Take the 2-minute tour ×
Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I want to know if there is any reasons at all not to use MySQL in this scenario.

2 servers behind a virtual IP with MySQL master-master replication

Goal: redundancy, want this to run 24/7 servicing a liferay cluster

I have plenty of reasons why to use this (1 I want your most pessimist thoughts.

(1

We are using this already in an similar situation and are considering using something else for a new setup. We have access to s MSSQL cluster that are more than capable of handling the 24/7 demand.

Top reasons to use MySQL (as you see they are manly "political")

  • It's how we have done it in the past, so less surprises expected
  • We(2 will have more control over performance as we can add memory/cpu to the (virtual) db-servers ourselves when we want
  • No need to migrate export data from MySQL to a new DB
(2

The MSSQL cluster is run by the "windows"-crew whilst I belong to the "*nix"-crew. So while the cooperation between us is good there is naturally a bit more fuss/delay when you have to ask someone else to do something rather than doing it yourself.


Update

Two days after this question was asked the decision what solution to use was made, so any answers(3 that would have helped make that decision is now not needed (this time anyhow).

If anyone want to generalize this question (as Jeff suggested) please do.

(3

When this update was written there was only one answer

share|improve this question
1  
Perhaps add some detail about "liferay" e.g. what are the requirements of this system? Does it need to be truly 24/7/365? Does it have hard requirements for ACID? How much data, how many transactions per second? Would some of its features be better implemented as SPs? Etc etc. –  Gaius Feb 10 '11 at 9:55
1  
@Gaius - I didn't add any more details than this because I know that MySQL is up to the task. It is fully supported and well tested. But I have been tasked with doing a pro and con list for MySQL. I want the cons. –  Nifle Feb 10 '11 at 12:44
6  
In that case, I'd say it's not a technical decision really, it's an operational one. For example you mention the Windows crew is already set up for 24/7 support of SQL Server - how's your Unix crew set up for 24/7 support of MySQL, load balancing, SAN (if you're using it), tape backup and restore etc, do you have enough people with both the skills and the willingness to carry a pager, etc. –  Gaius Feb 10 '11 at 13:26
    
@Gaius - Thanks for your input. Backup, having people on call is and other issues is identical for all it-sub-departments within our organization (a university) so both solutions would use the same backup solutions and the same SAN. –  Nifle Feb 12 '11 at 11:22
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Here are the cons that I see, this being a somewhat subjective question:

There are political reasons for and against this setup.

I don't know if I can be any more clear than that.

I would think this would be a huge benefit, so I would use this as my main selling point, because otherwise I don't see why not use the existing infrastructure to do what you need:

No need to migrate export data from MySQL to a new DB

Note that that's really going to turn into a con for you pretty quickly, cos everyone will say "just put a stub in that converts the MySQL requests into MSSQL" and that's going to be the negative all over again.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks for your input. I'm slightly in favour of using MSSQL. Firstly it's two servers less for me to worry about. Secondly it's cheaper (those two are related actually). Both solutions come with an equivalent price tag for CPU/RAM/Disk but for the MySQL-solutions the man-hours(1) for administrating it would be the main cost, and that cost is zero for the cluster. (1) We (the organization) have a fixed tariff of ** x man-hours/server per month ** –  Nifle Feb 12 '11 at 11:28
1  
A bit late but we ended up sticking with MySQL –  Nifle Aug 24 '12 at 19:45
    
because of cost? –  jcolebrand Aug 24 '12 at 19:57
1  
No it came down to migration issues. The suppliers claim that migrating to mssql was easy (or indeed possible) was higly exaggerated. –  Nifle Aug 24 '12 at 20:10
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.