[Info-vax] Databases versus RMS

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 4/21/2012 4:36 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> ChrisQ wrote:
>> No expert on db systems, and it may not have all the bells and whistles
>> of some of
>> the proprietary offerings, but seems pretty impressive to me. It just
>> works...
>
> This is what scares me. Because it also "just works" for me as well.
>
> But that doesn't give me enough knowledge/experience to plan it properly
> to minimize the risk that it all breaks down at a power failure or
> system crash.
>
> With RMS, every table is self contained in its own file with all indices
> and data.  With MySQL, the stuff is spread in a gazillion files.  You
> need to use special tools to manage it.

????

With InnoDB tables you only have a few files for the entire
database no matter how many tables.

With MyISAM you have one file per table (and one additional
file per index I think). Not a gazillion.

You should use InnoDB.

If you have hundred of GB or TB of data you need to manage
it.

With less data you just put define where to put the
stuff in the config and you are done.

If you want high availability and protection against
data loss, then you do the same things that do for
other systems:
* put the files on RAID-1 or RAID-10 storage
* replicate to another database at another location

Arne