MySQL
Analysis of open source DBMS vendor MySQL (recently acquired by Sun Microsystems), its products, and other products in the MySQL ecosystem. Related subjects include:
Availability nightmares continue
We’re having a lot of outages on our blogs. Downtown Host tells me that huge numbers of MySQL processes are being spawned. I have trouble understanding why, as WP-SuperCache (Edit: Actually, just WP-Cache) is enabled, robots.txt has a crawl delay, and so on.
As of yesterday, we were getting 1 1/2 megabytes/hour of “MySQL database has gone away” errors. After Downtown Host declined to discuss that subject with us, Melissa Bradshaw implemented — at least for this blog — a workaround to change the MySQL wait_delay settings ourselves. Clever idea, and seemed to work for half a day — but now the problems have returned.
Downtown Host isn’t saying much more than “Look at these logs. Your blogs are experiencing a lot of queries and spawning dozens upon dozens of MySQL processes. The main offender is DBMS2.” I don’t know when we’ll get this sorted out. I fly to Europe tomorrow. I have a cough. I’m exhausted. I’m sorry.
| Categories: About this blog, MySQL | 4 Comments |
What could or should make Oracle/MySQL antitrust concerns go away?
When the Oracle/MySQL deal was first announced, I wrote:
I can probably come up with business practices that could make things very hard on Oracle/MySQL competitors … but I haven’t found a compelling antitrust trigger on my first pass over the subject.
Subsequently, there’s been a lot of discussion about whether or not Oracle can use control of MySQL to make life difficult for third-party MySQL storage engine vendors.
Now that the European Commission is delaying the Oracle/Sun deal, explicitly because of Oracle/MySQL antitrust fears. That is, the European Commission wants to be reassured that an Oracle takeover of MySQL won’t unduly impinge upon the future availability of open source/low cost DBMS alternatives. This raises that natural question:
What could Oracle do to assure concerned parties that its ownership of MySQL won’t unduly hamper open-source-based DBMS competition?
I think that’s indeed the crucial question. The Oracle/Sun deal has enough momentum at this point that it both should and will be allowed to happen — perhaps with safeguards — rather than banned outright. If you have concerns about Oracle’s pending acquisition of MySQL, you should speak up and outline what kinds of regulatory safeguards would alleviate the problems you foresee.
More or less obvious possibilities include:
- Divest MySQL. This is obviously an extreme measure, but it surely would work.
- Provide some money and trademark rights to MySQL forkers. If MariaDB and Drizzle were put into strong competitive positions with MySQL today, it’s hard to argue how regulators could object to any future Oracle maneuverings Oracle might envision with the GPLed side of MySQL.
- Offer a standard, attractive, long-term deal to MySQL bundlers. The commercial/non-GPL version of MySQL is a requirement for appliance vendors (surely), OEM vendors (probably), and storage engine vendors (maybe — I disagree, but I’m evidently in the minority).
- Strengthen PostgreSQL. 🙂 Realistically, that’s not going to be part of any Oracle/MySQL resolution, so I’ll leave it as a subject for another time.
| Categories: Mid-range, MySQL, Open source, Oracle, PostgreSQL | 9 Comments |
Continuent on clustering
Robert Hodges, CTO of my client Continuent, put up a blog post laying out his and Continuent’s views on database clustering. Continuent offers Tungsten, its third try at database clustering technology, targeted at MySQL, PostgreSQL, and perhaps Oracle. Unlike Continuent’s more ambitious. second-generation product, Tungsten offers single-master replication, which in Robert’s view allows for great ease of deployment and administration (he likes the phrase “bone-simple”).
The downside to Continuent Tungsten ‘s stripped down architecture is that it doesn’t solve the most extreme performance scale-out problems. Instead, Continuent focuses on the other big benefits of keeping your data in more than one place, namely high availability and data loss prevention (i.e., backup).
Continuent has been around for a number of years, starting out in Finland but now being based in Silicon Valley. For most purposes, however, it’s reasonable to think of Continuent and Tungsten as start-up efforts.
As you might guess from the references to Finland and MySQL, Continuent’s products are open source, or at least have open source versions. I’m still a little fuzzy as to which features are open sourced and which are not. For that matter, I’m still unclear as to Tungsten’s feature list overall …
| Categories: Clustering, Continuent, MySQL, Open source, PostgreSQL | 3 Comments |
Kickfire’s FPGA-based technical strategy
Kickfire’s basic value proposition is that, if you have a data warehouse in the 100s of gigabytes, they’ll sell you – for $32,000 – a tiny box that solves all your query performance problems, as per the Kickfire spec sheet. And Kickfire backs that up with a pretty cool product design. However, thanks in no small part to what was heretofore Kickfire’s penchant for self-defeating secrecy, the Kickfire story is not widely appreciated.
Fortunately, Kickfire is getting over its secrecy kick. And so, here are some Kickfire technical basics.
- Kickfire is MySQL-based, with all the SQL functionality and lack of functionality that entails.
- The Kickfire/MySQL DBMS is columnar, with the usual benefits in compression and I/O reduction.
- Kickfire is based on FPGAs (Field-Programmable Gate Arrays).
- The Kickfire DBMS is ACID-compliant.
- Kickfire runs only as a single-box appliance.
- While Kickfire earlier estimated that, at least for data sets that compressed well, a Kickfire box could hold 3-10 terabytes of user data, more recent figures I’ve heard from Kickfire have been in the 1-1 /2 terabyte range. (Edit: Karl Van Der Bergh subsequently wrote in to say that the 1 1/2 TB is raw disk figure, not user data.)
The new information there is that Kickfire relies on an FPGA; Read more
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Columnar database management, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, Kickfire, MySQL, Theory and architecture | 16 Comments |
Groovy Corp puts out a ridiculous press release
I knew Groovy Corp’s press release today would be bad, as it was pitched in advance as being about an awe-inspiring benchmark. That part met my very low expectations, emphasizing how the Groovy SQL Switch massively outperformed MySQL* in a benchmark, and how this supposedly shows the Groovy SQL Switch would outperform every other competitive RDBMS by at least similar margins.
*While a few use cases are exceptions, being “better than MySQL” for a DBMS is basically like being “better than Pabst Blue Ribbon” for a beer. Unless price is your top consideration, why are you even making the comparison?
Even worse, the press release, from its subhead and very first sentence, emphasizes the claim “the Groovy SQL Switch’s ability to significantly outperform relational databases.” As CEO Joe Ward quickly agreed by email, that’s not accurate. As you would expect from the “SQL” in its name, the Groovy SQL Switch is just as relational as the products it’s being contrasted to. Unfortunately for Joe, who I gather aspires to edit it to say something more sensible, the press release is out already in multiple places.
More favorably, Renee Blodgett has a short, laudatory post about Groovy, with some kind of embedded video.
| Categories: Groovy Corporation, In-memory DBMS, Memory-centric data management, MySQL, OLTP | 17 Comments |
What are the best choices for scaling Postgres?
March, 2011 edit: In its quaintness, this post is a reminder of just how fast Short Request Processing DBMS technology has been moving ahead. If I had to do it all over again, I’d suggest they use one of the high-performance MySQL options like dbShards, Schooner, or both together. I actually don’t know what they finally decided on in that area. (I do know that for analytic DBMS they chose Vertica.)
I have a client who wants to build a new application with peak update volume of several million transactions per hour. (Their base business is data mart outsourcing, but now they’re building update-heavy technology as well. ) They have a small budget. They’ve been a MySQL shop in the past, but would prefer to contract (not eliminate) their use of MySQL rather than expand it.
My client actually signed a deal for EnterpriseDB’s Postgres Plus Advanced Server and GridSQL, but unwound the transaction quickly. (They say EnterpriseDB was very gracious about the reversal.) There seem to have been two main reasons for the flip-flop. First, it seems that EnterpriseDB’s version of Postgres isn’t up to PostgreSQL’s 8.4 feature set yet, although EnterpriseDB’s timetable for catching up might have tolerable. But GridSQL apparently is further behind yet, with no timetable for up-to-date PostgreSQL compatibility. That was the dealbreaker.
The current base-case plan is to use generic open source PostgreSQL, with scale-out achieved via hand sharding, Hibernate, or … ??? Experience and thoughts along those lines would be much appreciated.
Another option for OLTP performance and scale-out is of course memory-centric options such as VoltDB or the Groovy SQL Switch. But this client’s database is terabyte-scale, so hardware costs could be an issue, as of course could be product maturity.
By the way, a large fraction of these updates will be actual changes, as opposed to new records, in case that matters. I expect that the schema being updated will be very simple — i.e., clearly simpler than in a classic order entry scenario.
Daniel Abadi on Kickfire and related subjects
Daniel Abadi has a new blog, whose first post centers around Kickfire. The money quote is (emphasis mine):
In order for me to get excited about Kickfire, I have to ignore Mike Stonebraker’s voice in my head telling me that DBMS hardware companies have been launched many times in the past are ALWAYS fail (the main reasoning is that Moore’s law allows for commodity hardware to catch up in performance, eventually making the proprietary hardware overpriced and irrelevant). But given that Moore’s law is transforming into increased parallelism rather than increased raw speed, maybe hardware DBMS companies can succeed now where they have failed in the past
Good point.
More generally, Abadi speculates about the market for MySQL-compatible data warehousing. My responses include:
- OF COURSE there are many MySQL users who need to move to a serious analytic DBMS.
- What’s less clear is whether there’s any big advantage to those users in remaining MySQL-compatible when they do move. I’m not sure what MySQL-specific syntax or optimizations they’d have that would be difficult to port to a non-MySQL system.
- It’s nice to see Abadi speaking well of Infobright and its technology.
- To say that Infobright went open source because it was “desperate” is overstated. That said, I don’t think Infobright was on track to prosper without going open source.
- While open source and MySQL go together, an appliance like Kickfire loses many (not all) of the benefits of open source.
- Calpont has indeed never disclosed a customer win. Any year now … (Just kidding, Vogel!)
- In general, seeing Abadi be so favorable toward Vertica competitors adds credibiity to the recent Hadoop vs. DBMS paper.
Anyhow, as previously noted, I’m a big Daniel Abadi fan. I look forward to seeing what else he posts in his blog, and am optimistic he’ll live up to or exceed its stated goals.
| Categories: Calpont, Columnar database management, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DBMS product categories, Infobright, Kickfire, MySQL, Open source, Theory and architecture | 2 Comments |
Yet more on MySQL forks and storage engines
The issue of MySQL forks and their possible effect on closed-source storage engine vendors continues to get attention. The underlying question is:
Suppose Oracle wants to make life difficult for third-party storage engine vendors via its incipient control of MySQL? Can the storage engine vendors insulate themselves from this risk by working with a MySQL fork?
| Categories: MySQL, Open source, PostgreSQL | 11 Comments |
MySQL forking heats up, but not yet to the benefit of non-GPLed storage engine vendors
Last month, I wrote “This is a REALLY good time to actively strengthen the MySQL forkers,” largely on behalf of closed-source/dual-source MySQL storage engine vendors such as Infobright, Kickfire, Calpont, Tokutek, or ScaleDB. Yesterday, two of my three candidates to lead the effort — namely Monty Widenius/MariaDB/Monty Program AB and Percona — came together to form something called the Open Database Alliance. Details may be found:
- On the Open Database Alliance website
- In a press release
- On Monty Widenius’ blog
- In a Stephen O’Grady blog post based on a discussion with Monty Widenius
- In an ars technica blog post based on a discussion with Monty Program AB’s Kurt von Finck
But there’s no joy for the non-GPLed MySQL storage engine vendors in the early news. Read more
| Categories: MySQL, Open source, Theory and architecture | 16 Comments |
DBMS transparency layers never seem to sell well
A DBMS transparency layer, roughly speaking, is software that makes things that are written for one brand of database management system run unaltered on another.* These never seem to sell well. ANTs has failed in a couple of product strategies. EnterpriseDB’s Oracle compatibility only seems to have netted it a few sales, and only a small fraction of its total business. ParAccel’s and Dataupia’s transparency strategies have produced even less.
*The looseness in that definition highlights a key reason these technologies don’t sell well — it’s hard to be sure that what you’re buying will do a good job of running your particular apps.
This subject comes to mind for two reasons. One is that IBM seems to have licensed EnterpriseDB’s Oracle transparency layer for DB2. The other is that a natural upgrade path from MySQL to Oracle might be a MySQL transparency layer on top of an Oracle base.