July 11, 2002 at 12:47 pm
I have experience with mysql and sql server, and a couple others. I am embarking on a new idea, and need to pin down the db i am going to use. I love sql server, so am trying to look at this objectionably.
It will be a fairly large database that is accessed by many different tools. Some may be websites, others small tools residing on the client to add data. Other access will be to lookup stuff, as one surfs the web. It needs to be up all the time, and easily manageable. I am a dba developer, and will be taking on this role of design and implementation, and later monitoring it and messin with it. The database will grow, and more and more functions will be added. It has the potential to be a client side server as well, for speed.
I am afraid of the cost of SQL server, because it has to have liscenses, etc for it to work. We will have multiple linked or replicated servers around the country in short order. MySql will be cheap initially, but i fear its growth potential. Sql server will be more costly up ront, but better to manage the growth in the long run.
Without letting too much more out of the bag, can you guys weigh in on your opinions???
July 11, 2002 at 2:08 pm
SQL Server will be windows license + $5k per processor to run on the Internet. Unless you have all authenticated users, then you can use CALs, but that probably won't be cheap either.
SQL Server is more robust, better recovery from failures, replication built in, scalability.
Not sure about these features for MySQL, but MySQL is basically free, especially if you run on Linux or BSD.
Steve Jones
July 11, 2002 at 2:24 pm
Replication in mysql sucks. Subscriber has to have access to the transaction log. I can certainly understand the cost factor. Agree with Steve on the rest. Paying per processor is the way to go.
Andy
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply