迁移指南：从MySQL到开源MariaDB解决方案

需积分: 10 148 浏览量更新于2024-07-18 收藏 1.64MB PDF 举报

"Apress.Migrating.to.MariaDB: Toward an Open Source Database Solution" 是一本由 William Wood 所著的专业书籍，针对那些希望转向开源数据库解决方案的读者，特别是那些想要了解如何迁移至 MariaDB 的专业人士。MariaDB 是一个基于 MySQL 的分支，由 MySQL 创始人 Michael "Monty" Widenius 开发，旨在提供与 MySQL 类似的功能，但具有更高的性能、可扩展性和安全性。本书的主要内容围绕着实际的迁移过程展开，涵盖了以下几个关键知识点： 1. **背景与动机**：阐述了在当前 IT 环境中，企业选择开源数据库 MariaDB 的原因，如成本节省、社区支持、性能提升以及对 MySQL 的兼容性等。 2. **迁移策略**：书中详细介绍了迁移前的评估，包括现有系统的分析，数据结构的考虑，以及确定最佳迁移路径，可能是平滑迁移或直接转换。 3. **技术细节**：涵盖迁移工具和技术，例如使用 SQL 脚本、数据备份和恢复、表空间迁移，以及可能遇到的问题及解决方法。 4. **性能优化**：介绍如何通过 MariaDB 的特性优化数据库性能，比如使用 InnoDB 存储引擎、分区、复制和集群配置。 5. **安全性与合规性**：讨论了如何确保迁移过程中的数据安全，以及如何符合法规要求，如 GDPR 或 HIPAA。 6. **案例研究与实战经验**：书中可能包含实际的迁移案例，分享成功或失败的案例，以供读者参考和学习。 7. **维护与管理**：对于已经迁移到 MariaDB 的系统，提供了管理和监控的最佳实践，包括日常运维、故障排查和版本升级。 8. **社区支持与生态系统**：强调 MariaDB 社区的重要性，包括文档、论坛、插件和合作伙伴资源，帮助用户获得持续的支持。作为一本技术指南，"Migrating to MariaDB" 不仅是技术手册，也是经验分享，旨在帮助读者顺利进行数据库平台的转型，并从中获益于开源技术的优势。无论你是数据库管理员、IT 专业人员还是项目经理，这本书都能提供实用的指导，帮助企业在开源世界中找到稳定且成本效益高的数据库解决方案。

Driver: Oracle Costs andBusiness Practices

Like many organizations in the financial sector, such as banking

institutions, credit card providers, and mortgage companies, FWP built

their digital footprint around the tried and true architectural solutions

of the time. For the most part these solutions oriented around a DBMS

running on System V UNIX variants like Solaris, HPUX, and IBM’s

AIX.However, luckily FWP had already initiated conversions away from

the old System V Unix variants and IA64 architecture, choosing to adopt

RedHat Enterprise Linux in its stead along with moving away from the

old Itanium-based servers to newer and faster machines based on the

x64 architecture. The Oracle DBMS had become the solution of choice,

especially with the combination of Real Application Clusters for hardware

failover and the ASO (Advanced Security Option) for encryption of data

at rest providing a secure and robust solution for any organization that

deals with data protection requirements. During the proof of concept

for these deployments, Vernon ran some pretty intensive stress tests

against Oracle RAC on the newer architecture with the expected results

of the combination performing superior to the previous and outdated

architecture. However, this notwithstanding, the Oracle solution came at

a very steep price that has grown significantly over the years, as has the

complexity of licensing these solutions due to the advent of constantly

evolving technologies such as virtualization, hardware partitioning, etc.

that have and continue to evolve at an accelerated rate.

One cannot fault Larry Ellison for coming up with the licensing errata

as instituted by the Oracle Corporation, as this was an absolutely brilliant

idea. All one had to do was look at the basics of Moore’s Law to see that as

the architecture and solutions grew at seemingly exponential rates, thus

would the coffers of Oracle. One of the aspects about the Oracle DBMS

that helped solidify it as a revenue generating machine was the proprietary

solutions that it offered to solve many complex problems with built in

Chapter 1 Drivers forChange

To really get an idea of the scope and breadth regarding the primary

drivers for change that Vernon and the team at FWP were dealing with,

we have to take a pretty hard look at Oracle licensing and costs to see if

they fit within the requirements of their new emerging product. This new

product, Standardized Financial Widgets, required scalability, stability,

security, failover capabilities, and cost effectiveness in order to be feasible.

They knew that their current DBMS solution had everything thing they

required from a stability, failover capabilities, and security standpoint.

However, no matter how they crunched the numbers it did not come

out as the viable solution that fit from a fiscally responsible and revenue

generating standpoint as far as cost effectiveness, which was directly

proportional to and impacted scalability. To explain this further, we are

going to have to dig into Oracle pricing and licensing models and how they

affect the bottom line for a small to mid-sized company. This is not to say

that the solutions the team at FWP reviewed and vetted are not or were

not perfectly suited to the larger entities as well, but more so the problem

being that Oracle’s does not fit the latter.

Oracle DBMS and DBMS-related products, as well as other Oracle

owned products, essentially have two licensing methodologies, which

consist of licensing by Named User Plus or by Processor type licensing.

Oracle’s revenue generating gold mine over the years has been directly

relational to the already mentioned idea of licensing their product by the

number of processors, which is great for them, but not so great for a smaller

company to be able to absorb. This processor licensing requirement can

also be very confusing because there are different prices for different

processors, different processor architecture, and of course different

processor manufacturers. One must be very careful with either licensing

methodology, as there are some traps that a company can easily be led down

that will come back to bite them when the License Management Service

(LMS) team comes knocking to perform an audit. The team at FWP had the

experience of finding this out the hard way, particularly with the Named

User Plus licensing, so we will delve into that first.

Chapter 1 Drivers forChange

Named User Plus is defined as an individual authorized by you, the

licensee, to use the DBMS software, and this is regardless of the activity

or duration of use. This sounds good for a small company, even a small

company with software that uses the database as the back end for storing

and manipulating it throughout processing in comparison with having

to pay by processor; however, do not be fooled by this. This is where the

term “multiplexor” comes into play, and what this means is that if you

have a device, such as bar code readers, even if they are using the same

“Named User” account, they are considered separate and disjoint users.

What one can derive from this, especially someone in Vernon’s shoes

having taken over the database department in mid stride of an audit, is

that this also relates to database-driven software applications. In FWP’s

case, they provided software as a service to their customers, who at no time

had access to the database in any way, such as direct user accounts via a

command prompt or a database GUI tool such as Toad. All application

processing was done via the custom database-driven web application

that processed financial information, but that application code, according

to Oracle’s legalese was in fact acting as a multiplexor. There is a huge

problem here that lies entirely upon Oracle and how the Named User

Plus licensing was sold to FWP. This was perpetrated upon them not only

by an Oracle licensed reseller, but also by Oracle sales employees as well

in the form that in order for them to save money they could license their

development and test environments as Named User Plus while having

their production environment licensed by processor.

This is where it gets interesting in that Vernon had started looking at

licensing a two-node Oracle cluster in a remote data facility in order to

provide proof of concept and scalability for the new Standard Financial

Widgets product. This was right about the time the audit began and was

quoted with the same Named User Plus licensing methodology for this

new development and testing environment by the company’s Oracle

account representative. Under that guise, FWP, like most companies,

generated no revenue from these types of environments, which was a

Chapter 1 Drivers forChange

significant break on the surface as compared with also having to license

those non–revenue-generating machines by processor cores. The

problem that soon came to light is that there appeared to be a lack of

communication and interpretation between the Oracle sales and account

representatives and Oracle’s LMS group that performs the auditing.

According to the LMS team, FWP was out of compliance for their

existing development and test environment. Because it too ran the same

software as the production environment, these environments were

also considered multiplexors and thus had an infinite number of users

requiring years of back licensing fees for being improperly licensed.

According to the interpretation of Financial Widget Plus’s product, not just

named accounts on the DBMS were considered, but so was every one of

Financial Widget Plus’s customer’s employees as well as each one of their

customer’s customers. Not only this, but some licensing changes over the

years also meant that Financial Widget Plus was also providing the Oracle

DBMS software as a service to each one of these users, thereby meaning

their licensing purchased needed to include a hosting license. What this

could be interpreted to mean is that Oracle first sold a specific license

in a way to make it seem like the customer was getting a break for their

non–revenue-generating environments, but then several years later would

schedule an audit with these same customers and charge them hundreds

of thousands of dollars, if not in the millions, for improper licensing. This

amounts to cannibalizing their own long- term customers to shake them

down to increase revenue streams. Would a company really do that, and

what could be done about it?

Vernon, as well as others on the management team, started to research

this new problem and it appeared that this was exactly what Oracle was

doing and people were starting to talk about it. Articles and tech websites

were containing pretty in-depth pieces on this new strategy being

implemented by Oracle while at the same time lamenting that there was

nothing that could be done. If anyone tried to fight them in court over

these sales practices, licensing changes, and interpretations, the behemoth

Chapter 1 Drivers forChange

剩余161页未读，继续阅读

[道一]

粉丝: 0
资源: 60

迁移指南：从MySQL到开源MariaDB解决方案

Apress.The.Definitive.Guide.to.ImageMagick.Dec.2005.part6

Apress.Pro.Visual.C.plus.plus.CLI.and.the.dot.NET.2.0.Platform.Dec.2005.rar

Apress.The.Definitive.Guide.to.SQLite

The.Definitive.Guide.to.Django.Dec.2007.eBook-BBL\Apress.The.Definitive.Guide.to.Django

[Apress.J2EE系列].Apress.Pro.JSP.2.4th.Edition.Dec.2005

Apress.Moving.from.C.to.C++.pdf

Apress.The.Definitive.Guide.to.HTML5.2011

Apress.The.Definitive.Guide.to.MongoDB.Sep.2010

Apress.the.Definitive.Guide.to.Pylons.Dec.2008

Apress.The.Definitive.Guide.to.iReport.Aug.2007

最新资源