directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Boreham <david_l...@boreham.org>
Subject Re: ApacheDS partition implementation based on Relational Model
Date Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:52:27 GMT
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:

> If it woth 64 000$, then it's a BECAUSE :) Otherwise, there are many 
> good other reasons beside being greedy :
> - SQL databases are reliable, when jdbm database is not

Well, one might argue that there are better reliable storage manager 
choices than a client/server RDBMS.

> - SQL databases have a _lot_ of tools, when we don't have any - or 
> close to any

True, but not necessarily a good thing ;)

> - SQL Database support transactions, and it's good to have, because we 
> don't support them...

See item #1 above.

> - SQL Database can be replicated

Sometimes, although the style of replication may not suit the directory 
application.

> - SQL Database can be stored on a SAN or a cluster easily

True, but a non-feature for a directory service with its own replication.

> - There are a lot of addon like Hibernate to do the mapping on SQL 
> database
> - Some customer want trustable storage. Oraacle is trustable (well, 
> this is questionnable... A system is as string as its weakest element 
> (man ?) :)

Yeah, this is the 'data store envy' argument.

> - And, so far, database are quite fast. IBM IDS is using DB2, I have 
> seen it running with 70 000 000 entries, and it was fast enough for 
> our needs...

So they fixed the 2Gbyte table size limit then ;)



Mime
View raw message