[Info-vax] Databases versus RMS

[JF Mezei]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

> One DBMS is not like every other DMBS. I have have had a Rdb database
> "break" due to a simple power failure.

Are there options which make a database more robust, but many database
admins, being too inexperienced, don't think about them ?  or are some
database systems, being "free/opensourced" just too easy to get majorly
screwed up because of a power failure ?

(Yes, I do intend to find out what tht web forum uses and what sort of
indexing technooogy it uses so I know NOT to use that).

I just find it odd that datbase systems, designed to protect your data
in a better way than ormal indexed files seem to not be so robust after all.

I am moving an RMS/All-in-1 application over to my mac using mysql, PHP
and HTML. And it appears one can set up a mysql datbaase without any
locking, and some of the indexing seems very primitive (there are
different indexing engines).

I can understand one or two records being corrupt because an update was
only half written,  but should that prevent the rest of the database
from running ?


> And, generaly speaking, Rdb is more "safe" then a plain RMS
> based "database".

An RMS write tends to result in an immediate physical write to disk.
(unless hidden by a storage array which delays writes).


The reason I am askig is to know whether the "industry" has accepted
those risks of hiding physical disks behind storage arrays that may not
write right away and behind database engines that not only delay writes
and cache stuff on their own, but can also get corrupt because of a
power failure.