Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:41:47 -0800 From: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> To: Michael Powell <nightrecon@hotmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mysql60-server?? Message-ID: <20091125224147.GB58848@thought.org> In-Reply-To: <hek0pr$9e2$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <20091125185704.GA58709@thought.org> <4B0D8299.6080201@infracaninophile.co.uk> <hek0pr$9e2$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:33:11PM -0500, Michael Powell wrote: > Matthew Seaman wrote: > > > Gary Kline wrote: > >> kwik one: > >> > >> in his build-server stuff [6.2], jon horne said to use > >> mysql50-server. i see the latest is mysql60.... > >> > >> should i go ahead and use the latest mysql database? or just do as the > >> > >> instruction say? > [snip] > > > > Prior to that we have: > > > > mysql51 -- MySQL's current GA (generally available) release offering. It's > > got a number of new features like stored procedures but > > depending on your workloads it may or may not be faster than... > > > > mysql50 -- The previous GA version, and still the most widely deployed > > version at > > the moment. It is still being actively maintained even if it > > is pretty > > much down-played on MySQL's website. This is a version that > > has been in all sorts of production use for years and pretty > > thoroughly debugged, hence a very safe choice. > > > > In summary: choose either of mysql50 or mysql51 according to preference or > > your particular requirements. > > > > A lot of people are still using 50 and many consider it faster than 51. I > think the main difference performance wise is 51 might have a tad heavier > thread handling performance for the latest and greatest high end quad socket > quad core boxen. 50 may offer better performance on older more down level > commodity boxen. I've been running 51 for a quite a while now and haven't > had any trouble with it, but I'm not hammering it either. If the hardware > isn't quite up to snuff 50 may actually be a better choice, especially in > the scenario where web and database are running on the same, albeit slower > machine. Another factor in the decision might be to consider when EOL may be > scheduled. > > -Mike > > good to know. thanks for the input! gary > -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix "Misfortune doesn't improve anyone. That is a fable to reassure the afflicted. A life of hardship humiliates man and forces him to expend all his energy on resisting its deadly pressure. If a man comes out of it improved, it only means that he has spent an enormous amount of energy on improving in spite of everything. Just think what he might have done without that pressure." --Jiri Mucha, *Living and Partly Living*
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091125224147.GB58848>