So the news is everywhere. Sun has some info, Oracle has some info. If you’re thinking MySQL, you should definitely be at the MySQL Conference & Expo 2009 (if you’re not already registered). Find a speaker, they’ll give you a 20% discount code (heck, find me, I’ll do the same).

What does this all mean for MySQL? You bet you’ll find out a lot at the conference. I can highly recommend the keynote on Tuesday morning - you want to see Karen Padir deliver the State of the Dolphin.

What does this mean for the Linux distributions that MySQL …

I find it surprising that in the official Sun Announcement there is no mention of MySQL for two reasons. Firstly, this was Sun largest single purchase of $1 billion only 12 months ago. Second, MySQL’s largest competitor is Oracle.

While the Sun website shows the news in grandeur, the MySQL website is noticeably absent in any information of it’s owners’ acquisition.

On my professional side, as an independent speaker for Sun Microsystems with plans for upcoming webinars and future speaking on “Best Practices in Migrating to MySQL from Oracle”, this news does not benefit my bottom line.

If you review the recent years of Oracle’s history, you’ll see that its purchase of Sun makes perfect sense. Oracle has tried to get in the OS business (Oracle Ubreakable Linux), the hardware business with their different partnerships (e.g.: Hewlett Packard Partner Relationship), and even into the MySQL business back when they bought InnoBase (Oracle and Innobase).

MySQL was in many ways a leader for the Open Source industry, both in the way the way it marketed OSS and in the way MySQL the company was built. It’s the latter aspect that worries me. MySQL was a world pioneer in having a global workforce and this shaped both its culture and products.

When I joined MySQL in 2001, 90% of the company was distributed outside their native Swedish offices. (When Sun bought it, it …

It’s true — http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/technology/companies/21sun.html?_r=1&hp.

Ronald Bradford asked, “What does this mean for MySQL?”

Lots of people are going to be proclaiming that it is the death of MySQL, as they did when Oracle bought InnoDB.

But it is not. MySQL and Oracle may both be databases, but they are not competitors. To say they are competitors is like saying that an upscale bar and the corner convenience store are competitors because you can get soft drinks, coffee and tea at both. There are many applications for which Oracle is the appropriate solution, and there’s no reason to even try to see if MySQL can do the same job. Similarly there are many applications for which MySQL is the clearly appropriate solution and there’s no need …

See Oracle Agrees to Acquire Sun Microsystems (NY Times, 20 April 2009). Wellwell, that’s quite interesting, isn’t it… as to what it means for MySQL, ZFS, OpenSolaris, OpenOffice.org, VirtualBox, Java, and numerous other tidbits, that remains to be seen.

It must be a buzzy kind of day at the MySQL Users Conference 2009, with this news coming in just before the opening… and it’s only been a year since Sun bought MySQL and Jonathan Schwartz did a key note at the conference. I’m sure we’ll hear a lot more from a lot of people, not necessarily content but definitely conjecture and pre-emptive opinions

See Oracle Agrees to Acquire Sun Microsystems (NY Times, 20 April 2009). Wellwell, that's quite interesting, isn't it... as to what it means for MySQL, ZFS, OpenSolaris, OpenOffice.org, VirtualBox, Java, and numerous other tidbits, that remains to be seen.

It must be a buzzy kind of day at the MySQL Users Conference 2009, with this news coming in just before the opening... and it's only been a year since Sun bought MySQL and Jonathan Schwartz did a key note at the conference. I'm sure we'll hear a lot more from a lot of people, not necessarily content but definitely conjecture and pre-emptive opinions ;-)

Sun and Oracle today announced a definitive agreement for Oracle to acquire Sun for $9.50 per share in cash. The Sun Board of Directors has unanimously approved the transaction. It is anticipated to close this summer.What will happened in MySQL, JAVA.I think its enough.http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2009-04/sunflash.20090420.1.xml

Memcached is the de-facto distributed caching server used to scale many web2.0 sites today. With the requirement to support a very large number of users as sites grow, memcached aids scalability by effectively cutting down on MySQL traffic and improving response times.

Memcached is a very light-weight server but is known not to scale beyond 4-6 threads. Some scalability improvements have gone into the 1.3 release (still in beta). With the new Intel Nehalem based systems improved hyper-threading providing twice as much performance as current systems, we were curious to see how memcached would perform on these systems. So we ran some tests, the results of which are shown below :

memcached 1.3.2 does scale slightly better than 1.2.5 after 4 threads. However, both versions reach their …

Memcached is the de-facto distributed caching server used to scale many web2.0 sites today. With the requirement to support a very large number of users as sites grow, memcached aids scalability by effectively cutting down on MySQL traffic and improving response times.

Memcached is a very light-weight server but is known not to scale beyond 4-6 threads. Some scalability improvements have gone into the 1.3 release (still in beta). With the new Intel Nehalem based systems improved hyper-threading providing twice as much performance as current systems, we were curious to see how memcached would perform on these systems. So we ran some tests, the results of which are shown below :

memcached 1.3.2 does scale slightly better than 1.2.5 after 4 threads. However, both versions reach their …

Memcached is the de-facto distributed caching server used to scale many web2.0 sites today. With the requirement to support a very large number of users as sites grow, memcached aids scalability by effectively cutting down on MySQL traffic and improving response times.

Memcached is a very light-weight server but is known not to scale beyond 4-6 threads. Some scalability improvements have gone into the 1.3 release (still in beta). With the new Intel Nehalem based systems improved hyper-threading providing twice as much performance as current systems, we were curious to see how memcached would perform on these systems. So we ran some tests, the results of which are shown below :

memcached 1.3.2 does scale slightly better than 1.2.5 after 4 threads. However, both versions reach their …