<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> On 03/30/2011 02:33 PM, Douglas Stanley wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:AANLkTin3E7cEfBzxvAhK6n+Fu9bG8vnbhmCXuQwki4wv@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> On Mar 30, 2011 7:20 PM, "Clint Byrum" <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:clint@ubuntu.com">clint@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:16:14AM -0400, Ralph Janke wrote: > > Isn't it time to use mariadb instead of mysql? > > > > Could you provide some rationalization of MariaDB vs. the main MySQL > releases? > > There are a bunch of forks we could consider with varying degrees of > compatibility with MYSQL. > > Percona (working on packaging) > MariaDB (available from their own repos) > Drizzle (in universe) > > Compatible or not, none of these are really MySQL. > > I'd really like to have a good reason before moving to any of these as > our preferred MySQL service. I don't think MySQL is like Hudson.. Oracle > seems to be taking good care of it and (for the time being) nothing has > changed in their approach to community contribution (which has never > been fantastic anyway). > > I thought they recently pulled innodb support from the latest "community" edition of MySQL. So unless the consensus is to just stick with 5.5 forever, then I guess there's no reason to choose a fork now. However, if we don't want to stay with an old version forever, a choice will have to be made at some point. But then again, why not keep MySQL in main AND choose a newer fork to also include? Maybe some people won't care about innodb, and just keep using MySQL. Or maybe I'm completely wrong and innodb hasn't been pulled out, in which case, just ignore the crazy person in the corner babbling... </blockquote> Quite the contrary. MySQL is focusing more intently around innodb than ever before. That pulling from community edition was FUD that got spread around from someone not understanding the differences between MySQL Classic (free version that's targetted as an embedded database for ISVs, OEMs and VARs<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;">) and MySQL Community Edition which is aimed at servers : <a href="http://palominodb.com/blog/2010/11/04/oracle-not-removing-innodb">http://palominodb.com/blog/2010/11/04/oracle-not-removing-innodb</a> , <a href="http://blogs.oracle.com/mysql/2010/11/mysql_community_edition_and_innodb.html">http://blogs.oracle.com/mysql/2010/11/mysql_community_edition_and_innodb.html</a> , and the features here: <a href="http://www.mysql.com/products/community/">http://www.mysql.com/products/community/</a> As of 5.5 InnoDB is the default engine for MySQL instead of MyISAM, so that by default people's data is stored in a transactional, ACID compliant way. Paul </body> </html>