3 ms·

Firstly, I've never said that you couldn't build big stuff with MySQL or other Open Source tech. But if you for a second think that MySQL has the same kind of

Firstly, I've never said that you couldn't build big stuff with MySQL or other Open Source tech. But if you for a second think that MySQL has the same kind of performance and feature set as Oracle, you're sadly mistaken. The example you have given has nothing to do with the technologies, and everything to do with the application requirements. An Internet Banking site has the need for real-time, centralized, transactional updates. There is no real option to cache a lot of stuff, or to delay the distribution of updates, or to shard/replicate data for reads, etc. It also has the need for real-time transactional replication, sophisticated auditing, global fault-tolerance, etc., etc. It's also a much more transactional site than something like Facebook. Facebook's application requirements allow for a totally different set of tools to be used in a totally different manner. The dynamics of the site also has a lot to do with how it can be built. For example, Facebook is, for the most part, a read-only, fairly static site. That makes things a HELL of a lot easier to build out with their choice of tech. Same goes for SlashDot. There are a ton of ways to build out something to the scale of Facebook, Slashdot, or LinkedIn using nothing but open source tools/technologies. You cannot, however, build a realistic, large scale internet banking site using those same technologies. The only option is something like Oracle. That's why a truly scalable system is so much more than just bolting on a DB to make it scale. It's about mapping the proper technology and tools to the business requirements, and figuring out how to deal with scaling issues before you even start to write a line of code. Or, even better, abstract the database layer (Hibernate, etc), so that you can drop in more sophisticated DB technologies as you need to. Just because something is free (MySQL), doesn't mean it sucks. Likewise, just because something costs money (Oracle), doesn't mean it sucks. But there are many reasons (some of them even technical) why lots of companies have no problem paying stupid money for Oracle.

nostrademons 17y ago
"For example, Facebook is, for the most part, a read-only, fairly static site." FaceBook's actually one of the more dynamic sites out there. I'd bet that the average FaceBook user makes many more updates to their FaceBook profile than they make financial transactions. The real difference in requirements is that FaceBook can - and does - drop updates on the floor. If your friend throws a sheep at you and you don't get it on your news feed - oh well, FaceBook never claims the news feed is exhaustive anyway. But if somebody writes you a check for $10,000 and they see that you cashed it and you don't see it in your account, that's a problem.
- nettdata 17y ago
  I agree... never meant to imply that Facebook had fewer hits/etc than a banking site in raw numbers, just that the ratio of DB reads (not considered a transaction, very easy to cache, etc) to DB writes, makes the site much more read-only than write-only. Facebook has the ability to do a TON of edge caching, with very few (relatively speaking) operations having to go to the database to perform an actual write operation. It's the DB writes that really kill performance and limit your caching strategies and gains.
  - ntoshev 17y ago
    My guess is apps hosted on Heroku (like the majority of the internet applications) are a lot like Facebook and little like online banking: they don't really need reliable transactions, they need to be flexible, scalable and cost-effective.

nostrademons 17y ago

"For example, Facebook is, for the most part, a read-only, fairly static site." FaceBook's actually one of the more dynamic sites out there. I'd bet that the average FaceBook user makes many more updates to their FaceBook profile than they make financial transactions. The real difference in requirements is that FaceBook can - and does - drop updates on the floor. If your friend throws a sheep at you and you don't get it on your news feed - oh well, FaceBook never claims the news feed is exhaustive anyway. But if somebody writes you a check for $10,000 and they see that you cashed it and you don't see it in your account, that's a problem.

nettdata 17y ago
I agree... never meant to imply that Facebook had fewer hits/etc than a banking site in raw numbers, just that the ratio of DB reads (not considered a transaction, very easy to cache, etc) to DB writes, makes the site much more read-only than write-only. Facebook has the ability to do a TON of edge caching, with very few (relatively speaking) operations having to go to the database to perform an actual write operation. It's the DB writes that really kill performance and limit your caching strategies and gains.
- ntoshev 17y ago
  My guess is apps hosted on Heroku (like the majority of the internet applications) are a lot like Facebook and little like online banking: they don't really need reliable transactions, they need to be flexible, scalable and cost-effective.