Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 02:26:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Eventy One on 11/06/2009 02:31:35 As far as I've seen MySQL 5.x's performance is far better than MySQL 4.x's which would have been around when EVE started. Although MSSQL outperformed MySQL 4, it didn't so by much, but as far as I can tell MySQL 5.x's performance is generally better than MSSQL's especially on 64-bit machines.
But with MySQL 5.x ability to change out table formats (MyISAM, BerkeleyDB) gives MySQL 5.x the ability to use MyISAM rather than the default BerkeleyDB. MyISAM is far more efficient, being more compact on disk and less demand on CPU cycle / memory why stick with MSSQL? Is the idea of converting tables from MSSQL over to MySQL too frightening or is there some other reason? (I would think stackless python would work faster on a *nix machine also)
It would seem to be in-line with your policy of "need for speed", so its reasonable to ask why you're not moving in this direction.
PS CCP Valar, your old Jove character was better than your current one.
|
Agent Known
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 02:38:00 -
[2]
Because the change from MSSQL to MySQL would be too drastic (considering they used it prior to MySQL's superior speed), or because they love blaming Microsoft for things that go wrong when the server dies.
|
Etien Aldragoran
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 02:42:00 -
[3]
partnerships.
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 02:53:00 -
[4]
MySQL has come a long way but at the end of the day MSSQL is still a tried-and-tested enterprise-level solution. |
Dirk Magnum
Royal Hiigaran Navy SCUM.
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 02:57:00 -
[5]
MySQL failure = modget |
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 03:11:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Durzel MySQL has come a long way but at the end of the day MSSQL is still a tried-and-tested enterprise-level solution.
I could have swore - it appeared as though you were suggesting MySQL wasn't enterprise grade.
I must be mistaken. |
Crackzilla
The Shadow Order
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 03:16:00 -
[7]
Its a lot of risk with limited benefit.
You can't swap out one sql db for another on a complex system. All of the views/stored procedure & performance stuff has to be reviewed and usually rewritten. Effectively the entire database access layer has to be redone.
MySQL simply isn't fast enough to justify the risks. |
ZW Dewitt
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 03:29:00 -
[8]
Support.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 03:40:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Durzel MySQL has come a long way but at the end of the day MSSQL is still a tried-and-tested enterprise-level solution.
Originally by: ZW Dewitt Support.
These. ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
SpaceSquirrels
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 04:44:00 -
[10]
Speed reward vs cost to replace. + cost vs risk and reliability. Possible established contracts. |
|
Amitious Turkey
Gallente Ammo Tech Inc
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 04:53:00 -
[11]
Uhh, what?
I feel like I stepped into a nerddiscussion?
My sig was fail, but now it isn't.
Originally by: CCP Navigator We love you all as well <3
GO NAVIGATOR <3 |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 05:28:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Amitious Turkey Uhh, what?
I feel like I stepped into a nerddiscussion?
translation: its just the discussion of the old folks-wisdom "never change a running system"
Forge '07 on Sale
|
Cpl Feld
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 05:45:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Cpl Feld on 11/06/2009 05:48:19 Edited by: Cpl Feld on 11/06/2009 05:47:18 Because, you know, if they actually cared about switching to a database, they wouldn't switch to one that doesn't support ACID transactions, or has a history of data corruption /ticking timebomb bugs.
examples: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6295 http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=9622
just go search the bugs and look how many are open from 5+ years ago.
If they were going to switch databases and they had half a brain they'd go to Postgres. Always want correctness before performance, and btw, Postgres 8.3+ performance rocks.
edit: not to mention the fact that MySQL's future is uncertain with Oracle buying it and certainly going to neuter it so it will never be able to compete with their flagship product, and Monty forking it so he can do as he wishes with it. |
Bad Harlequin
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 05:45:00 -
[14]
Erm. I love MySQL and all, but i would like to see the benchmarks you're using that would be comparable to the scale CCP would need to have it at. "Generally better" at the level I'm using it at, yes. But this is very specific, and a very large industry-news-making database we're talking about here.
And totally agree about the old Jove dev toons.
|
Qual
Gallente Cornexant Research
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 06:37:00 -
[15]
MySQL is (very) strong in a very specific area: As a web backend SQL server. My guess is that whatever benchmarks you have seen where based on that type of operations.
For something like the eve cluster you would want something like MSSQL or Oracle, to delevier better allround performance. Non of the open source solutions can really compete all round as they are mostly specialized towards more specific tasks that they do really well. |
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 06:43:00 -
[16]
"Ya dance with the one that bring ya"
MSSQL is a proven large enterprise proven technology. Not perfect but when CCP had to choose a technology it was a good choice. To change now would be a lot of work for very little expected gain.
In reality the best way to have performant DB back end is more about architecture and design than the underlying SQL engine.
Issler |
Spurty
Caldari Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 07:14:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Spurty on 11/06/2009 07:14:23
Originally by: Issler Dainze "Ya dance with the one that bring ya"
MSSQL is a proven large enterprise proven technology. Not perfect but when CCP had to choose a technology it was a good choice. To change now would be a lot of work for very little expected gain.
In reality the best way to have performant DB back end is more about architecture and design than the underlying SQL engine.
Issler
I work for a company that sells databases at the heart of their product, *THIS* is how I feel (even though I'd love to be able to say I work on the product that beats at the heart of EVE ONLINE, I'd sooner CCP just tweaked what they have).
|
Aodha Khan
Minmatar Cruoris Seraphim Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 07:44:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Eventy One but as far as I can tell MySQL 5.x's performance is generally better than MSSQL's especially on 64-bit machines.
You base this on what official 3rd party benchmarks? Or...you base it on your religious fervour?
Check transaction processing council benchmarks. Guess what? MSSQL wins.. |
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 08:13:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Amitious Turkey Uhh, what?
I feel like I stepped into a nerddiscussion?
You should've known what you were getting into when you clicked the thread title. What did you think "MSSQL vs MySQL" would be about?
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 08:59:00 -
[20]
LOL, MySQL. Even the large crowd of mostly ignorant (of deeper technical issues) amateur web developers is slowly turning to better solutions i.e. PostgreSQL. MySQL is a glorified key/value store and cannot really compete with real RDBMs for complex queries and OLTP workloads. Last time I checked, it was either fast (for simple queries) or (allegedly) ACID, but not both. Also, it has always lacked some features that real RDBMs have provided for many years (5.x finally added some of these).
That said, it's adequate for a client/server based data store with a powerful query language if you have no particular concerns about data integrity.
|
|
Ptarmigent
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 09:38:00 -
[21]
Why??
Simple, if it ain't broke ... don't fix it! Besides TQ isn't just some ha'penny webserver, its practically a super computer. |
Dead6re
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 09:45:00 -
[22]
CCP most likely have a contract with Microsoft who have probably optimized the operating system and MSSQL which therefore means it will perform better than the benchmarks provided by others. |
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 09:51:00 -
[23]
tl;dr: "MySQL 5.0 New Features: Stored Procedures"
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 15:23:00 -
[24]
Anyone who says "MySQL simply isn't fast enough to justify the risks" either hasn't looked at MySQL (recently) or hasn't bench-marked it against other DBs.
MySQL is more versatile, and I personally believe more extensible, than MSSQL all while being more efficient.
I'm still curious to know what internal discussions the CCP DB folks have on the matter. |
Haks'he Lirky
Durgarnir
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 15:32:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Eventy One Edited by: Eventy One on 11/06/2009 15:28:00 Anyone who says "MySQL simply isn't fast enough to justify the risks" either hasn't looked at MySQL (recently) or hasn't bench-marked it against other DBs.
MySQL is more versatile, and I personally believe more extensible, than MSSQL all while being more efficient. (I should note too - that I didn't raise the idea of Postgres, but ya Postgres would get my vote also)
I'm still curious to know what internal discussions the CCP DB folks have on the matter.
My company sells a product towards the enterprise market, the only times we encounter the question "why do you not support MySQL?" is when dealing with smaller companies or non windows companies.
It's not about performance only, it's about tradition, trained techies all ready on site and other factors.
If MySQL is going to get more than a marginal piece of the Enterprise market then time is going to be the largest factor.
And if it matters, the reason why we do not support MySQL is simply the lack of Business cases (=sales) vs Development time.
|
SpaceSquirrels
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 15:32:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Eventy One Anyone who says "MySQL simply isn't fast enough to justify the risks" either hasn't looked at MySQL (recently) or hasn't bench-marked it against other DBs.
MySQL is more versatile, and I personally believe more extensible, than MSSQL all while being more efficient.
I'm still curious to know what internal discussions the CCP DB folks have on the matter.
I don't mean to sound to much like an A-hole, but that's just your opinion. You're some random guy on the ol interwebs. What are your qualifications, experience etc in the "the biz"? If you are in the IT field you should know platforms deployed on a scale required such as eve there's more involved than just speed, and cost. Maybe you are in fact right about this however as this an MMO game forum you have 0 credibility like everyone else here. You also sound like a salesman at this point as well. _________________________ HATERS!!!!
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 15:49:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Durzel on 11/06/2009 15:51:16
Originally by: SpaceSquirrels
Originally by: Eventy One Anyone who says "MySQL simply isn't fast enough to justify the risks" either hasn't looked at MySQL (recently) or hasn't bench-marked it against other DBs.
MySQL is more versatile, and I personally believe more extensible, than MSSQL all while being more efficient.
I'm still curious to know what internal discussions the CCP DB folks have on the matter.
I don't mean to sound to much like an A-hole, but that's just your opinion. You're some random guy on the ol interwebs. What are your qualifications, experience etc in the "the biz"? If you are in the IT field you should know platforms deployed on a scale required such as eve there's more involved than just speed, and cost. Maybe you are in fact right about this however as this an MMO game forum you have 0 credibility like everyone else here. You also sound like a salesman at this point as well.
QFT
You often hear a load of pro-open source zealots or whatever blindly extolling the virtues of MySQL vs MSSQL/Oracle, repeating random largely meaningless & circumstantial statistics when they themselves have never been in a position where they've had to deploy it for a non-trivial customer-driven project. Trust me it's a different story when you're put in that position where your job depends which technology you recommend & deploy.
When it comes to the crunch businesses want to be in a position where they can select something that is 1) proven, 2) supported and 3) leverages existing staff knowledge.
As good as MySQL is I wouldn't personally deploy it or recommend it for deployment for any sizeable project (for one thing it still to this day handles failures very poorly - e.g. power outage, hardware failure, etc).
MSSQL and Oracle have a heritage that is unmatched, there is a reason they continue to be the only relevant solutions for medium/large enterprise solutions, and it's not because the DBA "didn't think of MySQL at the time". |
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 15:51:00 -
[28]
Originally by: SpaceSquirrels I don't mean to sound to much like an A-hole, but that's just your opinion.
Well - not quite. There are a ton of objective third-party metrics on the internet that show the assertion to be true. Then again there are the large multi-nationals using MySQL (and postgres).
Originally by: SpaceSquirrels You're some random guy on the ol interwebs. What are your qualifications, experience etc in the "the biz"? If you are in the IT field you should know platforms deployed on a scale required such as eve there's more involved than just speed, and cost. Maybe you are in fact right about this however as this an MMO game forum you have 0 credibility like everyone else here. You also sound like a salesman at this point as well.
Logically, to attack the person making a point rather than the point itself is a fallacy. Even if I'm some random guy in the ol interwebs, and a janitor at boot, doesn't speak to the assertion that MySQL is as valid a DB as MSSQL.
At the heart of the question, wasn't a peeing contest with another internet nobody, but was instead an interest in ways CCP might better make use of infiniband.
This internet nobody has first hand experience seeing the improvement a memory laden machine with Infiniband's Sockets Direct Protocol (SDP) can have on a DB (all at 20 Gbps).
Not bad for a janitor eh? |
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 16:01:00 -
[29]
No offence but a PDF that doesn't even go into specific performance advantages relating to a database architecture (or even mention MySQL, MSSQL, etc) together with an OP littered with ambiguous assertions like "as far as I can tell", "generally better", "I would think", etc - it doesn't really reflect well.
Have you personally been involved with deployment of project(s) similar in scale to Eve, or is all of your assertions/research based on analysis, extrapolation, etc?
Not trying to be confrontational, just curious... I use MySQL in various projects, and Oracle/MSSQL in others. I've been an Oracle DBA for the past 7 years or so, more recently getting into MSSQL due to customer-driven requirements. |
SpaceSquirrels
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 16:02:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Logically, to attack the person making a point rather than the point itself is a fallacy. Even if I'm some random guy in the ol interwebs, and a janitor at boot, doesn't speak to the assertion that MySQL is as valid a DB as MSSQL.
At the heart of the question, wasn't a peeing contest with another internet nobody, but was instead an interest in ways CCP might better make use of infiniband.
This internet nobody has first hand experience seeing the improvement a memory laden machine with Infiniband's [url="http://www.openfabrics.org/archives/aug2005datacenter/das_SDP_Linux.pdf" Sockets Direct Protocol (SDP)[/url] can have on a DB (all at 20 Gbps).
Not bad for a janitor eh?
See that wasn't so hard was it? I'm sorry but listening to just anyone with an opinion doesn't cut it. So point in fact credentials do matter. Seeing as how anyone can read anything and spout it back out verbatim. I hear people say all the time well I have an A+ cert, and blah blah..... ok so you took 4 courses somewhere maybe even online. That makes your opinion academically sound how again?
I don't mean to imply you personally, but you get where i'm going with this. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |