This is a challenging question, but will still ask it. I know nothing is impossible. Impossible simply means not discovered yet.
What I would like to do is connect all my FTPs and SQL DBs from my 10 servers and pool them all together to combine the resources and create a share resource environment. Therefore creating a ftp and sql cluster. I do not want to purchase any software. Just wondering if there is some method maybe in PHP. I dont want to clone my sites db to the 10 servers, but wondering is there a way to bridge 10 sql dbs together over 10 servers to create a super computer like environment?
MySQL Cluster is an Open-Source solution.
Distributed FTP Daemon seems to be a promising project.
Related
I am new to Database programming and there is some general questions that I would like to ask. I created the schema in my localhost using mySQL and linked to eclipse. There are some problems that I do not know how to approach.
One of my friends would like to help to develop at his personal machine, but he could not link to my database server. So one way is to copy the schema to his mySQL and change the connection string, are there any better ways?
If I would to release the project and run it on different machines, will it affect the databases operation since the schema resides in my local server.
Is there ways to just like attach the database inside the project since it is a local database and I am not accessing it from any other programs.
Sorry if my questions sound very stupid. I am really new.
Your approach of running local test MySQL instance for every developer sounds fine.
However, if your application never needs any data shared (essentially database is always local as you stated), then you should ask yourself if MySQL really an appropriate solution for your application. I think SQLite is a better choice in that situation - it is likely to work faster than MySQL for local access, and it has essentially zero setup - no database daemon to run or anything like that which greatly simplifies application install.
Granted, SQLite has its limits, but I often use SQLite for my projects, and only if they grow large, I might migrate them to MySQL or PostgreSQL if task requires it.
Typical signs that SQLite may not cut it:
Many clients (10+) need to access database for writing
Total database size is very large - more than 10GB total
I have two servers. One is located in our office, and its MySQL base contains our offers, our clients etc.
The second server is located at our hosting provider's datacenter. It uses the same database structure and the same offers, and I use it for our website.
I was synchronizing these two servers manually, by sending json from one server to another each few hours, but now I need a real-time synchronization.
Which way should I use?
Master-slave replication from company server to website server. The problem is, that our slave website database has its own changeable tables too. For example, orders, user sessions, viewcounts and so on. And I need to send somehow that tables to master server at office.
To use only one database for both servers. Problem is, that there could be up to 100 queries each pageview, and I think that running each query through internet could be quiet slow.
We cannot use only one server for all tasks because we are unable to provide a stable low-latency internet connection in our office. So when internet is down, our site or our CRM system would be down to.
May be there is a third and best way to do this?
You can try Data Comparison tool in dbForge Studio for MySQL. It will connect to two different MySQL servers (using simple connection, SSL, SSH or HTTP tunnel), compare them and show differences; then it will offer to run synchronization script or view/save it.
There is also stand-alone dbForge Data Compare tool.
I am kind of a amateur at web development. But it seems like most people develop on their local machines and the upload to their remote servers when everything is ready. I want to start doing this. I've installed Xampp (Apache) on my local machine. But in order for this to really work, i need the the mysql databases that already exist on my remote server to be "synched" or "duplicated" on my local machine. But I'm finding this somewhat hard to figure out.
First, Should I be using mysql "reduplication" feature (with my remote server as master) and local machine as slave? Or is there a better way to do this? Should I be synchronizing instead of reduplicating
Second, Is anyone willing to give me a quick description of how I achieve this "reduplication" or "synchronization"
Thanks
It may be tempting, but it's hopeless to try to keep the database in two places. Instead, always keep the database on the server because it's much easier to develop and debug your code if it's in just one place. "Resynch" and "reduplicate" and all that business is just too much trouble, as you are discovering. The DB is going to end up on the server anyway, so you may as well put it there right now.
Also, you will not need a web server on your local machine, which will unburden you.
This next is applicable if you are writing CGI. If you aren't sure whether or not you are writing CGI, then you are not (well, probably not). {
If you mainain just one database and it lives on your server, you'll be able to write one piece of portable code that will run equally well on your local machine and on your server. This is a huge win, take my word for it.
To get this working, you will need the mysql library on your local machine; no other mysql component is needed there. The mysql server will run on your server only.
Read up on mysql "connector" for the language you're using.
}
I'm developing an app which will have a central database users can add entries to. The database will have to be on a server somewhere but I want the users to be able to add entries offline. The app will sync to the main db when connection is available. So, I supose I need 2 databases - the main one sitting on a server (preferably linux) and a small one on each client machine to use as a buffer when offline. The app will be coded in c# for windows. I'm having trouble deciding what databases to use and whether I can leverage any replication technology to make this easier. Also, I don't want to pay for anything ;) So I guess my questions are...
Will I have any trouble writing code in ADO.NET to move data from something like SQL Compact Edition to MySQL?
Are there any replication solutions which will move stuff from local to main database for me
I've recently discovered IBM's db2 expressC but I'm not sure if it's serverless as well as server installed. Does anyone know?
Firebird can be server or serverless. Can I replicate between them. Is the server mode capable of heavy use?
Firebird can be server or serverless.
Can I replicate between them.
Yes.
Is the server mode capable of heavy
use?
Define 'heavy use'. I've had production systems with 200 simultaneous users pumping 20 transactions/minute each on databases in the 10-20GB range. I'm sure there are many larger deployments out there.
Also, what you describe seem like the 'briefcase model'. You should look into it if you haven't already done so. Maybe the solution is not replication at the database level, but rather a smarter fat client.
Just answering two of your questions; I don't know about DB2 or Firebird.
Will I have any trouble writing code in ADO.NET to move data from something like SQL Compact Edition to MySQL?
That should be very trivial; install MySQL Connector/NET and you're good to go.
Are there any replication solutions which will move stuff from local to main database for me
SQL Server replication is made for this, but I don't suppose it would work with MySQL.
I currently have an MS Access application that connects to a PostgreSQL database via ODBC. This successfully runs on a LAN with 20 users (each running their own version of Access). Now I am thinking through some disaster recovery scenarios, and it seems that a quick and easy method of protecting the data is to use log shipping to create a warm-standby.
This lead me to think about putting this warm-standby at a remote location, but then I have the question:
Is Access connecting to a remote database via ODBC usable?
I.e. the remote database is maybe in the same country with ok ping times and I have a 1mbit SDSL line.
onnodb,
The PostgreSQL ODBC driver is actively developed and an Access front-end combined with PostgreSQL server, in my opinion makes a great option on a LAN for rapid development. I have been involved in a reasonably big system (100+ PostgreSQL tables, 200+ Access forms, 1000+ Access queries & reports) and it has run excellently for a few years, with ~20 users. Any queries running slow because Access is doing something stupid can generally just be solved by using views, and any really data-intensive code can easily be moved into PostgreSQL functions and then called from Access.
The only main ODBC-related issue we have is that there is no way to kill a slow running query from Access, so we do often get users just killing Access and then massive queries are just left executing on the server.
Yes.
I don't have any experience using Access to hit PostgreSQL from a remote location but I have successfully used Access as a front-end to SQL Server & DB2 from a remote location with success.
Ironically, what you don't want to do is use Access to front-end an Access database (mdb) from a remote location over a high-latency link. Since hitting the MDB uses file-based operations it's pretty easy to end up with a corrupt database if you have anything more than a trivial db.
It depends a lot on the database you're using as a back-end. I've had rather terrible experiences with MySQL as a back-end. Make sure the ODBC link you're using is actively developed, stable and complete --- this was definitely not the case for MySQL. You may also want to check for any compatibility issues between Access and Postgre. And, of course, it won't hurt to test extensively.
Oh, and I think it'd be absolutely great if you could post back here later with your experiences!
PostgreSQL works great as a backend for MS Access, there are a couple of support functions you should use to make things easier. See here for more info on this:
http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com/smf/index.php?board=8.0