Apache, MySQL, and .Net - The Adventure Continues
-
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? -
Shog9 wrote:
If your web host allows you to install them, or you self-host.
It was my impression that John was self-hosting? :~
I am.
"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 -
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
-
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.
http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/case-studies/[^] If you look down the page of case studies you'll see: "Utel handles 10,000 Requests per Second Using a Scale out Deployment of MySQL Network" Not a bad scale out in my opinion. Are you sure you researched this topic enough to flame the product? Maybe you didn't optimize your db or something.
-
i thought mono was only for Linux installations. John's running Windows.
-
i thought mono was only for Linux installations. John's running Windows.
It's OSS, you can probably find a distro that'll run on your digital watch. :rolleyes:
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
It's OSS, you can probably find a distro that'll run on your digital watch. :rolleyes:
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
Yeah I just looked on the mono-project.com site and there is a windows install of it. If you want cross compatibility you program for Mono and it "should" run on both platforms. It will be interesting if commercial packages convert their code to support Mono or not.
-
Well, after a couple of weeks (four full days and only an hour a night on week days) of developing a website, integrating a MySQL membership/role/profile provider, and implementing Forms Authentication, I copied the whole shebang to the (windows 2003) server running Apache 2.0.55, and waddayaknow - it bloody well worked! I think this whole experiment can be marked down as a resounding success, so if you've been holding back on running Asp.Net 2.0 under Apache, or using MySQL with .Net, there's no real reason you shouldn't be able to proceed.
"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, 10/26/2001Nice to about unexpected success. Caused an interesting thread, too. Most of the time I hear about unexpected failures (bugs). This is like a juicy raisin in the muesli - a surprisingly rare sweet moment of positivity that doesn't turn out to be artificial on closer inspection. I once built a simple website using VS2005 and was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked with the major browsers on my friends' PC's. In fact I could hardly believe it. I cling to stuff like that at times of deep MSdespair.
I'm peculiar to myself, therefore I am.
