Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (30361)	10/2/1999 4:34:00 PM
From: Mitch Blevins	Respond to of 74651

rudedog - That is a valid way of putting it. I would go even futher to say that even if they need more performance than a single PC can give them, it may be possible to distribute the database over several machines, thus giving them the same performance that they could get with one high-priced unix box by using several cheap PC boxes with Windows. Of course this will depend on the type of application they were using. It sounded like the original poster just wanted to serve up big image files. For this, he could use MySQL, which is greasy fast (faster than both MS SQLServer and Oracle), running on PC Hardware with *BSD or Linux. This would be dirt cheap, more stable, and easy to maintain. The downside is the MySQL does not support transactions/rollback or subqueries. Depending on the type of application, this could be an option. PostgreSQL is another option that would eliminate client access costs, and is also fully featured (unlike MySQL). The downside is that PostgreSQL is not all that fast for a given piece of hardware, and you would have to compensate by using more boxen. -Mitch