Move datadir to different server
Yukari
I want to move the datadir of mysql to a different server because I'm
planning to run it as a cluster later and separate it from the data
for more security.
But at the moment there are only two servers, the one I installed
mysql on and another one which I want to hold the data.
How can I move the datadir to the 2nd server? (They're both runnung
Windows Server 2003)
And how has the configuration exactly to look like?
I tried to copy the pre-defined datadir to the new server and changed
the datadir-option in my.ini, but after that i couldn't restart the
server. Seems like it doesn't find it anymore. How has that line to
look like? I tried differnt versions like 192.168.1.1/mysql-data, //
192.168.1.1/mysql-data, server01/mysql-data or //server01/mysql-data,
for example but none of them worked.
It would be very helpful if someone could explain the procedure to me,
because I only found Linux-Tutorials and they're very confusing for
me :(
Thanks in advance.
Yukari
The Natural Philosopher
I am not sure its possible or advisable to have a network mounted data
directory.
And if security is an issue. WTF are you doing running windows?
Yukari
wrote:
Argh, I think I hit the wrong link ^^"" and sent a direct message
instead of a reply here, sorry
Ok again...
It is planned to store the data in a SAN when the whole cluster is set
up. But as long as the hardware isn't ready yet, I'm testing it on two
Windows Servers.
I can't believe that I should be the first person who tries to do
something like that...
And I'm using Windows Servers because it's a preset I have to use.
Jerry Stuckle
Backup your data then restore it.
You *might* get by with copying the files, *IF* everything on the two
systems is identical (same versions of MySQL, same patches, if any, same
configuration, etc.). But then you might not.
See the mysqldump utility.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle
Don't worry about TNP - he's just a troll. That's an example of his
normal useless answer.
Yukari
> ==================
Haha, okay good to know ^^ thanks
To your answer: mh, I thought mysqldump is only for backups? (like
save database X or the whole data on place Y and import it back if
anything went wrong)
But what I want to do is to move the whole _working_ data to the
second server, so that there's only the service on server1 left and
everything else happens on the second server (on which no mysql-
service is running)
If I use mysqldump I get a backup file, but not a directory like mysql
uses it or am I getting the whole thing wrong?
*goes on reading the command-description*
Jerry Stuckle
Ah, I didn't understand that. I thought you were bringing up MySQL on
the second server.
No, you do NOT want to try to run MySQL on a networked drive. It's not
supported and will almost surely result in corrupted databases.
If you want the data on another server, then you need to place MySQL on
that server, also. You can easily run over the network that way.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle
Oh, and yes - mysqldump is for backing up and restoring the data - which
is the correct way to move data to a new server.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Yukari
> ==================
That means if I try to run two mysql-servers as a (failover-) cluster
and storing the data in a SAN, this would be impossible or could
produce corrupted databases? Do I understand that right?
What means, the whole thing would be impossible... and throws me back
to where I began *sigh*
How could I solve the problem then? If I run mysql on both mysql-
servers later with both their own data, I would have to synchronize
them somehow. They have to be identical because if one of them fails
the other server should "take it's place" like nothing has happened
from user-view. If they've got different data in such a case, that
could also produce errors for the users...
Erick T. Barkhuis
>On 17 Nov., 14:24, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> If you want the data on another server, then you need to place
>>MySQL on that server, also. �You can easily run over the network
>>that way.
>That means if I try to run two mysql-servers as a (failover-) cluster
>and storing the data in a SAN, this would be impossible or could
>produce corrupted databases?
Would this be any useful?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL_Cluster
--
Erick
Erick T. Barkhuis
>Would this be any useful?
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL_Cluster
Oops.
*nix, Solaris, AIX...but not Windows.
--
Erick
Yukari
wrote:
Mh, this is where I began actually ^^"
But then I read that it's not a good idea to run this on windows :
( but only on linux. That's why I tried to find other solutions.
Seems like I don't get around linux at last xD
Yukari
wrote:
Yep, that's the problem :(
Axel Schwenke
Nope. Starting with version 7 (of cluster) its also available
for Windoze. Still not what the OP is looking for.
Yukari
But it's not recommended for some reason. That's why I'm not sure if I
should use it then.
Mh, "OP"? What do you mean by that? ^^""
Axel Schwenke
> On 17 Nov., 15:07, Axel Schwenke <axel.schwe...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Nope. Starting with version 7 (of cluster) its also available
>> for Windoze. Still not what the OP is looking for.
>
> But it's not recommended for some reason.
It's not recommended to run it on Windoze for production use.
That's true for all server software IMHO :)
> Mh, "OP"? What do you mean by that? ^^""
Original Poster. You. Is "Yukari" a proper name?
However, MySQL cluster is very different from the the "normal"
MySQL server. If it would be for a solution for you, you'd
already know that.
What you probably look for, is a cluster manager that runs MySQL
on any of the cluster nodes and manages the shared storage and
service IP address. What "Heartbeat" is for Linux.
XL
Yukari
> Yukari <yukaricha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 17 Nov., 15:07, Axel Schwenke <axel.schwe...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Nope. Starting with version 7 (of cluster) its also available
> >> for Windoze. Still not what the OP is looking for.
>
> > But it's not recommended for some reason.
>
> It's not recommended to run it on Windoze for production use.
> That's true for all server software IMHO :)
>
> > Mh, "OP"? What do you mean by that? ^^""
>
> Original Poster. You. Is "Yukari" a proper name?
Ah, ok thanks. Learned something new again :)
Well, "Yukari" is rather my nickname than my real name ^^ (what a
pity, haha xD ) but I got used to it over the years.
> However, MySQL cluster is very different from the the "normal"
> MySQL server. If it would be for a solution for you, you'd
> already know that.
Maybe I should mention that I'm not looking for this for personal uses
(well... somehow.... because it's my job xD however, I'm still an
apprentice...)
Actually, yes... I thought that MySQL-Cluster was very confusing but I
ascribed that to the fact that I'm no expert at all the network-stuff.
> What you probably look for, is a cluster manager that runs MySQL
> on any of the cluster nodes and manages the shared storage and
> service IP address. What "Heartbeat" is for Linux.
>
> XL
Yeah, I think that fits the problem quite well, but still no real
solution in sight :(
Johannes Keßler
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
is there the option to use MSSQL instead ?
If so there are solutions for MSSQL and clusters.
regards,
johannes keßler
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAksCuWYACgkQE++2Zdc7EtdMyQCfYRw7uKQukFjB7Rws5aKT3jRr
+MYAn1/Gqi6ihSaik1GJDFcuPwGennKK
=LAJe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jerry Stuckle
Yes, that way will eventually result in corrupted databases. Both
MySQL's could not access the files (which they would be trying to do if
both were running concurrently). And almost any network glitch could
result in corrupted databases.
> How could I solve the problem then? If I run mysql on both mysql-
> servers later with both their own data, I would have to synchronize
> them somehow. They have to be identical because if one of them fails
> the other server should "take it's place" like nothing has happened
> from user-view. If they've got different data in such a case, that
> could also produce errors for the users...
You do it by using replication to keep the slave database in sync with
the master. You can even do bidirectional replication, although it can
be a bit tricky to set up.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle
Yukari,
I have found a definite bias against Windows by some people at MySQL.
They think anything which isn't Linux isn't worth much.
While I agree Windows has its problems, it has improved a lot over the
years. I run MySQL on Windows in several installations, and it works
just fine.
But it's interesting - if those people don't think any server software
should run on Windows, then why even go to the expense of creating that
software in the first place? It's not like it's cheap to do so.
There seems to be a disconnect here.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Yukari
wrote:
I don't know at this point. There will be two web-applications running
on the webservers.
The first is moodle (--> apache) and the second is opencms (-->
tomcat) and both are using MySQL.
But I'll try to find out if it's possible.
Yukari
> ==================
Actually they should NOT run concurrently like both of them working
with the same data. There should be only one working with the data and
the second does... nothing. It just waits for anything to happen and
IF anything wents wrong it jumps in for the first, so that in the end
only one of them will be working with the data. Well, that's the
theory... sounded much easier at the beginning XD
And how do I use this replication? ;D
Tricky... ha ha yeah I start to get used to tricky things ^^"" the
whole thing seems to me like a gigantic labyrinth meanwhile.
To the windows <--> linux conflict: I find it really annoying that if
I just mention that I want to solve this problem by using windows that
I feel immediatly like been thrown at with rocks by the resulting
answers to that (... maybe not grammatically perfect, but I hope
you'll understand what I mean).
Ok honestly, I'm really glad that it kept within a limit in this
thread :)
I realized that most prefer linux for some reason but I was told to
use windows so I'll at least try it.
If there would be really NO solutions (..or just hardly realizable) I
would think of using linux instead of course, but I just don't want to
give up that fast.
Axel Schwenke
>
> I have found a definite bias against Windows by some people at MySQL.
> They think anything which isn't Linux isn't worth much.
s/Linux/UNIXish/
> But it's interesting - if those people don't think any server software
> should run on Windows, then why even go to the expense of creating that
> software in the first place? It's not like it's cheap to do so.
>
> There seems to be a disconnect here.
The concept is known under the name "Individualism". Just because
I work for a company, I don't neccessarily share the official
positions about target platforms etc.
The Windows port of MySQL has some (well documented BTW) gotchas.
It boils down to the fact that MySQL was written for the POSIX API
and relies on a) proper and b) efficient implementation of it.
Windows' implementation of POSIX is ... suboptimal. Hence there are
some problems that might bite you (or not, depending on usage)
What would be necessary is a rewrite of the platform specific parts
to use the native API. But as you said: it's not cheap to do so.
XL
The Natural Philosopher
And this is what? contributing ANYTHING of value to the discussion?
Jerry, you are turning from an object of amusement, into a bore.
Go and play with yourself whilst other people try to sort out problems
without your zero content input.
It doesn't take much to head the polls of 'most posts to
comp.databases.mysql'
And the fact that you do, shows how little real work you have to do.
Jerry Stuckle
It's very interesting that Microsoft, Oracle and IBM can create RDBMS's
which run just fine under Windows.
The Natural Philosopher
No, you wouldn't, because you are a clueless fuckwit
And because you cant avoid pissing on me at every opportunity, because I
don't mind saying so, you missed reading my post where I clearly stated
that it was a different kettle of fish to do exactly that.
>
> No, you do NOT want to try to run MySQL on a networked drive. It's not
> supported and will almost surely result in corrupted databases.
>
I already said that Jerry, and you called me a troll for doing it.
What does that make you?
> If you want the data on another server, then you need to place MySQL on
> that server, also. You can easily run over the network that way.
>
>
I'm flattered that you agree entirely with me Jerry, but did it really
need you to say the same thing?
>
The Natural Philosopher
Which is where I came in.
1/. don't use a networked drive
2/. don't use windows.
Yukari
Can we go back to the topic, please.
I'm really thankful that there are people who are trying to help me
*bows before everyone except TNP*
but this thread isn't intended as a place for a flame war.
Jerry Stuckle
But that's the point - just up and running means it is going to be
attempting to access some system databases such as the mysql database.
MySQL has to have access to the databases to even start. And all of
this is true in every RDBMS I've used - they don't work well on network
drives.
> And how do I use this replication? ;D
> Tricky... ha ha yeah I start to get used to tricky things ^^"" the
> whole thing seems to me like a gigantic labyrinth meanwhile.
>
To start, you set up your master server to replicate all data to the
backup. That way, any changes made to the master server will also be
made to the backup. Of course, there will be a slight delay, because
the slave can't be backed up until the backup of the master has been
completed, and the data has to be sent over the network. But you can
keep this delay to a minimum.
Once you get that working, you can get bidirectional replication
working. You can google for "mysql bidirectional replication" (without
the quotes) for more info. Once site I've found helpful is
http://onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2006/04/20/advanced-mysql-replication.html.
They note that to switch servers requires manual intervention, but you
can also do it in your scripts - try to connect to the main one, and if
that fails, go to the backup. Much easier if your connections are all
handled out of one script you include in all of your other scripts.
> To the windows <--> linux conflict: I find it really annoying that if
> I just mention that I want to solve this problem by using windows that
> I feel immediatly like been thrown at with rocks by the resulting
> answers to that (... maybe not grammatically perfect, but I hope
> you'll understand what I mean).
> Ok honestly, I'm really glad that it kept within a limit in this
> thread :)
> I realized that most prefer linux for some reason but I was told to
> use windows so I'll at least try it.
>
> If there would be really NO solutions (..or just hardly realizable) I
> would think of using linux instead of course, but I just don't want to
> give up that fast.
If this won't do what you want, you could also try one of the other
RDBMS's. I've found both Oracle and DB2 to be quite good, in addition
to SQL Server.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
The Natural Philosopher
WEll thats the last time I give you the key info before stuckle repeats
what I said, and calls me a troll for it.
Look back, an see who jumped in, pissed on me, and got it wrong.
Jerry is a court holder. He reads manuals and pretends he knows stuff he
doesn't. He never really contributes anything complicated, he is just an
egotist that gets off on being top poster on half a dozen groups. He
impresses newbies for a while.
> but this thread isn't intended as a place for a flame war.
well plonk stuckle then. Or me. I dont care. I tried to be helpful, and
I get shit for it.
There are good reasons - not prejudice - why people don't build secure
servers on Windows, and good reasons why they don't network data drives
for server daemons.
Others have indicated what those are, and why they are. They actually
know what they are saying. Stuckle does not. He prefers to win
arguments, than be correct. That is a dangerous person to believe in.
You have been warned.
Yukari
It's just the way HOW you tried to "explain" at the beginning. A
reaction like "WTF windows?! burn it" (not word by word, just what I
read in it) is not what I asked for...it's a childish reaction and not
very helpful at all at this point.
Axel also told me that linux could be better, but way friendlier (not
compared to windows itself xD but compared to me after all).
It's NOT that I totally ignore all the voices screaming at me "OMG why
the hell are you using windows" *coughs* ;) nah, joke... I think I
already said it: if there is no practicable way to solve my problem I
really will think of using linux again. But NOW I want to try it with
windows until I reach this point. (who knows.... maybe there will be
another thread just with linux as topic soon xD )
Axel Schwenke
>
> I'm really thankful that there are people who are trying to help me
> *bows before everyone except TNP*
OMG. You shouldn't take sides before knowing the guys.
But you're new in this group so this can probably be forgiven
XL
Peter H. Coffin
> Axel Schwenke wrote:
>> The Windows port of MySQL has some (well documented BTW) gotchas.
>> It boils down to the fact that MySQL was written for the POSIX API
>> and relies on a) proper and b) efficient implementation of it.
>>
>> Windows' implementation of POSIX is ... suboptimal. Hence there are
>> some problems that might bite you (or not, depending on usage)
>>
>> What would be necessary is a rewrite of the platform specific parts
>> to use the native API. But as you said: it's not cheap to do so.
>>
>>
>> XL
>
> It's very interesting that Microsoft, Oracle and IBM can create RDBMS's
> which run just fine under Windows.
Run, yes. Even give away. But that's a recognition that there's a
lot of those licenses out there, not an endorsement of the idea. And
dirt-common OS installations are a fine way to get someone's application
written to your RDBMS so that when they want to REALLY scale, there's
HP/Sun or IBM, ready to offer a pen to sign for an Exadata or Power6
box....
--
Either way, it'll remind the clued that there's only one letter
difference between 'turkey' and 'turnkey'.
-- Mike Andrews
Jerry Stuckle
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:44:05 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Axel Schwenke wrote:
>>> The Windows port of MySQL has some (well documented BTW) gotchas.
>>> It boils down to the fact that MySQL was written for the POSIX API
>>> and relies on a) proper and b) efficient implementation of it.
>>>
>>> Windows' implementation of POSIX is ... suboptimal. Hence there are
>>> some problems that might bite you (or not, depending on usage)
>>>
>>> What would be necessary is a rewrite of the platform specific parts
>>> to use the native API. But as you said: it's not cheap to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>> XL
>> It's very interesting that Microsoft, Oracle and IBM can create RDBMS's
>> which run just fine under Windows.
>
> Run, yes. Even give away. But that's a recognition that there's a
> lot of those licenses out there, not an endorsement of the idea. And
> dirt-common OS installations are a fine way to get someone's application
> written to your RDBMS so that when they want to REALLY scale, there's
> HP/Sun or IBM, ready to offer a pen to sign for an Exadata or Power6
> box....
>
Or stay on Windows - because they run fine on it. There are a lot of
Windows installations of all of the above - and have been for years.
Richard
"Yukari" <yukari...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:29fbada7-df36-4c8c...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I want to move the datadir of mysql to a different server because
> I'm
> planning to run it as a cluster later and separate it from the data
> for more security.
>
> But at the moment there are only two servers, the one I installed
> mysql on and another one which I want to hold the data.
> How can I move the datadir to the 2nd server? (They're both runnung
> Windows Server 2003)
> And how has the configuration exactly to look like?
>
> I tried to copy the pre-defined datadir to the new server and
> changed
> the datadir-option in my.ini, but after that i couldn't restart the
> server. Seems like it doesn't find it anymore. How has that line to
> look like? I tried differnt versions like 192.168.1.1/mysql-data, //
> 192.168.1.1/mysql-data, server01/mysql-data or
> //server01/mysql-data,
> for example but none of them worked.
>
> It would be very helpful if someone could explain the procedure to
> me,
> because I only found Linux-Tutorials and they're very confusing for
> me :(
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Yukari
Hi Yukari,
reading all you want to do, I think the best thing to do is to set up
a master-master replication configuration.
It is not so hard to do if you follow the procedure.
The nice thing is that you can add new computers as slaves at any time
without even stopping the master servers.
I have a setup running for some years now, where one server is on
Windows, the other is on Linux, and a third is on windows in a far
away country.
It just works, if you keep an eye on it and solve problems early.
My favorite tools are mySQL Administrator and mySQL Query browser from
the mySQL site. They come in a package called GUI tools, its in the
downloads section.
MySQL Administrator has a reasonably easy to use tool for backing up
databases, all nice and graphical. If you make sure to use the exact
same version of the program on all platfroms, you are very unlikely to
have problems.
Check the mySQL site first for some details on replication, what the
idea behind it is.
The do a google on master-master replication mysql.
The crucial part of setting things up is to get the bin-log working.
After that, you lock the master database, make a backup, and record
the database settings.
Move the backup over to the other machine, and set the numbers from
the other server.
From there things ought to be easy.
Good luck,
let me know if you need more,
Richard
Gordon Burditt
>planning to run it as a cluster later and separate it from the data
>for more security.
>
>But at the moment there are only two servers, the one I installed
>mysql on and another one which I want to hold the data.
>How can I move the datadir to the 2nd server? (They're both runnung
>Windows Server 2003)
>And how has the configuration exactly to look like?
MySQL needs a *local* path name for the datadir. If you insist on
using a remote datadir, you need to mount the filesystem on the
local host and give a local path name (with locally-assigned drive
letter and no host name in it) for it.
A remote datadir is not a very good idea. You can end up with
corrupted data if the local host, the remote host, or the network
crashes, and this adds two additional points of failure that can
cause problems. Even shutting down the systems in the wrong order
could cause problems - you would be suddenly cutting off any I/O
to the files, possibly in the middle of a transaction.
If you intend to use the same datadir for two instances of MySQL
running on two different servers, that has even more potential for
problems and may not be supported by MySQL. File locking working
correctly is critical here.
>I tried to copy the pre-defined datadir to the new server and changed
>the datadir-option in my.ini, but after that i couldn't restart the
>server. Seems like it doesn't find it anymore. How has that line to
>look like? I tried differnt versions like 192.168.1.1/mysql-data, //
>192.168.1.1/mysql-data, server01/mysql-data or //server01/mysql-data,
>for example but none of them worked.
Try Z:/mysql-data , where Z: is a drive you mounted. You probably want
it to automatically re-mount on reboot, if you insist on trying this.
Richard
"Gordon Burditt" <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:84idnablVfXN3Z7W...@posted.internetamerica...
> >I want to move the datadir of mysql to a different server because
> >I'm
>>planning to run it as a cluster later and separate it from the data
>>for more security.
>>
...
...
>
> Try Z:/mysql-data , where Z: is a drive you mounted. You probably
> want
1 detail:
Z:\mysql-data, not Z:/mysql-data
R.
Gordon Burditt
>> >I'm
>>>planning to run it as a cluster later and separate it from the data
>>>for more security.
>>>
>
>...
>> want
>
>1 detail:
>Z:\mysql-data, not Z:/mysql-data
Are you sure? I'd expect both versions to work as long as Microsoft's
command interpreters don't get involved. And I don't think they will.
It's also possible that the option-file interpreter is interpreting
escape sequences, and to make it work, you'd need Z:\\mysql-data rather
than Z:\mysql-data .
>R.
Yukari
Good morning everyone,
ok, maybe you're right...I was just little bit nerved by him because
of his behavior yesterday, but I apologize at this point.
To the topic:
Mh, okay. So there are two possible solutions, right?
- Using Linux and MySQL Cluster
- or using replication and maybe even on Windows.
Now I have to decide which one I'll try. Difficult decision xD mhh...
Atm I tend more to MySQL Cluster, because of the many warnings of
possible corrupted databases, but I think I should read more about
both possibilities before I finally decide.
Jerry Stuckle
I think you have a misunderstanding here. Neither MySQL cluster nor
replication will cause corrupted databases. Attempting to use a network
drive will, however.
Jerry Stuckle
Z:/mysql-data will work quite fine.
Axel Schwenke
> Mh, okay. So there are two possible solutions, right?
> - Using Linux and MySQL Cluster
> - or using replication and maybe even on Windows.
Wrong. Clustering *is* supported on Windows. It's probably just not
as widespread and common as i.e. Heartbeat on Linux. You should ask
in a Windows group or ask a Windows professional (obviously we are
none).
XL
Yukari
I was talking about this:
http://www.mysql.com/products/database/cluster/
and this is now supported for windows but not recommended.
I just installed openSuse now, just to test how far I get. Well....
it's exasperating... *head->desk*
It's been a while since I last worked with linux and I'm anything but
an expert.
That's why I have to look up eeevery tiny step, because I don't
remember how to configure this and that and... *sigh*
That's the reason why I would prefer windows. I'm no windows expert as
well, but I would suggest that more then with linux ^^"""
Maybe I should stick to replication then if it's possible on
windows...
I'm going to read some tutorials about that now and hope I get farther
then I did with the mysql-cluster-thing....
Sorry for the chaos ^^" but I'm very thankful for you help so far :) I
think I would be really despaird long ago without it xD
The Natural Philosopher
> On 18 Nov., 12:33, Axel Schwenke <axel.schwe...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Yukari <yukaricha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Mh, okay. So there are two possible solutions, right?
>>> - Using Linux and MySQL Cluster
>>> - or using replication and maybe even on Windows.
>> Wrong. Clustering *is* supported on Windows. It's probably just not
>> as widespread and common as i.e. Heartbeat on Linux. You should ask
>> in a Windows group or ask a Windows professional (obviously we are
>> none).
>>
>> XL
>
> I was talking about this:
> http://www.mysql.com/products/database/cluster/
> and this is now supported for windows but not recommended.
>
> I just installed openSuse now, just to test how far I get. Well....
> it's exasperating... *head->desk*
Oh dear. Comp.os.Linux is thataway -->
> It's been a while since I last worked with linux and I'm anything but
> an expert.
> That's why I have to look up eeevery tiny step, because I don't
> remember how to configure this and that and... *sigh*
>
Its not hard. There's probably better support on Ubuntu, for a newbie.
> That's the reason why I would prefer windows. I'm no windows expert as
> well, but I would suggest that more then with linux ^^"""
> Maybe I should stick to replication then if it's possible on
> windows...
>
Id really persevere with Linux, actually. It makes a very stable server
on quite limited hardware.
I personally find it easier than Windows.
Yukari
wrote:
Yep, I assumed that there would be another group for this subject, but
I think some of my questions would be just TOO dumb for something like
that xD it's not that I can't find answers to my problems on the
internet (until now ha ha), it just costs muuuch time again to look up
every tiny step.
Jerry Stuckle
Learning a new OS is not trivial, as you know. And when you get things
running, you're likely to miss things because you didn't know you should
worry about them.
It's why I wouldn't recommend switching OS's here. The problems you're
having now will continue, and only get worse, until you either get some
training (through books, classes, etc.) or hire someone who is familiar
with Linux.
Also, while OpenSuse is one of the more secure distros, it's also one of
the more complicated ones to implement, partly because of that security.
Yukari
> ==================
I posted another thread now as a little decision-help for me between
the two options mentioned here. I did this, because I can read tons of
articles about both options for sure, but it's very hard for me to
decide which one is better for me, however.
Even though I'm still afraid of using linux, I don't care that much
any longer. I just want to find the best solution for the given
problem. But also the easiest at the same time.
The Natural Philosopher
Well I found that Debian desktop is about where Windows 98 was last time
I looked at it, in terms of general plug and play. I.e. mostly it is,
and what isn't is not that hard to work out with an internet connection.
In terms of server side stiff, I had the most problems with weird PHP
libraries requiring other stuff to be installed as well. MYSQL is a
standard package in Debian and 'just works'
AS far as serving goes, it may be better today, but NT4 and its
descendants have always had memory leak problems. Linux as a server has
been very stable for many years. Arguably its better at dealing with
memory management and pipelined disk accesses and general process
management as its always had those.
Yukari
So Debian.... is there a big difference between that and suse? Don't
know, never tried anything else, but wouldn't matter much I think,
because I forgot most of what I learned with suse, damn... xD
That mysql comes as standard with it sounds good, because installing
stuff on linux seemed always strange to me (typical win-user, eh? xD)
but sooner or later I won't get around it ^^
But regardless which OS I'll choose I still have to find out which
clustering-method to use.... ^^""
The Natural Philosopher
yeah, and that's where I step back, cost I know less than you do about it.
But MOST stuff is easier to install on Linux. Ive found that once you
step of Microsoft Island, you are in shark infested seas, but stepping
off Linux island takes you into 3rd party lagoon..a lot friendlier, with
shallow bits.