On 09.01.2008, at 13:51, Martin wrote:
I've been working with FrontBase a lot lately and I wouldn't say
anything about it qualifies as "incredibly easy" and reliable it
is not.
We had never ever any reliability issues with FrontBase as long as
didn't try to insert garbage. It really doesn't
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:38:43PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> >>Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
> As I said: FrontBase is offering that.
It looks like a two-phase commit answer, if I'm reading correctly. You can
do this today on many systems (including Postgres), but the
On 09.01.2008, at 13:51, Martin wrote:
I've been working with FrontBase a lot lately and I wouldn't say
anything about it qualifies as "incredibly easy" and reliable it
is not.
We had never ever any reliability issues with FrontBase as long as
didn't try to insert garbage. It really doesn't
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Guido Neitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FrontBase. It has an incredibly easy to configure replication and
>multi master clustering support, is very reliable and can also handle
>really big databases.
I've been working with FrontBase a lot lately and I wouldn'
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:45:10 -0600
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But my account rep told me it was easy, and he'd never lie to me,
> would he? <@_@>
If he uses count(*) maybe, otherwise he is locking your $.
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
--
On Jan 9, 2008 10:05 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:59:56PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> >
> > Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
>
> To my knowledge, _nobody_ actually offers that.
>
> There are three companies I know of that have don
On 09.01.2008, at 09:05, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
To my knowledge, _nobody_ actually offers that.
As I said: FrontBase is offering that.
cug
--
http://www.event-s.net
---(end of broadcast)-
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:59:56PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
>
> Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
To my knowledge, _nobody_ actually offers that.
There are three companies I know of that have done effective marketing of
systems.
Company O has a very advanced system with pl
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:37:38PM -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> Like, I have a situation where I need multi-master just for
> availability. Two small servers are good enough for that. But
> unfortunately with PostgreSQL the whole setup is a major pain in the ...
Really? I don't think a RAID
I believe I was misunderstood. The fact that a product is closed source does not
make it a better product. Some companies that are using Oracle would be better
off using PostgreSQL. Other companies that need the features that Oracle offers
would not be better off using Postgresql.
However, the
2008/1/9, Sim Zacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> The reason companies go with the closed source, expensive solutions is because
> they are better products.
Not necessarily. FOSS products don't have a selling team to persuade
and bribe people. Expensive solutions, and that is in part what make
them exp
Sim Zacks wrote:
We use postgresql because it is open source, we have in-house experience
to deal with it so we don't have any extra support costs and we don't
need the features that are offered in commercial products that
PostGreSQL does not have. We also don't need the speed that commercial
You wrote that either it is not implemented well (catastrophic data losss) or is
expensive (Oracle) or it is a monopoly (MSSQL). None of those are easy.
Expensive and monopoly don't seem to me to be non-easy, rather undesirable if
you don't need to get into it.
When someone asks a question abou
Ow Mun Heng wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 23:05 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Sim Zacks wrote:
The reason companies go with the closed source, expensive solutions is
because they are better products.
Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on your needs.
This is total FUD. Everything has a pla
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 00:24 -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> On 09.01.2008, at 00:14, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
>
> >> Like, I have a situation where I need multi-master just for
> >> availability. Two small servers are good enough for that. But
> >> unfortunately with PostgreSQL the whole setup is a major
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 00:21 -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> On 09.01.2008, at 00:08, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Great! I was just trying to show you that there was a JDBC layer
> > available for multi-mastering with PostgreSQL.
>
> When I find some time, I might dig a bit deeper in the Sequoia s
On 09.01.2008, at 00:14, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
Like, I have a situation where I need multi-master just for
availability. Two small servers are good enough for that. But
unfortunately with PostgreSQL the whole setup is a major pain in
the ...
Isn't that the reason they hire DB admins and not t
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 23:05 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Sim Zacks wrote:
>
> >
> > The reason companies go with the closed source, expensive solutions is
> > because they are better products.
>
> Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on your needs.
This is total FUD. Everything has a plac
On 09.01.2008, at 00:08, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Did you even bother to read the page?
Actually I tried but typed it in the browser and it resolved directly
to continuent.com (which I have as a bookmark) and I wasn't aware of
the Sequoia stuff anymore and combined Contiuent with uni/cluster
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 23:37 -0700, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> On 08.01.2008, at 23:20, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Like, I have a situation where I need multi-master just for
> availability. Two small servers are good enough for that. But
> unfortunately with PostgreSQL the whole setup is a major pa
Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 08.01.2008, at 23:40, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
There are OS level things you can do here.
They are normally not really easier and, more important, I don't have
them on my deployment environment.
http://www.continuent.org/HomePage
When I'm talking about two cheap ma
Sim Zacks wrote:
> That isn't really an extensibility argument. At least not in my mind.
> Further I don't know of anyone that can "easily" do it. You either
> suffer the possibility of catastrophic data loss (dolphins) or you
> suffer guaranteed bank account drainage (Oracle), or you suffer
> That isn't really an extensibility argument. At least not in my mind.
> Further I don't know of anyone that can "easily" do it. You either
> suffer the possibility of catastrophic data loss (dolphins) or you
> suffer guaranteed bank account drainage (Oracle), or you suffer the
> willingness of
On 08.01.2008, at 23:40, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
There are OS level things you can do here.
They are normally not really easier and, more important, I don't have
them on my deployment environment.
http://www.continuent.org/HomePage
When I'm talking about two cheap machines you recommend
Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 08.01.2008, at 23:20, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
That isn't really an extensibility argument.
I was thinking about that too - for me, it still is just an outstanding
issue with PostgreSQL. It is incredibly scalable on one machine but it
totally sucks when you want more,
On 08.01.2008, at 23:20, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
That isn't really an extensibility argument.
I was thinking about that too - for me, it still is just an
outstanding issue with PostgreSQL. It is incredibly scalable on one
machine but it totally sucks when you want more, but not much more.
Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 08.01.2008, at 17:36, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
2. What types of extensibility (possibly already available in
other DBMSs) are currently missing in PostgreSQL?
None that I am aware of.
Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
That isn't really an exte
On 08.01.2008, at 17:36, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
2. What types of extensibility (possibly already available in
other DBMSs) are currently missing in PostgreSQL?
None that I am aware of.
Easy multi-master clustering with just two machines.
cug
--
http://www.event-s.net
---
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 21:31, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 2. What types of extensibility (possibly already available in
> >> other DBMSs) are currently missing in PostgreSQL?
> >
> > None that I am aware of.
>
> I'm sure there are some options
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2. What types of extensibility (possibly already available in
>> other DBMSs) are currently missing in PostgreSQL?
>
> None that I am aware of.
I'm sure there are some options available in some databases which Postgres
doesn't have. Usually P
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:28:11 -0800
> Eric Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3. To what extent was your choice of PostgreSQL as a development
> > platform based primarily on its extensibility features?
>
> There is no other open source database that can compare
On Jan 8, 2008 7:36 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no other open source database that can compare with
> PostgreSQL's extensibility, reliability and scalability.
+1000
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:28:11 -0800
Eric Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The existing server extensibilities in modern DBMSs have been
> critical in our company's development of software products that
> improve database performance for certain sc
The existing server extensibilities in modern DBMSs have been
critical in our company's development of software products that
improve database performance for certain scientific computing
applications. We are planning to develop other products that will
utilize an extensible database engine, a
34 matches
Mail list logo
