what size forum to upgrade from access to MySQL

Post Reply

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Landlord-Forum Members Profile Find Members Posts Newbie Joined: 11 January 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 19	Post Options Post Reply Quote Landlord-Forum Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: what size forum to upgrade from access to MySQL Posted: 30 June 2006 at 10:26pm
	Hi All, i here a lot of people say that access is basically good for beginers, (which i am) and that it is good for small forums. but what is small? i have a forum that i built using the fabulous wwf, (paid for of course) and recently upgraded to vers8, (awesome btw) and i want to make sure that i change to MySql b4 i have issues with size. current usage is as follows: Our users have posted 757 Posts in 226 Topics in 19 Forum(s) We have 1,043 Forum Members new member signups average 5-10 a day most visitors i have seen online is 7 at one time i would like to know what is the crunch factor? presumably it is no. of visitors at the same time, right? not the number of posts or actual members? at what point should i swap db's? all help is much appreciated JP

WebWiz-Bruce Members Profile Find Members Posts Admin Group Web Wiz Developer Joined: 03 September 2001 Location: Bournemouth Status: Offline Points: 9844	Post Options Post Reply Quote WebWiz-Bruce Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 02 July 2006 at 2:22pm
	The problem with Access is that it often easily becomes corrupted when used for a forum backend due to the high number of reads and writes placed on the database. At what stage it becomes corrupted is anyones guess as it could be anytime. I've seen people running Web Wiz Forums with an Access backend that is over 300Mb in size and over 50 active users without any issues, but then I have seen people with just 5Mb databases and a low active users who's database has become corrupted. Most shared server web hosts don't like Access databases over 10Mb in size. I personally would say you are better off starting with mySQL or SQL Server from the start and with mySQL and SQL Server 2005 Express being free it's not an expensive option these days going for a decent database system.
	Web Wiz Forums Hosting ASP.NET Web Hosting

DonPMitchell Members Profile Find Members Posts Newbie Joined: 04 July 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7	Post Options Post Reply Quote DonPMitchell Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 July 2006 at 12:43am
	My host also offers FoxPro database free, in addition to Access. I pay extra for MySQL and quite a bit more for MS SQL Server. I get the impression that FoxPro is similar to MySQL in capability and performance. Have you ever thought about making WWF work with it? Just curious.

WebWiz-Bruce Members Profile Find Members Posts Admin Group Web Wiz Developer Joined: 03 September 2001 Location: Bournemouth Status: Offline Points: 9844	Post Options Post Reply Quote WebWiz-Bruce Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 July 2006 at 11:58am
	FoxPro, thats a blast from the past, didn't even know that people still used that anymore. I'm afraid that as FoxPro is no longer used, that a FoxPro version isn't panned. But as mySQL is free most hosts will give you this option for free, if your host doesn't I would suggest looking for a new web host.
	Web Wiz Forums Hosting ASP.NET Web Hosting

DonPMitchell Members Profile Find Members Posts Newbie Joined: 04 July 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7	Post Options Post Reply Quote DonPMitchell Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 July 2006 at 8:31pm
	Thanks. Looks like they still are making FoxPro (version 9), but I don't understand what that product's market is. I'm surprised there aren't more competators to MySQL. I've been looking at the new TPC-C benchmarks results that Daffodil published on MySQL and PostgreSQL, and they both really choke when atomic transactions are fully engaged. Almost 100 times slower than MS SQL Server! And I've been told MySQL's atomic transactions are not really atomic in the case of crashes. Atomicity is pretty important in terms of avoiding database corruption. Crashes are rare, so I guess MySQL just gets away with what they do, but it's worrisome. But then MS SQL Server is sort of like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer. So I was really just thinking about what might be a "lite" database system that would be good for website applications. Maybe the new free version of MS SQL Server Express? If its licensing is not too nerfed to be useful. Edited by DonPMitchell - 04 July 2006 at 8:32pm

WebWiz-Bruce Members Profile Find Members Posts Admin Group Web Wiz Developer Joined: 03 September 2001 Location: Bournemouth Status: Offline Points: 9844	Post Options Post Reply Quote WebWiz-Bruce Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 05 July 2006 at 8:24am
	This site uses SQL Sever 2005 Express, and I must say it is really good. The limitations with the free Express version should not effect the running of a web site. Oracle have also come out with a free version of it's database, so it looks like Oracle and MS are finally realising that to keep up with mySQL this needs to be done. There is nothing in the license stopping you from using SQL Server Express for your web sites backend database.
	Web Wiz Forums Hosting ASP.NET Web Hosting

Post Reply

Forum Jump

Forum Permissions View Drop Down

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum