost in support from MySQL AB AND the cost of having to go through and rewrite a bunch of our code to optimize it , it was cheaper to buy DB2.Company I work for now uses PostgreSQL for main product lines .
But two of their package are third party and use MySQL including their billing system .
It works , but as it stands right now , neither of those systems are being taxed on a Dual-Quad Core DB server with 12GB RAM .
In fact , it barely runs at 5 \ % of resource utilization .
We still use MySQL for one of our website 's CMS .
And it does the job well.MySQL works well up until you need more than one box .
Replication can work in some circumstances , but as a HA solution , it looses any advantages it had in terms of cost vs. extremely proven and reliable systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last two times I tested it for a true shared-nothing HA cluster, NDBCLUSTER failed miserably without a lot of tweaking.
The optimizer was buggy to the point of being broken.
And basically the response I got from MySQL AB at the time was, "If you want to use NDBCLUSTER, you'd better get the Enterprise Support Package".
After pricing out what it would cost in support from MySQL AB AND the cost of having to go through and rewrite a bunch of our code to optimize it, it was cheaper to buy DB2.Company I work for now uses PostgreSQL for main product lines.
But two of their package are third party and use MySQL including their billing system.
It works, but as it stands right now, neither of those systems are being taxed on a Dual-Quad Core DB server with 12GB RAM.
In fact, it barely runs at 5\% of resource utilization.
We still use MySQL for one of our website's CMS.
And it does the job well.MySQL works well up until you need more than one box.
Replication can work in some circumstances, but as a HA solution, it looses any advantages it had in terms of cost vs. extremely proven and reliable systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30497672</id>
	<title>Re:Have they fixed NDBCLUSTER yet?</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1261223460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about using DRBD for <a href="http://www.mysql.com/products/enterprise/drbd.html" title="mysql.com">Mysql High Availability clustering</a> [mysql.com] instead of NDBCLUSTER?  In a nutshell, one DB instance is used to handle writes and this is synchronously replicated to a Heartbeat cluster standby node using DRBD.   Asynchronous replication to more DBs handle all the reads (with load balancing between them).   Use Sharding to scale out when you need more capacity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about using DRBD for Mysql High Availability clustering [ mysql.com ] instead of NDBCLUSTER ?
In a nutshell , one DB instance is used to handle writes and this is synchronously replicated to a Heartbeat cluster standby node using DRBD .
Asynchronous replication to more DBs handle all the reads ( with load balancing between them ) .
Use Sharding to scale out when you need more capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about using DRBD for Mysql High Availability clustering [mysql.com] instead of NDBCLUSTER?
In a nutshell, one DB instance is used to handle writes and this is synchronously replicated to a Heartbeat cluster standby node using DRBD.
Asynchronous replication to more DBs handle all the reads (with load balancing between them).
Use Sharding to scale out when you need more capacity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826</id>
	<title>Re:frist psotgres</title>
	<author>rfelsburg</author>
	<datestamp>1261161900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's just me, but I find 'Psotgres' to be far lacking compared to mysql. Ease of use also counts for something when working  with the masses...and yes I am making fun of your inability to spell the very product you're trying to troll with.

Fun times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's just me , but I find 'Psotgres ' to be far lacking compared to mysql .
Ease of use also counts for something when working with the masses...and yes I am making fun of your inability to spell the very product you 're trying to troll with .
Fun times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's just me, but I find 'Psotgres' to be far lacking compared to mysql.
Ease of use also counts for something when working  with the masses...and yes I am making fun of your inability to spell the very product you're trying to troll with.
Fun times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495166</id>
	<title>Minus 3, TroLl)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261142160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Development. BSD you to join the [amazingkreskin.cOm\] Is ingesting A previously whole has lost I won't bore you</htmltext>
<tokenext>Development .
BSD you to join the [ amazingkreskin.cOm \ ] Is ingesting A previously whole has lost I wo n't bore you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Development.
BSD you to join the [amazingkreskin.cOm\] Is ingesting A previously whole has lost I won't bore you</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30496274</id>
	<title>Near-asynchronous replication is a disappointment</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1261153800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
MySQL <b>already has</b> perfect asynchronous master-slave replication through binary logging.
</p><p>
What's hard is <b>synchronous replication</b> it would be a very useful enhancement if 5.5 had a reliable synchronous replication option, and supported clustering, failover/hot-standby, and  failed-node recovery/resynch.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL already has perfect asynchronous master-slave replication through binary logging .
What 's hard is synchronous replication it would be a very useful enhancement if 5.5 had a reliable synchronous replication option , and supported clustering , failover/hot-standby , and failed-node recovery/resynch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
MySQL already has perfect asynchronous master-slave replication through binary logging.
What's hard is synchronous replication it would be a very useful enhancement if 5.5 had a reliable synchronous replication option, and supported clustering, failover/hot-standby, and  failed-node recovery/resynch.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491102</id>
	<title>CoJ3k</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261166160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">followe3. Obvious7y</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>followe3 .
Obvious7y [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>followe3.
Obvious7y [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30494120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30514778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30514944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30492470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30497796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30494800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1646254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30497672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30492946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30494800
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30492470
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30497796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490986
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495676
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30514944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30495776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30497672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30490166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30496274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1646254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30489574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30514778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30494120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1646254.30491490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
