Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Databases Open Source Oracle Red Hat Software Linux

Fedora 19 Nixing MySQL in Favor of MariaDB 116

An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat developers are planning to replace MySQL with MariaDB in Fedora 19. For the next Fedora update, the MariaDB fork would replace MySQL and the official MySQL package would be discontinued after some time. The reasoning for this move is the uncertainty about Oracle's support of MySQL as an open-source project and moves to make the database more closed." Update: 01/22 13:47 GMT by T : Note: "Nixing" may be a bit strong; this move has been proposed, but is not yet officially decided.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fedora 19 Nixing MySQL in Favor of MariaDB

Comments Filter:
  • by phaunt ( 1079975 ) * on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:07AM (#42655879)
    Here is a comparison of MariaDB vs MySQL [].
    Probably most important to Fedora is this:

    Truly Open Source

    • All code in MariaDB is released under GPL, LPGL or BSD. MariaDB does not have closed source modules like the one you can find in MySQL enterprise edition. In fact, all the closed source features in MySQL 5.5 enterprise edition are found in the MariaDB open source version.
    • MariaDB includes test cases for all fixed bugs. Oracle doesn't provide test cases for new bugs fixed in MySQL 5.5.
    • All bugs and development plans are public.
    • MariaDB is developed by the community in true open source spirit.

    Wikipedia, too, is moving from MySQL to MariaDB [].

    • Debian is planning to do the same (the thread containing approval from relevant people at Ubuntu too), for much the same reasons.

      • by cshark ( 673578 )

        Two things that amaze me about this

        1. That Debian isn't the first to do it. They're usually on top of this.

        2. That it's taken this long to happen. We knew something like this would happen in the Linux community when Oracle took over MySQL. And there were some promising forking efforts that started immediately. Then, silance... for years. Now it's happening all at once, which is good.

        Does anyone know if Maria is a MySQL fork? Or if it's totally new code? My cursory scan of the website hasn't revealed anythin

        • by logjon ( 1411219 )
          Does anyone know if Maria is a MySQL fork?
          Signs point to "yes." []
        • On top on innovation ? Not really. Debian has become too big to innovate fast, and Debian is a little bit too often in freeze ( like 20% of time ) due to release pressure.

          Mageia did it last year, so of course, this is doable, but for something of the size of debian, moving from mysql to mariadb is not easy to do, as you have dependency all over the archive.

          • On top on innovation ? Not really. Debian has become too big to innovate fast, and Debian is a little bit too often in freeze ( like 20% of time ) due to release pressure.

            And really, Debian's big selling point is their "stable" branch. They're famous for being slower to change things than other distros (which increasingly seems like a big advantage to me, in a world where everyone thinks they have a right to broadcast UI changes to you at the designer's whim).

            Anyway, while the threat from Oracle takin

    • Ya know, you gotta give the little twerp that sold MySQL credit, he not only gets a big fat check but he then forks what he sold and gets all his customers back! Smart as hell, I'll give him that, as nowhere else but FOSS could you sell something and keep it at the exact same time
      • by hublan ( 197388 )

        Um. He sold it to Sun. It wasn't until Sun got sold to Oracle -- a move which he fought against -- that the fork happened.

        • And that right there shows the weird relationship that FOSS has compared to proprietary software and you can see why some companies wouldn't want to go anywhere near FOSS. I mean show me ANY other tech where you can continue to dictate what happens to something you had sold? To use a /. car analogy this would be like you selling a van and then telling the new owners who they can and can't give rides to.

          But like I said give the little twerp credit, when the company that paid him good money for his softwar

  • Postgresql (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:09AM (#42655883)

    Just use it.

    • by GloomE ( 695185 )

      At the risk of drunken understating...

    • Re:Postgresql (Score:5, Insightful)

      by egr ( 932620 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:15AM (#42655917) Journal
      Off-topic. Fedora already has PostgreSQL in its repositories. The point of the move is to replace MySQL, not to have some killer database.
      • Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:23AM (#42655955)

        The point of the move is to replace MySQL, not to have some killer database.

        And for those of us who are tied to MySQL, it's nice to have an alternative now without the hassle of moving to a completely different DBM.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Well obviously. But they need a MySQL compatible DB in the repos for software that inconsiderately uses MySQL instead of Postgres.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You can't build a LAMP stack with PostgreSQL! The closest you can get is LAPP, but nobody wants a LAPP stack - it sounds like something Spaghatta Nadle would use for makeup.

      • You can't build a LAMP stack with PostgreSQL! The closest you can get is LAPP, but nobody wants a LAPP stack - it sounds like something Spaghatta Nadle would use for makeup.

        Got something against reindeer?

    • Re:Postgresql (Score:5, Informative)

      by petermgreen ( 876956 ) <.plugwash. .at.> on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:46AM (#42656113) Homepage

      Unfortunately it's not that simple.

      For example I have an application that uses a case insensitive collation. Afaict postgresql does not support this. There are ways to implement the same functionality (create an index on the uppercased version of the columns value) but it would mean changing every query that hits the columns in question.

      For new stuff I will definately be choosing postgresql over mysql though.

      P.S. does anyone know of a tool that can be used to design postgresql database schemas and export create/update scripts? (like mysql workbench does for mysql)

      • by vlm ( 69642 )

        P.S. does anyone know of a tool that can be used to design postgresql database schemas and export create/update scripts? (like mysql workbench does for mysql)

        Could it be as simple as keep using mysql workbench (which I've never used) and pipe it thru SQLfairy aka SQL::Translator (a sourceforge project) to convert from mysql to postgresql?

        I have a simple automated system that mysqldumps all my schema, then shoves them thru sqlfairy to convert to DOT (you'd be converting to postgresql, which I know sqlfairy claims to be able to do), then shoves the DOTs thru graphviz to convert to png diagrams, then creates a simple webpage to link to each db diagram. Easy and fa

      • The closest thing to case-insensitive collation is the citext data type []. It works basically transparently as a case-insensitive replacement for varchar and text.

        The major feature keeping $dayjob from using PostgreSQL over MSSQL in new development is the lack of an accent-insensitive collation. Making an index using a custom function marked IMMUTABLE that calls (lower(unaccent(text)), and then calling the same function in nearly every query, is simply too hackish to stomach.

        • by rtaylor ( 70602 )

          Hmm. You can specity a COLLATION to use on each column (or index I believe) but you would need to find or make a collation which does what you want and call it "en_SIMPLE" or something.

          CREATE TABLE test1 (
          a text COLLATE "en_SIMPLE"
          b text -- Default collation

          You can even define it on the fly in the Selects if preferred
          SELECT * FROM test1 ORDER BY a COLLATE "en_SIMPLE";
          SELECT * FROM test1 ORDER BY a COLLATE "en_US";

          The question is, how do you create a new collation.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by h4rr4r ( 612664 )

        Sounds like you need to fix your application.

      • Every vendor wants their own proprietary extenstions, and even fight each other on who gets the most proprietary lockin, apis, and extensions on top of their own SQL to maximize pain leaving their shit ecosystem. ADO.NET, ODBC, and other things where you can't just use sql, but another vendor $$$ framework that locks you in further and add dozens of lines of ugly code and before you add another proprietary layer of Vendor X SQL inside it.

        Then gee you can't leave it. Larry grins and then raises the cost know

        • I wrote a .NET application back in 2004 that used ADO.NET to interface with a MySQL database. It was quite painful to code compared to just using MS SQL. Once I got the connector working (it wasn't a mature product at the time), the final application worked pretty well.
        • by Rich0 ( 548339 )

          Part of the problem is that ANSI SQL is fairly unfeatured. That's why everybody adds to it.

          ANSI SQL really needs some official extensions so that much of the proprietary nonsense can go away.

      • Re:Postgresql (Score:4, Informative)

        by bad-badtz-maru ( 119524 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:14AM (#42656913) Homepage

        Set your LC_COLLATE environmental variable on the PG server (and any client machines). PG probably isn't finding a setting, so it's defaulting to "C". If you switch it to something like en_US, collation will be case-insensitive. You may have to reindex after making the change.

      • by nuonguy ( 264254 )

        Have you heard of pgmodeler []?

        PostgreSQL Database Modeler, or simply, pgModeler is an open source tool for modeling databases that merges the classical concepts of entity-relationship diagrams with specific features that only PostgreSQL implements. The pgModeler translates the models created by the user to SQL code and apply them onto database clusters from version 8.0 to 9.1. **

      • Postgres has a case-insensitive data type extension available called citext [].

      • Take a look at NaviCat. They have versions that cover all of the major DB's including PostGres, it previews all code changes to a script window, will export scripts and has a free version.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by wisty ( 1335733 )

      By design, Postgresql is simply not as good a key-value store as MySQL / MariaDB. Innodb stores the data along with the primary index (technically cluster index), so it's fast to look up data by the primary key. Postgres is a better database, though.

      • by doom ( 14564 )
        Postgresql 9.2 shipped with covering indexes. Postgres also has the "hstore" feature, which might-or-might-not be a good key-value store solution, depending on exactly what you're doing.
    • by DrXym ( 126579 )
      Not much use for complex projects expecting something as straightforward a migration path away from MySQL as possible.
    • by cshark ( 673578 )

      Why not just migrate to one of the newer, cooler, noSQL databases? Some of them are maturing quite well.

      • by jjohnson ( 62583 )

        Because NoSQL isn't an alternative to an RDBMS except where an RDBMS is a bad choice in the first place. They're complementary technologies, doing well what the other doesn't. If you're appropriately set up with MySQL (or Postgres, or Oracle), then any NoSQL solution will be a bad move no matter how mature.

    • by jpkunst ( 612360 )
      You know what? These "just use Postgresql" posts in every MySQL-related story are about as interesting as GNAA or goatse. The mere mention of Postgresql is making me sick at this point. Is that the goal here? Are these posts actually part of an anti-Postgresql astroturfing campaign?
      • The goal is to educate people that there is a Real FREE and Open database out there. Postgres is on par with oracle in terms of features.
        MySQL has never been free, though there was a open source exemption.

        What happened was PHP hit the web and people needed a database MySQL was "free-ish" and easy to install, so people started using it. PostgreSQL was, well, the installation file had a TOC. It was overkill for a lot of the hobby sites. MySQL continued to grow with the help of their "open source exclusion" in

  • by C_Kode ( 102755 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:10AM (#42655885) Journal

    We've begun to move away from MySQL offical release also. Although we went with Percona rather than MariaDB.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:58AM (#42656199)

      They are fairly comparable in features and performance in most cases while both are arguably superior to MySQL. MariaDB uses code from Percona (XtraDB) and tends to be more bleeding edge while Percona is more conservative and stable. MariaDB is a community effort whereas Percona is an actual company who you can call (pay) for support if needed (they will support any flavor of MySQL but Percona is obviously their area of expertise).They are both good products in their own way and give back a lot to the community. .02

      Feature/Perfornace Comparisons:

    • ve begun the move away from MySQL also (Score:3, Insightful)
      by C_Kode (102755) Alter Relationship on 01-22-13 5:10 (#42655885) Journal

      We've begun to move away from MySQL offical release also

      Who are you? Why do I care what C_Kode on slashdot does? I think you left out an important article, like the value of "we".

      • by NotBorg ( 829820 )
        Because everyone cares what "drinkypoo" has to say.
      • by fatphil ( 181876 )
        His sig says "Internet Python Users Group (", which looks like a pretty standard BB that doesn't like my choice of browser (well, my lack of javascript), and not a heavy user of databases. So I'm still not really bursting with confidence that his recommendation is a good one.
  • Migrating (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:26AM (#42655977) Homepage

    How easy is it to migrate from MySQL to MariaDB?
    Is it truely drop-in replacement as in "you can develop to MySQL, then run MariaDB in production without worrying"?
    Does it require converting current tables? Will it take a 10GB database all day to convert or will MariaDB just use the raw MySQL data files automagically?

    • Re:Migrating (Score:5, Informative)

      by hholzgra ( 6914 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:58AM (#42656195) Homepage

      > Is it truely drop-in replacement as in "you can develop to MySQL, then run MariaDB in production without worrying"?

      yes, unless you use some of the non-GPL extra features like e.g. authentication plugins or pool-of-threads. For these MariaDB has GPL replacements but the implementation and configuration may differ ...

      > Does it require converting current tables?

      Data format of MyISAM and InnoDB tables is the same, so "no" in general. mysql system database may differ a bit, but nothing the mysql_upgrade tool can't fix, and you'll have the same issues when develop against an older MySQL version and deploying to a newer one ...

      > Will it take a 10GB database all day to convert or will MariaDB just use the raw MySQL data files automagically?

      It will use existing raw files just fine. mysql_upgrade may take a few minutes max., but not all day ... (unless you're migrating from an older MySQL version and mysql_upgrade needs to recreate some indexes ... but that would happen when upgrading to a more current MySQL release, too, and wouldn't be MariaDB specific

      The only point where it isn't a simple "try and revert if you don't like it" drop in replacement is if mysql_upgrade changed mysql.* system tables and you want to roll back to regular MySQL ... but then again this is also the case when trying to upgrade to a more recent MySQL release and then deciding to roll back to a previous older one again ... so you should always have a backup to restore the original system tables from ... but you'd do a full backup before any version migrations anyway, wouldn't you?

    • Re:Migrating (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheBlackMan ( 1458563 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:58AM (#42656197)
      I have recently migrated 2 of my servers from MySQL to MariaDB with about 1,5mil unique users. The only problems i had were some configuration (my.cnf) changes. Except that, none at all.
    • by deKernel ( 65640 )

      Uhm these are all very good questions, but here is a suggestion: verify this for yourself!

    • Here's what worked for me on debian. See []

      mysql --version # I'm running 5.0, am supposed to upgrade to mysql 5.2 or later to run mariadb 5.2
      mysql_upgrade -p # upgrades me to 5.1, no 5.2 available; will just try installing mariadb 5.2 and see if it works
      mysqldump -u root -p --all-databases > whole_database.sql # shouldn't be needed, but just in case
      mysqladmin -u root -p shutdown
      apt-get remove mysql-server

      Now install MariaDB. []

  • Ha Ha (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EETech1 ( 1179269 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:51AM (#42656147)

    That is one thing I always loved about Open Source Software, you can't hold it hostage. If something happens to threaten the project, its fork you, and bye bye!

    The users and developers take what was there (and theirs) pack up and resume life a usual somewhere else, and give the finger to all the Larrys that come along and try to (ab)use them as part of their own personal plot.

    If you take care of them they will stay, and you might even see your user and developer base grow, but try and take advantage of them and you will soon be left with nothing. They take the short term pain of starting over instead of the long term pain of taking orders from someone who does not have their best interests in mind.


    • by Kardos ( 1348077 )

      The lesson here is: Don't let Oracle touch anything open source, or you're going to be forking in a year or two

      • Re:Ha Ha (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cheesybagel ( 670288 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:55AM (#42657523)
        The problem with Oracle is they always do it like this. First they acquire a major competitor in a major cash transaction then they milk it for a couple of years firing most of the development team and selling licenses while they can. Then they cease support altogether. They are not interested in further developing anything they acquire. It is all slash and burn. Their main expertise was never development it is sales and support.
  • by LulzAndOrder ( 2667597 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:01AM (#42656215)
    Larry Ellison responded with the comment, "you are all spelling it wrong, I renamed it MY sql some time ago."
  • Why not... (Score:1, Redundant)

    by ( 311775 )

    Just move to PostgreSQL and be done with it?

  • by sunderland56 ( 621843 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @10:46AM (#42656585)

    Why is *any* database a part of an OS? This isn't required functionality. It isn't even day-to-day useful as a browser, or a word processor.

    After installing the base OS, a distro can offer to optionally install packages - such as a database - but I don't see why that choice should be limited to just one example. Make both MySQL and MariaDB available, and any others you want.

    • Why is *any* database a part of an OS? This isn't required functionality. It isn't even day-to-day useful as a browser, or a word processor.

      If their components use it, it's part of the OS. If their components don't use it, it's not part of the OS just because you say it is; it's simply bundled with the OS. If they use it then they need it and your objection is invalid. If they don't use it, then it's not part of the OS and your objection is invalid. Either way...

    • Well I'm sure part of the issue here isn't whether it's technically "part of the OS", but rather a question of the repositories. Since Linux distros these days generally include a package manager linked to a set of official/supported repositories, anything in those repositories becomes, in a sense, part of the operating system that they're distributing.

      Fedora has to decide what they'll include in their repositories, what they'll treat as "supported", and what they'll list as "deprecated". Sure, you can g

    • On a server a browser or wordprocessor is close to useless. Also, on the web browser front, have you investigated what's in a modern browser these days?

      Meanwhile on both end-user and server platforms, a well designed, well integrated, DBMS is an extremely useful component to have for, well, storing data. Not that anyone would argue that of MySQL, but it says a lot that, for example, SQLite is part of Android.

    • by fatphil ( 181876 )
      Is is understandable that an OS would come with a package management system.
      It is understandable that package management systems could have a DB backend.
      => It's understandable that a database might be part of the OS.

      Even if it's not noticeably so (i.e. not a standalone package) then there's almost certainly an ad-hoc one hiding in a statically linked library anyway. Which is the less preferable option, IMHO, there's really no need to roll-your-own DBMS any more.
  • by luis_a_espinal ( 1810296 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:11AM (#42656869) Homepage
    Tehe, no workie.
  • Bad reporting by Phoronix here. The feature has been proposed, but it has not yet been voted on by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo). It may or may not be approved for Fedora 19. I don't want to speak for Jaroslav Reznik, but he doesn't necessarily support the proposal. As the Fedora Program Manager, it's part of his job to post these proposed features to the mailing list for discussion prior to the FESCo vote.
    • by fatphil ( 181876 )
      > Bad reporting by Phoronix

      -1 redundant (but the rest of your post is +1 insightful, don't worry) ;-)
  • by jjohnson ( 62583 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @11:30AM (#42657181) Homepage

    MariaDB is Monty Widenius' fork after leaving Oracle. MySQL is in Oracle's hands in the first place because Widenius sold MySQL to Sun. The man responsible for MySQL is also responsible for the fragmentation of the community into a bunch of forks with growing incompatibility problems.

    • by icsx ( 1107185 )
      The things were different back then before the sell. While MySQL was sold, the deal turnet more crap and the original developers and owners left Oracle for this reason.

      Remember that MySQL was sold to SUN, not to Oracle so he had possibly no idea or no power to stop SUN being acquired by Oracle.
      • by jjohnson ( 62583 )

        If you sell to one tech company, you're buying into subsequent sales of that tech company. Acquisitions happen all the time--Oracle buying Sun surprised no one, and Widenius didn't give a shit because he got a big payout. Now he wants to repeat it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I use mariadb in a production situation and actually regret the move from mysql. Mariadb is cool or at least as "cool" as any mysql variant can be (bias: I'm from a postgresql background and tend to choose that for any personal project). But it has some stability problems that I didn't have with mysql. I know how to crash any mariadb server (though it'll just restart) with a handful of queries (provided I have table creation rights), and yes, I filed a bug report. Over 6 months ago. (I also have some s

  • Nice move. I find MariaDB better than MySQL in any way. Small things like statistics, user prompt makes it more user friendly. Performance is better. With big data set you don't need benchmark, you can see it. Replacement of MyISAM with crash safe Aria engine, for those who think MyISAM is quicker. nicely optimized Percona-XtraDB replacement of InnoDB engine. Build in Sphinx. better replication performance. some extra information in the binary and slow logs. Plenty of new features coming in next MariaDB 10
  • I think this will be a good thing. This is for similar reasons that Fedora also chose LibreOffice over OpenOffice. Fedora continues to be an open distribution and I trust their judgement on which products they choose to include with the distribution.

I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.