NYCPHP Meetup

[Ophir Prusak]

You should read the database showdown article in eweek:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,293,00.asp

In a recent database (feb 2002) benchmark test performed by Ziff Davis Media
Inc., the company behind PC Magazine, eWeek and other well-known
publications, MySQL stands out as a winner. MySQL is presented as having the
overall best performance and scalability along with Oracle9i. Also, MySQL
excelled in stability, ease of tuning and connectivity. Considering pricing
and ease of use, this further strengthens MySQL as being the database server
of choice for price-efficient, high-performance web use.

The databases tested were: DB2 7.2, MS SQL Server 2000, MySQL-Max 4.0.1,
Oracle9i 9.0.1.1.1 and Sybase ASE 12.5.0.1.

Read more about the benchmark test in eWeek:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,293,00.asp


----- Original Message -----

From: "Kyle Tuskey" <ktuskey at exostream.com>
To: "NYPHP Talk" <talk at nyphp.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: [nycphp-talk] Scaling LAMP Architecture


> David,
>
> MySQL lacks in quite a few areas.
>
> 1) It has poor performance under heavy loads
> 2) It lacks key functionality
> 3) Data integrity is currently a big problem
> 4) Large amounts of data are handled poorly
> 5) It lacks replication and other enterprise level features
> 6) Backup and recovery features could use improvement
>
> Just use MySQL for a while and try to do anything like a join on more
> than two tables.  It chokes.  Other databases are built to handle real
> and heavy processing, whereas MySQL is built for smaller needs.  Some
> will argue the de-normalizing data is always the way to go anyway, but
> unless you are data warehousing there is no need to do it.  It just
> creates poor database design.  You might be able to get away with using
> MySQL on some heavier projects, but that doesn't make it the right tool
> for the job.  As for your enterprise question, I classify enterprise
> level as an application (this is not limited to web applications) that
> is currently or possibly going to be under heavy load and needs to be
> distributed over multiple machines effectively.  The application needs
> to be scalable to decrease the risk of poor application performance with
> increasing loads.  As I said this is often misclassified because people
> throw the word around without cause.  Most applications don't have
> enterprise needs, which makes PHP a great choice for development.
>
>
>
> Kyle
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Sklar [mailto:sklar at sklar.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:26 AM
> To: NYPHP Talk
> Subject: RE: [nycphp-talk] Scaling LAMP Architecture
>
> > From: Kyle Tuskey [mailto:ktuskey at exostream.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:20 AM
> >
> > You can scale LAMP (minus MySQL which is barely a database) to some
> > degree, but it isn't really the best way to approach it.  PHP was not
> > built to be an enterprise language.  The lack of the N-Tier model
> makes
> > it great for most sites, but true enterprise level needs would be
> better
> > approached with J2EE or .Net.  Using .Net or J2EE (Java) will make the
> > final solution much easier to use, manage, scale, and deploy.  Though
> > the word "enterprise" is thrown around too much and often isn't used
> > accurately, applications that truly are enterprise do need to take
> into
> > account a lot of the advantages of the N-Tier model.  PHP has XML-RPC
> to
> > all remote calls in a distributed architecture if I remember
> correctly,
> > but it isn't very efficient.  For instance, Java's RMI (Remote Method
> > Invocation) implementation is much more robust for this purpose.  If
> you
> > must use PHP for an enterprise solution, use a strong RDBMS (MySQL is
> > definitely not in this category) and some form of load balancing or
> > clustering as opposed to an attempted distributed architecture w/ PHP.
>
> So, Kyle, what is "true enterprise level," then? A billion pageviews per
> month? The 800B PV/month Ophir cited at CCI works out to about
> 300/second,
> and I presume that doesn't include images or other static objects.
>
> Tell me, where is the point that MySQL breaks down? Traffic?
> Functionality?
> I admit, MySQL doesn't have, say, the World's Greatest parallel
> hot-failover
> technology, but I don't think anyone would classify Oracle's efforts in
> this
> regard in that way either.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using the right tool for the job, and
> MySQL
> or PHP or Linux or Apache aren't each the right tool for every job. But
> if
> you're going to insist that PHP or MySQL has problems, please point out
> actual problems, instead of vague assertions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Unsubscribe at http://nyphp.org/list ---
>
>
>
>