[Info-vax] Databases versus RMS

[ChrisQ]

On 04/21/12 20:36, 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.

It depends on which storage model is used and there are pros and
cons for each of the models. One thing I do like is that the data seems to
be independent of host info, in that the data tree can be copied to another
machine and it just all works, assuming the same setup install on both. The
data tree is by default in the same directory tree as mysql etc
(/usr/local/mysql here), but that can point anywhere in the  filesystem by
replacing it with a link. Why ?, because it separates data and program, 
is more
flexible and allows the use of the default setup. Thus, no added 
documentation
to forget or not properly log for a year later :-).

Mysql Workbench is pretty good too and may be one of the few valid 
reasons for
having a windows box around...

Regards,

Chris