MySQL ?
-
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:32 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay
- Contact:
MySQL ?
Have anyone setup ME Enterprise with MySQL ?
I installed MSQL 2005 last nigh and the sql services memory usage grew over nigh to 200+ MBs.
I just want to know what version of MySQL people are using, and how the configuration process is?
Thanks!
I installed MSQL 2005 last nigh and the sql services memory usage grew over nigh to 200+ MBs.
I just want to know what version of MySQL people are using, and how the configuration process is?
Thanks!
I am using MySQL 5.0.20 on my mail server. It was a breeze to set up and it functions beautifully with the MyODBC driver.
It does not seem to like to use named pipes, though, so you'll have to let it use TCP/IP to connect.
MSSQL 2005 certainly is a memory hog, but it's likely way overkill for a MailEnable server unless you are hosting tens of thousands of clients.
Even MySQL is quite a bit of overkill, but it sure is nice to have the config in the db for management.
As far as how easy it was to set up, I had better luck getting it to work with MySQL than MSSQL 2005 since ME didn't want to use the .NET2.0 SQL Native Client (you should fix that, MailEnable).
It does not seem to like to use named pipes, though, so you'll have to let it use TCP/IP to connect.
MSSQL 2005 certainly is a memory hog, but it's likely way overkill for a MailEnable server unless you are hosting tens of thousands of clients.
Even MySQL is quite a bit of overkill, but it sure is nice to have the config in the db for management.
As far as how easy it was to set up, I had better luck getting it to work with MySQL than MSSQL 2005 since ME didn't want to use the .NET2.0 SQL Native Client (you should fix that, MailEnable).
-
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:32 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay
- Contact:
I'm going to do some more testing with MSSQL 2005 is defiantly nice to keep the configuration on a database, I only have 250 accounts and the server is a P4 2.4GHz with 1.5GB of RAM. In the worth case I'll have to add some more memory.
What’s your memory usage like? and how many accounts do you host?
Thanks for the reply!
What’s your memory usage like? and how many accounts do you host?
Thanks for the reply!
-
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:32 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay
- Contact:
I was able to configure the Memory usage by MSSQL 2005.
I went in the SQL Server Management Studio and in the Server Properties there is a “Memory†option where you can adjust the Minimum and Maximum server memory.
It worked good today I’m going to keep monitoring it and see how it goes!
Thanks for you reply
I went in the SQL Server Management Studio and in the Server Properties there is a “Memory†option where you can adjust the Minimum and Maximum server memory.
It worked good today I’m going to keep monitoring it and see how it goes!
Thanks for you reply
-
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:32 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay
- Contact:
I noticed your version number there..
If you don't already have a bunch of databases using anything that will be affected by it (not likely unless you use old or insecure features), it's a good idea to apply the service pack released by Microsoft for SQL 2005.
Not only will it plug a few holes they found, but it fixes a few quirks the studio and server had as well as adds a few nice little features, polishing it off a bit.
Best to start from the patched version than to get into production and then decide to patch it later - saves a potentially major headache.
With regards to limiting MSSQL memory usage: Sure you can do it, but why shortchange your server? If what you are looking for is top performance, then limiting the memory that the DB server wants to use is not a way to do that. If 200 +/- 50 MB of memory is no problem to you, then just let the MSSQL service run and use whatever memory it wants. After all, if you can afford the $5000-6000 license per processor for the MSSQL server (required if you want to run legally), you can afford the $100-200 for another GB of memory.
The problem I kept running into with ME is that it doesn't seem to like to use the SQL 2005 Native client. Instead, it uses the old client.
Have any of you found a way around this? ME just seems to overwrite my settings every time I change the DSN to use the new client.
If you don't already have a bunch of databases using anything that will be affected by it (not likely unless you use old or insecure features), it's a good idea to apply the service pack released by Microsoft for SQL 2005.
Not only will it plug a few holes they found, but it fixes a few quirks the studio and server had as well as adds a few nice little features, polishing it off a bit.
Best to start from the patched version than to get into production and then decide to patch it later - saves a potentially major headache.
With regards to limiting MSSQL memory usage: Sure you can do it, but why shortchange your server? If what you are looking for is top performance, then limiting the memory that the DB server wants to use is not a way to do that. If 200 +/- 50 MB of memory is no problem to you, then just let the MSSQL service run and use whatever memory it wants. After all, if you can afford the $5000-6000 license per processor for the MSSQL server (required if you want to run legally), you can afford the $100-200 for another GB of memory.
The problem I kept running into with ME is that it doesn't seem to like to use the SQL 2005 Native client. Instead, it uses the old client.
Have any of you found a way around this? ME just seems to overwrite my settings every time I change the DSN to use the new client.