Apache, MySQL, and .Net - The Adventure Continues
-
Do you have time to write an article about your experiment ?
I don't know... The MS-only crowd frowns on breaking out of the cozy little box that Microsoft has them trapped in, so the article would be a) rated low, and b) laced with comments about why I went to so much trouble when IIS and Sql Server Express is just a mouse click away... Here's a statement that's used by bikers (real bikers, that ride Harleys): If I have to explain, you won't understand.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
- Why would anyone use Apache on Windows?
I've already stated my reasons. Right now, the server is running Win2k3 Server. Eventually, I'm going to change the server back to either XP or Win2K because I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for backup software. I use Acronis Tru Image Home on all my other systems because it's cheap and works well. I refuse to pay hundreds more for a version of any backup software that is specifically written for a server machine. Right now, I'm backing up files across the network. The benefit of running Apache instead of IIS is that when I do move back to an earlier (non-server) version of Windows, I don't have to start from scratch with an older version of IIS and worry about having to do stuff different ways. With Apache, I simply install it, and then copy the single Apache folder over the install, and I'm off and running with the same configuration I was running on 2K3.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
- Why would anyone use MySQL with .NET? Or for that matter, why would anyone use MySQL at all
Actually, MySQl is equally as viable as SQL Server. Besides, now I can use either one, where you're stuck with just SQL Server.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The benefit of running Apache instead of IIS is that when I do move back to an earlier (non-server) version of Windows, I don't have to start from scratch with an older version of IIS and worry about having to do stuff different ways.
OK, that makes sense.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Actually, MySQl is equally as viable as SQL Server. Besides, now I can use either one, where you're stuck with just SQL Server.
At my previous job (until a couple of weeks ago) I was using MySQL from C++ on Linux. It is OK for light loads and small databases, but when things grow a little bit, better stay away from MySQL.
-
Out of curiosity: 1) Why would anyone use Apache on Windows? 2) Why would anyone use MySQL with .NET? Or for that matter, why would anyone use MySQL at all ;P
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
- Why would anyone use Apache on Windows?
I don't recall John's reasons, but I use it for certain purposes because 1) there's Subversion integration, and 2) it takes, on average, a full workday less to reconfigure it to my liking after a re-install. I'm sure there's a way of backing up IIS configurations, but i never think of things like that 'till i've already repaved the machine, so things that don't survive an OS install just don't make it.
-
Out of curiosity: 1) Why would anyone use Apache on Windows? 2) Why would anyone use MySQL with .NET? Or for that matter, why would anyone use MySQL at all ;P
For 1, I would say bad experiences with IIS (at least prior to the newer versions). For 2, I have no idea, other than cost :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
Out of curiosity: 1) Why would anyone use Apache on Windows? 2) Why would anyone use MySQL with .NET? Or for that matter, why would anyone use MySQL at all ;P
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
- Why would anyone use Apache on Windows?
Our SVN server runs under Apache on Windows.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Why would anyone use MySQL with .NET? Or for that matter, why would anyone use MySQL at all
It's FREE?
Todd Smith
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
- Why would anyone use Apache on Windows?
Our SVN server runs under Apache on Windows.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Why would anyone use MySQL with .NET? Or for that matter, why would anyone use MySQL at all
It's FREE?
Todd Smith
Todd Smith wrote:
Our SVN server runs under Apache on Windows.
OK. Although in most cases, it is not necessary - svn has its own standalone server (at least on Linux, don't know about Windows).
Todd Smith wrote:
It's FREE?
There are other, much better, free db systems.
-
I don't know... The MS-only crowd frowns on breaking out of the cozy little box that Microsoft has them trapped in, so the article would be a) rated low, and b) laced with comments about why I went to so much trouble when IIS and Sql Server Express is just a mouse click away... Here's a statement that's used by bikers (real bikers, that ride Harleys): If I have to explain, you won't understand.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Too Bad, I was hoping you write an article to compare (or build on) your results with what I have. I am particularly intersted in Performace benchmarks between ASP.NET/MSSQL - ASP.NET/SQLServer on both IIS and Apache.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The benefit of running Apache instead of IIS is that when I do move back to an earlier (non-server) version of Windows, I don't have to start from scratch with an older version of IIS and worry about having to do stuff different ways.
OK, that makes sense.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Actually, MySQl is equally as viable as SQL Server. Besides, now I can use either one, where you're stuck with just SQL Server.
At my previous job (until a couple of weeks ago) I was using MySQL from C++ on Linux. It is OK for light loads and small databases, but when things grow a little bit, better stay away from MySQL.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
At my previous job (until a couple of weeks ago) I was using MySQL from C++ on Linux. It is OK for light loads and small databases, but when things grow a little bit, better stay away from MySQL.
Maybe you just need more practice with MySQL. Not that I've looked, but I've never stumbled across anyone (that doesn't have a Microsoft-oriented agenda) saying that MySQL isn't enterprise ready.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The benefit of running Apache instead of IIS is that when I do move back to an earlier (non-server) version of Windows, I don't have to start from scratch with an older version of IIS and worry about having to do stuff different ways.
OK, that makes sense.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Actually, MySQl is equally as viable as SQL Server. Besides, now I can use either one, where you're stuck with just SQL Server.
At my previous job (until a couple of weeks ago) I was using MySQL from C++ on Linux. It is OK for light loads and small databases, but when things grow a little bit, better stay away from MySQL.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
It is OK for light loads and small databases, but when things grow a little bit, better stay away from MySQL.
Companies using MySql : Wikipidia Nokia Youtube NetQos flicker its is said that google also runs MySql (unconfirmed)
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness. ~Sheik Abd-al-Kadir
I can't always be wrong ... or can I? -
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
- Why would anyone use Apache on Windows?
I don't recall John's reasons, but I use it for certain purposes because 1) there's Subversion integration, and 2) it takes, on average, a full workday less to reconfigure it to my liking after a re-install. I'm sure there's a way of backing up IIS configurations, but i never think of things like that 'till i've already repaved the machine, so things that don't survive an OS install just don't make it.
Backing up IIS involves backing up your entire OS drive. And if you want to go backwards to an earlier version of Windows/IIS, your backups are worthless anyway. You're better off with screen shots, and then good luck lining up those IIS7 screen shots with IIS6 or IIS5... Ain't gonna happen.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Too Bad, I was hoping you write an article to compare (or build on) your results with what I have. I am particularly intersted in Performace benchmarks between ASP.NET/MSSQL - ASP.NET/SQLServer on both IIS and Apache.
My only benchmarks are via the Mk-I Eyeball. "It doesn't look slow to me" is my catch phrase. Besides, at this point I'm the only user on the site and there's only two records in the data table that are displayed with nothing in the way of filtering. It takes longer to render the html than it does to query the database right now.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
At my previous job (until a couple of weeks ago) I was using MySQL from C++ on Linux. It is OK for light loads and small databases, but when things grow a little bit, better stay away from MySQL.
Maybe you just need more practice with MySQL. Not that I've looked, but I've never stumbled across anyone (that doesn't have a Microsoft-oriented agenda) saying that MySQL isn't enterprise ready.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Maybe you just need more practice with MySQL.
Nope - had enough of that joke in the last two years :)
-
Todd Smith wrote:
Our SVN server runs under Apache on Windows.
OK. Although in most cases, it is not necessary - svn has its own standalone server (at least on Linux, don't know about Windows).
Todd Smith wrote:
It's FREE?
There are other, much better, free db systems.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
There are other, much better, free db systems.
:shrug: If your web host allows you to install them, or you self-host. Mine doesn't. I use MySQL for personal stuff for the same reason i use SQLServer Express for work stuff - it's most likely to be available when and where i need it.
-
For 1, I would say bad experiences with IIS (at least prior to the newer versions). For 2, I have no idea, other than cost :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
Jim Crafton wrote:
For 2, I have no idea, other than cost
Well, I found out that Sql Server Standard (I think it's "standard) is only $50 or so. Still why spend the money? I also was under the assumption that Sql Server Express only allowed one database. Well, I have 17 on my site, and I'm not going to burden the machine with two different database servers just to support this one web site. I'm still not sure if my original assumption is true, but the server load issue is still there. The simple fact is that I started out with MySql because I was doing PHP, and since MySQL appears to work so well, I figured it would be nuts to dump it. Lest everyone forgets, I'm getting pretty damn lazy in my old age, and the last thing I want to deal with is significant change. After all, I'd much rather do other things than code at home - there are so many TV shows to watch, and I'm in the middle of preparing for the coming apocalypse (12/21/2012).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
My only benchmarks are via the Mk-I Eyeball. "It doesn't look slow to me" is my catch phrase. Besides, at this point I'm the only user on the site and there's only two records in the data table that are displayed with nothing in the way of filtering. It takes longer to render the html than it does to query the database right now.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Besides, at this point I'm the only user on the site and ...
Yeah, I am using Mercury QuickTest Professional on multiple machines to simulate High User Load .
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
It takes longer to render the html than it does to query the database right now
Interesting, How would it peform running on IIS I wonder :)
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
There are other, much better, free db systems.
:shrug: If your web host allows you to install them, or you self-host. Mine doesn't. I use MySQL for personal stuff for the same reason i use SQLServer Express for work stuff - it's most likely to be available when and where i need it.
Shog9 wrote:
If your web host allows you to install them, or you self-host.
It was my impression that John was self-hosting? :~
-
Shog9 wrote:
If your web host allows you to install them, or you self-host.
It was my impression that John was self-hosting? :~
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The benefit of running Apache instead of IIS is that when I do move back to an earlier (non-server) version of Windows, I don't have to start from scratch with an older version of IIS and worry about having to do stuff different ways.
OK, that makes sense.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Actually, MySQl is equally as viable as SQL Server. Besides, now I can use either one, where you're stuck with just SQL Server.
At my previous job (until a couple of weeks ago) I was using MySQL from C++ on Linux. It is OK for light loads and small databases, but when things grow a little bit, better stay away from MySQL.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
It is OK for light loads and small databases
AFAIK you are right that in a one to one comparison SQL Server will beat MySQL. SQL Server will ultimately hold more data and respond better. As a monolithic RDBMS interface SQL Server > MySQL. But as soon as you compare a real world situation with multiple servers, application layers, caching systems, sharding etc. then I think MySQL has been proven to work very well and at lesser cost (not free) than SQL Server. The platform support is also better. Google is also having good success with the open nature of MySQL and being able to patch problems they come across. If they find a problem they don't have to seek permission, engage with Microsoft engineers, check their license or wait for updates, they just fix the problem.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The benefit of running Apache instead of IIS is that when I do move back to an earlier (non-server) version of Windows, I don't have to start from scratch with an older version of IIS and worry about having to do stuff different ways.
OK, that makes sense.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Actually, MySQl is equally as viable as SQL Server. Besides, now I can use either one, where you're stuck with just SQL Server.
At my previous job (until a couple of weeks ago) I was using MySQL from C++ on Linux. It is OK for light loads and small databases, but when things grow a little bit, better stay away from MySQL.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
At my previous job (until a couple of weeks ago) I was using MySQL from C++ on Linux. It is OK for light loads and small databases, but when things grow a little bit, better stay away from MySQL.
You are joking right? I must have missed the smiley. MySQL excels at read often, write seldom databases. There are many large databases with huge loads running MySQL. I guess that's why Sun bought them.
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
It is OK for light loads and small databases, but when things grow a little bit, better stay away from MySQL.
Companies using MySql : Wikipidia Nokia Youtube NetQos flicker its is said that google also runs MySql (unconfirmed)
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness. ~Sheik Abd-al-Kadir
I can't always be wrong ... or can I?
