Have you upgraded (or planing) to Mysql 4.x ? Or just stay at 3.x - GoFuckYourself.com

Arty · 06-20-2003, 03:06 PM

Hi,

I need some realworld opinions.

Current production release of Mysql is 4.x

But many servers based on 3.x and upgrade is pain in the ass, may need database convert, may cause downtime, etc.

But it has some advantages too, like speed or new functions..

So, what is your opinion?

Specially the server owners please...

FreeOnes · 06-20-2003, 03:20 PM

We did an upgrade
and then a downgrade again

Backov · 06-20-2003, 03:39 PM

4.x is really good.

I've noticed NO differences at all in porting code made for 3.23 over, but added features that are nice.

Apparently Yahoo has been using 4.x for some big ass db since before it finally came out of beta.

I've had 0 problems with it under high load.

crescentx · 06-20-2003, 03:51 PM

Seems to handle load really well - the majority of our load is MySQL-driven, and the upgrade went smoothly, no problems.

-doug

KidCock · 06-20-2003, 04:35 PM

Our dating site is database-intensive and we had 0 problems upgrading form the 3.x tree to 4.x tree.

We've been using 4.0.6 but recently upgraded to 4.0.13

No queries/code needed changing in the upgrade.

4.0.13 does show a small speed difference (its faster) along with the new features.

Arty · 06-20-2003, 06:34 PM

Thanks for the input

But I would like to get more opinions...

Making a script for 4.x will make it work faster not just beacuse of the MySQL itself, because it allows to make code lighter with new functions such as combined multpile table query, etc.

But that will also make that script incompatible with 3.x series installed machines...

dnsmonster · 06-20-2003, 06:58 PM

MySQL 4.x also has a kickass query cashing engine. In combination with ADODB it's just awesome.

Arty · 06-21-2003, 03:22 AM

Sorry for bumping,

But I need more opinions if any one willing to contribute.

Swoit · 06-21-2003, 05:13 AM

We upgraded from 3.x to 4.x and found it absolutely painless.

It's got a heap of great improvements over the 3.x tree - query caching, better master/slave replication (we use this heaps), etc.

It seems as stable as 3.x was. Merge tables still suck a bit tho

Steve

Serge_Oprano · 06-21-2003, 05:17 AM

you should upgrade as soon as Lens pays his debt of honor

Arty · 06-21-2003, 11:28 AM

Wow, 9 vs 2...

Feels like it's time get advantage of new technology..

Thanks for the input...

Tipsy · 06-21-2003, 11:32 AM

Upgrade was quick and easy and so far no problems.

View Poll Results: Have you upgraded (or planing) to Mysql 4.x ? Or just stay at 3.x
I already have or going to upgrade to 4.x	10	76.92%
I will stay at 3.x	3	23.08%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

06-20-2003, 03:06 PM	#1
Arty Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 880	Have you upgraded (or planing) to Mysql 4.x ? Or just stay at 3.x Hi, I need some realworld opinions. Current production release of Mysql is 4.x But many servers based on 3.x and upgrade is pain in the ass, may need database convert, may cause downtime, etc. But it has some advantages too, like speed or new functions.. So, what is your opinion? Specially the server owners please... Last edited by Arty; 06-20-2003 at 03:35 PM..

06-20-2003, 03:20 PM	#2
FreeOnes Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,400	We did an upgrade and then a downgrade again __________________ The new FreeOnes! - AdultFilmStarContent - BabeGalleries and much more! - 1Strike Movies and much more! All powered by Xpressa

06-20-2003, 03:39 PM	#3
Backov Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Cat Detector Van Posts: 1,600	4.x is really good. I've noticed NO differences at all in porting code made for 3.23 over, but added features that are nice. Apparently Yahoo has been using 4.x for some big ass db since before it finally came out of beta. I've had 0 problems with it under high load. __________________ <embed src="http://banners.spotbrokers.com/button.swf" FlashVars="clickURL=http://banners.spotbrokers.com" quality=high pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="120" height="60"></embed>

06-20-2003, 03:51 PM	#4
crescentx Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 317	Seems to handle load really well - the majority of our load is MySQL-driven, and the upgrade went smoothly, no problems. -doug __________________ XYCash International Gay Affiliate Program

06-20-2003, 04:35 PM	#5
KidCock So Fucking Banned Join Date: May 2003 Location: San Pedro, Costa Rica Posts: 788	Our dating site is database-intensive and we had 0 problems upgrading form the 3.x tree to 4.x tree. We've been using 4.0.6 but recently upgraded to 4.0.13 No queries/code needed changing in the upgrade. 4.0.13 does show a small speed difference (its faster) along with the new features.

06-20-2003, 06:34 PM	#6
Arty Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 880	Thanks for the input But I would like to get more opinions... Making a script for 4.x will make it work faster not just beacuse of the MySQL itself, because it allows to make code lighter with new functions such as combined multpile table query, etc. But that will also make that script incompatible with 3.x series installed machines...

06-20-2003, 06:58 PM	#7
dnsmonster Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: A warm place. Posts: 634	MySQL 4.x also has a kickass query cashing engine. In combination with ADODB it's just awesome. __________________ I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about, I'm completely, absolutely and definitively out of my fucking mind.

06-21-2003, 03:22 AM	#8
Arty Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 880	Sorry for bumping, But I need more opinions if any one willing to contribute.

06-21-2003, 05:13 AM	#9
Swoit Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: www.Swoit.com Posts: 256	We upgraded from 3.x to 4.x and found it absolutely painless. It's got a heap of great improvements over the 3.x tree - query caching, better master/slave replication (we use this heaps), etc. It seems as stable as 3.x was. Merge tables still suck a bit tho Steve __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

06-21-2003, 05:17 AM	#10
Serge_Oprano So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,820	you should upgrade as soon as Lens pays his debt of honor

06-21-2003, 11:28 AM	#11
Arty Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 880	Wow, 9 vs 2... Feels like it's time get advantage of new technology.. Thanks for the input...

06-21-2003, 11:32 AM	#12
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	Upgrade was quick and easy and so far no problems. __________________ Ignorance is never bliss.