[dba-SQLServer] Fwd: [AccessD] MySQL

Hello Hans-Christian,

Thank you for your detailed and interesting response to John's questions.

I have been reading on my kindle a few of the PDF's on ubuntu over the last
week or two.

One additional reason that I want to play with Linux is simply because it is
there.  I want to be part of the evolution of the linux world.  I make my
living on SQL Server and do not see a time in the near future that I can
switch, but I am enjoying learning a new technology.  It makes me feel like
in 1988 when I was learning what DIR, CD\ and Copy *.* did.

I purchased a new HP all in one office jet last Friday to replace my aging
noisy A3 laser printer.  Of course it comes with Windows software.  On the
family computer that I recently switched to Ubuntu 11.04, I sat down to
install it, wondering whether it would be possible.  I was quite surprised
when an hour later, I was scanning and printing wirelessly from Ubuntu to a
shiny new HP scanner.

Did I mention already here on the list that I have recently built a few
ultra cheap pc's?  AMD Dual Core Athlon, 1 GB Ram, smallest disk I can buy,
cheap and nasty case with integrated PSU and then installed Ubuntu.  The
whole machine costs approx €130 - €150.  I am imaging the saving on hardware
and software a company could make with 10 or 20 non-power users.  The
performance was absolutely perfect BTW, as good as my i7 with Win7 that cost
well over €1000.


Mark



On 22 September 2011 02:38, Hans-Christian Andersen <ha at phulse.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> The easiest thing to do, of course, is to stick with what you know.
> Especially if it's something you are going to have to support over time.
>
> If you don't feel comfortable with a Linux environment (even if what you
> are
> asking for would be pretty trivial to set up for someone like myself and
> distros like Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSuse, CentOS, etc are pretty
> straightforward these days), there is always a chance there will be bumps
> in
> the road somewhere down the line that requires you to open the the hood and
> take a deeper look. Same applies to Windows as well as Linux. That's where
> you need to ask yourself if you are prepared to make a bit of an investment
> in terms of learning how Linux works and also being prepared to have an
> experienced Linux admin to go to, if you are in way over your head.
>
> I can tell you this much in advance:
>
> MySQL + Linux/*BSD is the most natural fit and will perform the best.
> Optimisations for the Windows platform only came as an afterthought and I
> don't know if there is yet any parity performance-wise. This is an
> interesting question and perhaps I will try and do some sort of benchmark
> to
> see what the difference is, but I recommend you check out the following
> link
> in the meantime:
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/limits-windows.html
> If high performance isn't a requirement but just something that works
> decently, then I wouldn't worry too much about what platform to use and I'd
> recommend using those packaged Apache/PHP/MySQL stacks, such as WAMP or
> XAMPP (which is my personal recommendation), rather than installing MySQL
> alone. XAMPP is cross platform as well, so this makes things easier should
> you decide somewhere down the line to switch platforms. Everything is
> contained within a single directory, so migration is also trivial (on Linux
> and OS X, in my experience, anyways). It's just a matter of zipping (tar
> balling) up the XAMPP directory and dropping onto the new machine. Again, I
> only know for sure that this is the case on Linux and OS X.
>
> Regarding file sharing, SAMBA (the application on Linux that does SMB file
> sharing) is very powerful and flexible. It's pretty easy to knock up a
> simple setup that plays well in a Windows workgroup and many distros, like
> Ubuntu and OpenSuse, have made it as easy as simply right click on a folder
> and selection the option to share that directory. Things get more
> complicated, however, when you want it to do more advanced stuff, such as
> joining an Active Directory setup. I know that OpenSuse has a lead in this
> respect what with having user friendly GUI configuration of the more
> advanced SAMBA setups, but it is still worth considering that SAMBA is a
> different beast than what you are used to. Setting up MySQL on Linux is
> dead
> simple, but there's more of a learning curve with SAMBA (depending on what
> you want to do, of course).
>
> On the other hand (and I don't want to sound religious in saying this),
> but,
> typically with Linux, once you get a configuration nailed down, you should
> have a system that will be able to run pretty solid without many problems
> down the road. And the reason I believe this is because Linux is much more
> of a "static" system than Windows is, based more on configuration files and
> more of a separation of data, software and configuration as a matter of
> principle rather than complex software installations and registries and
> background processes doing x, y and z, etc that I often see for software on
> Windows. A distribution like Debian tends to be rather minimalist
> (especially if you install from the net boot iso), so you won't have a lot
> more stuff running in the background than is necessary for a shell to run,
> networking and whatever software you have selected to install, etc, if you
> catch my drift. From a security point of view, this is also great. If you
> keep your system setup to a minimum (OpenSSH server, MySQL server, Samba),
> then you will get less hassle with security updates. Saying that, if you
> are
> a competent Windows admin, then it is of course also possible to achieve a
> very robust system like that. I just think it takes a bit more effort and
> forethought. Perhaps that is debatable and may seem counterintuitive, but
> for the things that I deal with professionally, this is my experience.
>
> All in all, there is no reason you can't achieve exactly what you want and
> need with Linux. The question is, however, whether you are willing to make
> that investment.
>
> Think of it this way: Imagine an all Linux company which decides to install
> a Windows server, although they have little experience in doing so. While
> Windows is perfectly capable of doing what they need it to and may even be
> a
> better solution than the Linux one, it is still at a disadvantage. Problems
> with the Windows server may eventually translate into the perception that
> Windows is an inferior product that isn't capable of doing things correctly
> or is just difficult to maintain. It wouldn't be fair to say that, because,
> as you all know, Windows is anything but that. But I often deal with that
> sort of attitude from other people with regards to Linux, because they just
> don't understand it or are more suspicious of things that are different and
> hence more critical of it. So I've learnt to be careful when suggesting
> Linux to someone who, as you admit, has zero experience with it and is
> thinking of deploying it for a client who also has zero experience. It's
> easy for me to say something is simple to do, because I do it all the time,
> but thats not always going to be someone else's experience. Linux doesn't
> always offer the best solution, depending on what you want to do, and there
> are of course times where some piece of complex or buggy software may make
> it a frustrating experience.
>
> Finally, there is, of course, also the matter of the cost of buying a
> Windows Server license, which is another factor to take into account.
>
> If you do decide to go ahead with Linux, I will be happy to answer any
> questions. Relating to what Gustav suggested, I also know of another admin
> who I have worked with professionally and can vouch for who might be
> returning from the UK to Vancouver in the new year and also has experience
> with both Windows and Linux, so may be interested in consulting as well.
>
> Good luck.
>
>
> PS.
> >> The other nagging, back of the head issue is, "how well does it play in
> an otherwise all windows network.  And how well does the windows network
> play with it?
>
> Incidentally, what exactly did you mean when you said you wonder if it
> plays
> well in an all windows network? On a networking level? Or regarding how
> well
> it integrates with AD and such?
>
>
> - Hans
>
>
>