On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:22:30 -0800 Mike Lee <mike.leeat_private> wrote: > No particular reason. MySQL seems to be the one that most people use for > general purpose DB action.. :) best known, but you really need to research this issue before making a choice. mysql is fast and stable, but at the expense of certain "large db features" like transactions, stored procedures, and triggers. some of these have started to appear, but they're coming slowly, and aren't necessarily production ready yet (transactions are supported only for certain table types, which are not the default table types, and are in beta. stored procedures and triggers are on the roadmap for the near future.) additionally, if you want speed, you need to think about using clusters of db servers, and just not one box. i'm not sure where MySQL is on this; the other contender in free databases, PostgreSQL, has cluster support on the roadmap for 7.3 (7.2 is in beta now.) commercial DBs tend to cost a bunch (especially oracle), but if you really need to handle a large volume, you need to look at DB2 or Oracle (Informix was really quite good, but now faces an uncertain future as an IBM product.) the way i'd architect for truly high volume log handling, assuming a large budget, is to build multiple syslog intake boxes, put them behind a load balancer so that they all appear at a single IP, and put the db on a cluster behind the intake boxes. the syslog boxes therefore just become queueing and filtering engines. building dbs that can handle lots of transactions is a well understood art, buy a real db and hire a real DBA to set it up. richard -- Richard Welty Averill Park Networking Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security rweltyat_private 518-573-7592 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: loganalysis-unsubscribeat_private For additional commands, e-mail: loganalysis-helpat_private
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 30 2002 - 08:18:56 PST