Arch Linux: MariaDB replaces MySQL in repositories
archlinux.org
https://www.archlinux.org/news/mariadb-replaces-mysql-in-repositories/
archlinux.org
[1]: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Slackware-Linux-switc...
[2]: http://blog.mariadb.org/opensuse-12-3-released-with-mariadb-...
[3]: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Fedora-19-MariaDB-ins...
http://chakra-project.org/news/index.php?/archives/3-Switchi...
Ubuntu and Debian testing and up maybe sooner.
Subject: NEW: MariaDB
To: ports@openbsd.org
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:55:07 -0400
Here is a new port of MariaDB.
MariaDB is a fork of MySQL maintained in the open. The development
environment is so much better than what has become of MySQL AB since
Oracle took over Sun. They deal with security issues in a much better
manner and don't try to hide the tickets or any details regarding the
issues. Bugs are fixed much quicker and tickets in general are dealt
with in a much better manner. MariaDB 5.5 will replace the current
MySQL 5.1 port for the next release.
...Ubuntu, on the other hand, doesn't have the same strong OSS sensibilities and will probably tow the Oracle line, at least for a little while longer.
Sorry to ruin your "Ubuntu is more closed" claim (seriously why even make that up?) but Ubuntu has been discussing switching to MariaDB at for the past year -- here are the last 2 blueprints with the progress:
- https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-q-... - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-r-...
Also it's "toe the line", and we're toeing with Debian, it just happens to be the same person doing the work in Ubuntu and Debian, so doing the work in Debian and syncing to Ubuntu makes the most sense.
*Edit: Sun dropped $1 billion on mysql. That's a lot of money to later just "lose"
* Last I checked, Oracle allowed you to use Oracle RDBMS free for "prototype development" but once you were actually generating revenue from that you are supposed to buy the necessary licenses, even for continued development or support purposes.
Hm... I vaguely remember (but it was a really, really long time ago) you could use Oracle for as long as you wanted as long as you didn't process your own or your customers' business data.
Oracle doesn't go after startups. Or even companies like Facebook or Dropbox etc.
It goes after: government agencies, banks, insurance companies, multi-nationals, huge retail chains, logistics, payroll, and such. And it does a killing at it.
Web style big-data are not Oracle's domain.
And it's not like those startup people will afterwards (when they "grow up") go work in the enterprise and use Mongo and MariaDB there. It's just different kind of problem domains altogether.
As per my comment above, Oracle doesn't care about those startups, whether they become the "software giants of tomorrow" or not.
They sell to government agencies, logistics, payroll, multi-nationals, banks, finance, insurance companies, etc.
Those sectors do not overlap with the startups using MariaDB, Mongo, or what have you. Totally different problem domains and people.
In particular, this is banking (an extremely heavily controlled industry), and telecom (regulation here is mainly just to keep out competition, not as much to control).
You're going to see more open-source based solutions on the periphery, but core systems are a whole different thing.
I agree that it's sort of narrow-minded, in that there are reasons to use Oracle and IBM outside of the industries and use cases I singled out. I'm not sure why it's incorrect, though (feel free to enlighten me).
where the license cost makes sense. I see a lot of big Oracle HA configurations where downtime or data-loss is unacceptable (and very pricey), where management wouldn't risk their careers choosing something that a start-up would consider.
Is it really true that Oracle's products are superior if you're going for "no downtime, no data loss, cost not so important"? I don't have any experience in that arena. But I would expect an open source options to be competitive.
If the Oracle products are really worth it, what explains that?
Is it that you can get Oracle people on the phone at any hour whose sole job is to fix it, and there isn't similar open source support? (If so, why isn't there? Red Hat plays this role for Linux.)
Is it that Oracle software is just too complicated and well-done and smart to be replicated in the open source world? "In theory," that should not be the case, but maybe the database equivalents of Linus Torvalds always end up just working for Oracle, or something.
One. The products are well understood. Not just from a technical perspective but operationally as well. Generally enterprise companies have dedicated DBAs either in house or on call. Two. There are unlimited support options. Three. Almost all enterprise software works with Oracle and many are only supported for use on Oracle.
You ARE seeing open source adoption in particular MongoDB, Cassandra in specific areas of the business. But they are almost exclusively "non-core business".
Pretty much - Oracle's clustering/replication options are still considerably superior to even a 'real' open source RDBMS like Postgres (as well as providing better performance). MySQL, by contrast, is missing so many important capabilities (transactional DDL, check constraints, window functions, joins other than nested loop) that it's not (imo) especially worth considering.
If you look outside the realm of open-source RDBMSs to NoSQL, you tend to find that they'll be missing some critical feature for reliable database operations, like transactionality, or simply won't be that feature rich (i.e. key-value stores). This is not to say that NoSQL stores don't have a place, just that they tend to be designed around web use cases where trading off consistency can be worth it.
I'm not meaning to hate on open source DBs here - I think Postgres is fantastic and easily sufficient for most use cases. Technologically Oracle/DB2 are still better products, though.
When it comes to the people in charge of the money, it seems Oracle's not doing too bad a job.
The XtraDB engine, basically a fork of InnoDB with patches, is actually very nice. We've had to do almost no modifications to the data structure when moving from InnoDB for some DBs (that we're not using Postgres for).
Fun fact: XtraDB is also the default in Percona http://www.percona.com (No, I don't work for them).
There are things you still need to carefully look into before migration if that's what you want to do. Minor things like naming is only part of it. Read. Read. Re-read the documentation : https://mariadb.org/docs
I've felt MairaDB is the direction MySQL should have gone after the 4.x branch. In many ways (though the technical aspects are totally different), this split is very similar to what happened with FreeBSD after the 4.x branch with the start of DragonFly. When in doubt, fork.
The beauty of Open Source.
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/12/16/announcing-pe...
Our internal stuff is almost all running straight Postgres but a small part of our application stack is abstracted on top of it to provide document DB functionality.
Postgres can do parallel query.
The problem I see is that simple use cases gradually become slightly-less-simple use cases. And the pain of switching is 1000x the pain of taking a few extra steps up front and using a better database.
Truly, the one item I miss the most from making the switch.
Before getting bogged down in technical commentary, let me say this
very clearly: I am enormously grateful for your work on this
project. Logical replication based on WAL decoding is a feature of
enormous value that PostgreSQL has needed for a long time, and your
work has made that look like an achievable goal. Furthermore, it
seems to me that you have pursued the community process with all the
vigor and sincerity for which anyone could ask. Serious design
concerns were raised early in the process and you made radical
changes to the design which I believe have improved it tremendously,
and you've continued to display an outstanding attitude at every
phase of this process about which I can't say enough good things.
There is no question in my mind that this work is going to be the
beginning of a process that revolutionizes the way people think
about replication and PostgreSQL, and you deserve our sincere thanks
for that.
Now, the bad news is, I don't think it's very reasonable to try to
commit this to 9.3. I think it is just too much stuff too late in
the cycle. I've reviewed some of the patches from time to time but
there is a lot more stuff and it's big and complicated and it's not
really clear that we have the interface quite right yet, even though
I think it's also clear that we are a lot of closer than we were. I
don't want to be fixing that during beta, much less after release.
The implications for PostgreSQL version upgrade alone are enormous. MySQL has been ahead here, even though some if it was at the cost of some sanity, and by lack of sanity I mean "statement based replication". The first semi-sane logical replication was the 2008 release that included row-based-replication.
https://kb.askmonty.org/en/mariadb-vs-mysql-compatibility/
"Timings may be different as MariaDB is in many cases faster than MySQL. "
The short story: MariaDB is a fork of MySQL done by Michael "Monty" Widenius one of the mySQL founders.
It seems the winds of fear are blowing against mySQL and MariaDB is getting mindshare (it is a fork so pretty close still but not going back). Although Oracle hasn't really done anything yet, and did send a rep to the conference, there seems to be some distrust.
About a decade ago at a startup we had and Oracle instance running s a test, their sales people where tenacious (fought them off by asking for an ODBC driver for linux). Then startup went under. sigh.