SQL on Mac OS X Server?

[shodan]

Hi guys.

I need to change the server for the company I work for... yes I'm a sysadmin, unfortunatly I have a windows based network (I have also a microsoft certificate, for windows 2000 AD Administration.. :( ).... anyway the main thing becuase we use Windows 2000 Server is SQL Server.

We use a lot of applications, designed especially for our needs, that runs on SQL Databases, and of course on windows clients... but that's not the big deal. I'd like to change my Windows 2000 server in a Mac OS X one... and leave all my windows clients... at least for now. The only main problem is that I couldn't find anything equivalent to SQL Server on Mac OS X... does anyone knows some good alternatives, that can run smooth on Mac Os X?

PS: I wanted to ask this on the thread about Mac OS X Server, but was closed due to some trolls...

PPS: the :( about the certficate was a joke... I'm pretty happy about that, since I can use and know more than a single OS.... :D

[Fusion]

How about mySQL?

[frankchn]

tried MySQL? Converting your applications to work with it might take sometime, especially if they are written badly. MySQL Downloads

[shodan]

As far as i know, it's not faster and reliable as SQL Server is (at least for now...) and, but I could be wrong, don't work natively under OS X, but under X11..... I can't go and tell my boss, let's switch to mySQL... it can be slower... but hey, who cares? ;)

I just wished a long for and iSql apps.... :D

[the evn show]

MySQL is pretty fast and reliable, but I wouldn't use it to run my business. Postgres has had a lot of the features from more advanced databases for a while including 2 phase commits, constraints, referential integrity, etc...

Oracle exists on OS X but there is one major problem: it's in perpetual beta. Maybe that will change at WWDC but I wouldn't hold my breath. Even if it does, can you afford it, and do you want to put up with it's terrible default toolset or do you want to buy good ones from third parties?

Don't feel bad about the MCSE cards: if I didn't get mine i might still be using Windows today.

[area91]

Why would you want to waist your money and buy a Mac Server if your current setup works fine now?

Also, if they are made to work with Microsoft SQL Server 2000, its very unlikely you will get them to work with anything other than it.

Also, if you are running AD, there isnt anything like it for Mac OS X server to my knowledge.

[the evn show]

  Quote

Why would you want to waist your money and buy a Mac Server if your current setup works fine now?

Are you an administrator at his company? Do you have Microsoft and Apple certifications? Are you intimately familiar with what his needs are?

If not, why don't you let him ask for help doing what he wants rather than explain to you why he wants to do it?

  Quote

Also, if they are made to work with Microsoft SQL Server 2000, its very unlikely you will get them to work with anything other than it.

Are you saying Microsoft implimentation of SQL is so broken that it's no longer standards compliant. That's not my experience (and I used MsSQL Server as one an elective when I got my MCSE for NT4 so I'm not exactly illiterate). While MsSQL server is a little weak compared to the likes of Oracle and DB2, it's pretty respectable all the way around for a small-medium sized businesses that has outgrown Access and the like. It still follows the same standards that everyone else does.

  Quote

Also, if you are running AD, there isnt anything like it for Mac OS X server to my knowledge.

Speaking of literacy, you might want to practice your own reading in the last thread you trolled-to-hell where people pointed you to the wonderful world of OpenDirectory which uses standard LDAP to provide directory access services. It's also worth nothing that OS X clients can authenticate against Windows ActiveDirectory servers if administrator would rather do things that way.

But hey, thanks for coming out.

[area91]

  the evn show said:

Are you an administrator at his company? Do you have Microsoft and Apple certifications? Are you intimately familiar with what his needs are?

If not, why don't you let him ask for help doing what he wants rather than explain to you why he wants to do it?

Are you saying Microsoft implimentation of SQL is so broken that it's no longer standards compliant. That's not my experience (and I used MsSQL Server as one an elective when I got my MCSE for NT4 so I'm not exactly illiterate). While MsSQL server is a little weak compared to the likes of Oracle and DB2, it's pretty respectable all the way around for a small-medium sized businesses that has outgrown Access and the like. It still follows the same standards that everyone else does.

Speaking of literacy, you might want to practice your own reading in the last thread you trolled-to-hell where people pointed you to the wonderful world of OpenDirectory which uses standard LDAP to provide directory access services. It's also worth nothing that OS X clients can authenticate against Windows ActiveDirectory servers if administrator would rather do things that way.

But hey, thanks for coming out.

Listen; don?t talk about things you don?t know. It would require a re-write of the data code in the client application. Also,

All I asked was why he would do it if his current setup works.

Also, if you think that Microsoft SQL Server is week, then you really need to learn your stuff. The last release was in late 1999 (new one is coming soon) and it was only beaten for the first time by a slim margin in performance a few months ago, by an experimental version of Oracle. Many large, small, and medium sized companies use SQL Server.

Also, thanks for informing me about the open directory thing.

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

You could try PostgreSQL on Mac: http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/postgresql/

MySQL is highly reliable, but if you need some more advanced features, Postgres is a good chioce.

[the evn show]

  area91 said:

Also, if you think that Microsoft SQL Server is week, then you really need to learn your stuff.

Read the comment: compared to Oracle and DB2 MsSQL is weak.

Two instances of Oracle can operate on the same data store - something not possible with MS SQL Server. It's feature set easily accommodates databases > half a terabyte in size where databases like MySQL and Postgres give up an die, and handles massive loads much better than any other platform. Ms SQL doesn't provide any clustering services (they were supposed to ship last year, but now, who knows when). I guess you can use federated databases to do get some level of clustering going on, but when one server goes down you're pretty much SOL as far as your applications go.

For security, oracle has passed > 15 (exact number escapes me off hand) security evaluations from various bodies. Ms SQL has C2 which is obsolete now. Woot for Microsoft! Maybe tack on encrypted traffic using AES or tripple-DES to keep private data away from sniffers, another security features not found on MS SQL. One simple reason to move away to Oracle would be to use Kerbos authentication with non-windows clients (which the OP clearly has).

I could rant on about why Oracle > MS SQL Server - but you're not listening.

Good night, and good bye.

Check the SAP SD Tier 2 benchmarks: oracle is king, same with ADO Tier 2. Then browse down to the SD Parallel benchmark and marvel as Oracle holds the top 7 spots, and that the others divide between DB2 and Oracle. Then search in vain for MsSQL which can't post any scores for SD Parallel.

  Quote

The last release was in late 1999 (new one is coming soon)

How do you propose people run their business on software that isn't available?

First longhorn, now some new version of MS SQL Server that's due Real Soon Now .

  Quote

and it was only beaten for the first time by a slim margin in performance a few months ago, by an experimental version of Oracle.

See above.

You can find cases where TinyDB out performs Oracle too, but that doesn't mean it's a better database. Also, while you don't provide any benchmarks to back your claim (in fact you'd need a history of benchmarks to prove yours), I'm pulling mine from the SAP standard application benchmarks.

EDIT: This also might have something to do with MS SQL's reliance on lock escalation to do row-level locking. Sure it saves memory, but it costs you data concurrency which can hardly be considered a good thing. Needless to say, Oracle doesn't need lock escalation to do row-level locking which in turn increases data availability (which MS SQL compounds during heavy usage), and reduces my requirements as a developer to check for deadlocks in my code.

  Quote

Many large, small, and medium sized companies use SQL Server.

How does that differ from what I said, or are you just being redundant?

Edited May 22, 2004 by the evn show

[aristotle-dude]

About the only viable option right now would be Postgresql for OSX.

Honestly, if you are working for a small to medium sized business, stick with MS SQL on for now on Windows server. Now that does not prevent you from having a mixed environment of OSX servers running Open Directory for file servers/web servers and mail/usenet servers with Windows servers.

Once Oracle comes out of beta, I would recommend taking a serious look at them again. If you used OBDC, only minor changes would be required (same with JDBC under Java). Now that MS and Oracle are working together again. Expect to see better OLEDB support in .NET for Oracle as well.

No flames please (you know who you are). :laugh: I work as a developer on Foxpro 8 and .NET accessing MS SQL and I have also programmed against MySQL on linux with Perl & DBI.

[shodan]

Woah.... than again it's turned out into anther flame!!! :angry: Why people can't post their comments without bashing? (You all know who am i talking to...)

Anyway... as i stated in my first post, I NEED to change the server, because in the last few months my company has grown, and we've seen that our current hardware needs an update in any case. So I've started to look around, IBM, HP, etc etc... than came into my mind that maybe I can find a good implementation on SQL that runs on OS X, so I can switch my server to OS X instead of Windows 2000. Mostly because, yes Area51, I THINK that OS X is much better than Windows, more reliable, and much more powerful.... and most important, more stabile.

So, my apps access to SQL database using ODBC, so I don't see why they should be platform dependent. I "hope" microsoft has implemented standard SQL in SQL SERVER (because they have done it, right? :shifty: ), if that's why apps should bother if I use Oracle or SQL Server? Don't they speak sql?!?

I checked mySQL, and I don't think it's suitable for me... the bad thing is that there isn't a gui for OSX yet... I'm giong to get posgresql and see it....

Thanks to all since now, and if I'm missing something, please enlighten me.... :D

[the evn show]

There are GUI interfaces for managing MySQL on OS X (cocoamysql comes to mind - check it out on versiontracker.com). Do you use features like two or three phase commits, stored procedures, and views, or do you just need basic SQL features?

[shodan]

Don't know about two or three phase commits, but those applications surely use stored procedures and views to work correctly! :D

[area91]

Unless you have access to the source for those programs, you are SOL. You cant simply do it unless you have the code.

[shodan]

  area91 said:

Unless you have access to the source for those programs, you are SOL. You cant simply do it unless you have the code.

why? don't they just open a sql connection, using odbc, make simple query and launch storing procedures? Am I missing something?

[area91]

Well, the code it uses to make the connection isnt editable. Its hard wired to connect using Microsoft SQL Server.

[shodan]

Mmm, so what's the purpose of ODBC drivers?

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

ODBC is a standardized interface to a SQL server, no matter the vendor. Any application using ODBC can access and query a SQL server of any type, however the supported SQL statements may vary greatly between systems.

[shodan]

  timdorr said:

ODBC is a standardized interface to a SQL server, no matter the vendor. Any application using ODBC can access and query a SQL server of any type, however the supported SQL statements may vary greatly between systems.

That's exactly what i was thinking about... I guess i'll try to install PostgreSql and mySql... mount my Dbs, and see if the applications works...

I'll let you know... :D

[azcodemonkey]

  area91 said:

Well, the code it uses to make the connection isnt editable. Its hard wired to connect using Microsoft SQL Server.

Good design! NOT! :laugh:

[area91]

  weenur said:

Good design! NOT!  :laugh:

Actualy, most software isnt made that way. Its beacuse it takes alot more code to do it. More code = more $$$.

[neufuse Veteran]

  shodan said:

That's exactly what i was thinking about... I guess i'll try to install PostgreSql and mySql... mount my Dbs, and see if the applications works...

I'll let you know... :D

you're not going to be able to mount SQL Server detached Databases on another database server, the file formats are different for each database server... and as for MySQL it is still missing a lot of features high end databases had like Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server... and some queries are still not SQL-92 Complient, so you still do run the chance of having non working queries if youre qureies are very complex.

This isn't a Microsoft problem, but something you will run into across any DB packadge... they all work differently. use different storage formats, and diffrent data providers for comminicating with them

[the evn show]

  Quote

you're not going to be able to mount SQL Server detached Databases on another database server, the file formats are different for each database server

That's why god invented import and export routines. Oracle is the king of being a pain in the but to migrate away from (and even that's possible using CSV files and a few hours work).

As for MySQL being a little under powered: no doubt it's missing a bunch of the features from 'good' RDBMS software, but if he doesn't need them - then it works fine. If he's using say triggers then he'll have an issue. Once again God saw a need and provided us with Postgres, so all is not lost.

I've moved data from MySQL to Postgres to Oracle and had no issues that any reasonably capable DBA couldn't solve. I've even moved data from Oracle to Postgres once and while it was a total pain in the butt - it was doable (not something I'd try again without a huge paycheck in it for me though).

[area91]

  the evn show said:

That's why god invented import and export routines.  Oracle is the king of being a pain in the but to migrate away from (and even that's possible using CSV files and a few hours work).

As for MySQL being a little under powered:  no doubt it's missing a bunch of the features from 'good' RDBMS software, but if he doesn't need them - then it works fine.  If he's using say triggers then he'll have an issue.  Once again God saw a need and provided us with Postgres, so all is not lost.

I've moved data from MySQL to Postgres to Oracle and had no issues that any reasonably capable DBA couldn't solve.  I've even moved data from Oracle to Postgres once and while it was a total pain in the butt - it was doable (not something I'd try again without a huge paycheck in it for me though).

eeek! there is still the issue of getting his software to work with it! unless you want to spend a good weekend hacking the program, your ******.

Edited May 24, 2004 by area91