[ic] timetable for database and CCVS with IC in the future ?

interch interchange-users@lists.akopia.com
Tue Jul 3 10:19:01 2001


As far as the database issue, mysql is great if you don't need
transactions, or if the data isn't mission critical.  I would feel much
safer with my data in postgresql than mysql.  I have had mysql eat data
files on several occasions on recent versions even.  It simply wasn't
designed for mission critical applications.  We have found that postgresql
also scales much better with a lot of concurrent accesses by multiple
users.

Chris

On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, IC-Admin wrote:

> 
> I am wondering if someone from the RedHat staff might give
> advice for longterm planning with regards to the best database
> to use with IC.
> 
> I remember quite some heated discussion here some months ago
> about the pros and cons of MySQL and PostgreSQL for IC. Now
> with RedHat providing their own RedHat database based on 
> PostgreSQL 7.1 would you advise some data-heavy, but cash-starved
> with IC-playing student to invest his learning time in PostgreSQL
> instead of MySQL, thinking that may be in the future you
> combine your services for the RedHat database with your services 
> for IC ?
> 
> Also, Mark Johnson said in another context with regards to the
> admin UI for GDBM and/or other relational databases:
> 
> 	It's not for GDBM only; it also functions perfectly well with a
> 	relational db. The problem is that it fully supports the use of GDBM,
> 	and in order to do that, the feature set has to adhere to the lowest
> 	common denominator. Only if and when a decision is made not to support
> 	the GDBM data model will IC be able to use higher-level features of a
> 	generic RDBMS. Even still, you quickly run into variations that limit
> 	what can feasibly be done based on whichever database you use.
> 
> Does that mean that you will eventually drop the support for the
> GDBM data model ? (not that I understand why, but I would regret it) 
> 
> In addition David Adams said once with regards to CCVS support :
> 	The integration of Interchange and CCVS should be a part of version 4.8 as
> 	planned.  The integration of CCVS and Interchange is not dependent on
> 	assistance from any CCVS engineers, original or otherwise.  The CCVS SDK
> 	is pretty straightforward.  Red Hat continues to support the CCVS
> 	product. There are still several potential scenarios for where
> 	CCVS will be heading in the future, though.
> 
> Is the integration of CCVS still planned for version 4.8 ? Do you think
> that RedHat comes out with a newer version of RH Linux 7.1 before IC 4.8
> is ready ? Is there a compelling reason to wait for IC 4.8 and the next
> RH Linux version because of possible tighter integration of the RH
> database and CCVS with IC ? Thanks. 
> 
> BF
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Interchange-users mailing list
> Interchange-users@lists.akopia.com
> http://lists.akopia.com/mailman/listinfo/interchange-users
>