locked
Switching to MYSQL as opposed to MSSQL RRS feed

  • Question

  • User1275632693 posted

    It is great to have an MSSQL database running on my own box but will this always be the case?
    As most of the universe is using MYSQL/PHP or a variation thereof, I am thinking i will start looking
    at converting the CSK kit from MSSQL to MYSQL.

    I had started a similar thread way back when I was messing with the Personal Site Starter kit and somebody had mentioned that it would not be extremely difficult.

    http://forums.asp.net/thread/1066172.aspx

    I will start looking into this and see if it is cost/effort effective, anybody that has some experience in this is more than welcome to chime in.

    I do believe I would be sacrificing the Built In membership providers though.

     

     

    Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:52 PM

All replies

  • User300685930 posted

    It's a lot of work to covert it.  All the sqlconnection's would need to be changed to mysqlconnection objects as well as command, readers, etc.  There is a mysql membership provider so that would not have to be rewritten.

    MySql works with vs2005, but not that well.  I do think in production it would work just fine though.

    Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:28 PM
  • User-1346905220 posted

    It is great to have an MSSQL database running on my own box but will this always be the case?

    Well, Microsoft says that SQL Server 2005 Express will always be free.


    As most of the universe is using MYSQL/PHP or a variation thereof, I am thinking i will start looking
    at converting the CSK kit from MSSQL to MYSQL.

    You'll have to recreate the stored procedures in MySQL. Probably not a big deal, but more effort required which equals more cost.

    Now what I really want to see is that conversion to PHP![;)]

    -Mike

    Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:43 PM
  • User1275632693 posted

    Hi Mike,

    What I meant to say was will I always be hosting the site off of my Windows XP box, I know that IIS is crippled out of box. Standard maximum connections is 10, although I found a forum somewhere that showed how to increase that to 40.

    So I am thinking that MSSQL hosted service will cost much more than MYSQL hosted service.

    As for switching to PHP, well I might as well dedicate 6 months to a year of messing around to get it all the way I would want it, but the Forum would be a no brainer... PHPBB all the way.

     

    Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:11 PM
  • User742541801 posted
    So I am thinking that MSSQL hosted service will cost much more than MYSQL hosted service.

    Angelo, before you dedicate a great deal of time to switching over from MSSQL to MySQL, check your motivations.  If you are just trying to save hosting costs, your assumptions may be off.  A quick look on http://www.asp.net/Hosters/  shows a bunch of ASP.NET 2.0 hosters, some for under $5/month including SQL Server 2005.  I don't know if they would support the Club Starter Kit, but it seems likely.  I'll bet the prices of PHP+mySQL hosting are generally comparable to the prices for ASP.NET+MSSQL , at various levels of quality of service you might want. 

    If you want to put the Club Starter Kit on MySQL, go for it!  But don't assume that new combination will save on hosting costs.

     

    Friday, April 28, 2006 7:28 AM
  • User1275632693 posted

    Hi Cheeso,

    Actually it is not so much Hosting per se, but usually the Size Cap on an MSSQL DB seems a little smaller than that of a Hosted MYSQL DB.  The license the hosting companies have to pay are fairly steep for MSSQL.

     

    Friday, April 28, 2006 8:59 AM
  • User742541801 posted
    The license the hosting companies have to pay are fairly steep for MSSQL.

    I am not a hoster, so I don't know for sure.  but here again I think there is an implicit assumption in that statement that may not be completely accurate.

    There is a special license for hosters called the SPLA, and it applies to Windows as well as Microsoft SQL Server.  Part of the goal of that SPLA is to insure that hosters can offer ASP.NET+SQL for a reasonable price to their users.  Hosters don't pay the same license cost as Company X, who uses MSSQL for internal business purposes. 

    Also keep in mind that license costs tend to be a small portion of the overall cost of running a site.  There is also internet bandwidth, advertising, labor associated to design, maintenance, backups, monitoring, etc.  Just because MySQL is a zero-license cost, and MSSQL is non-zero license cost, (costs to the hoster, mind you), it is not correct to assume that the overall cost to the hoster will be higher, and it's also not correct to assume the cost to the customer will also be higher.  Suppose it is just simpler to manage MSSQL than MySQL in a hosting environment?  (I don't know that this is true, just offering it for the economic analysis).  Suppose the hoster pays $10 for a MSSQL license, and $10 for labor maintaining that database, every month.  In the MySQL case, the license cost is $0, but suppose the labor cost associated to managing the database is $22 per month.  In this case, paying a non-zero license for MSSQL, and getting less labor associated to hosting that database, may be a less costly alternative for the hoster.  Like I said these are totally made up numbers, but you get the point - license cost is not the same as overall cost.

    The size cap you mentioned is another issue.  The best way to know is to evaluate the various hosters and see - what are the costs, what are the quality of service guarantees, what are the limits on bandwidth, database size, data transfer, etc.

    I don't work for a hoster and actually I don't know much about the offerings there.  maybe PHP or ASP.NET +MySQL hosted sites are consistently lower cost than hosted sites backed by MSSQL.  I don't know.  All I am saying is, Don't assume that SQL Server means expensive hosting or limited database size. I'm just suggesting that people check and see.

     

    Friday, April 28, 2006 9:35 AM
  • User1275632693 posted

    Well we could go out there and do some polling and see what the average Hosting Plan costs where ASP.NET and MYSQL are provided in the same plan.

    I suppose in the end it is a mute point, ASP.NET front-end and MYSQL backend seems like
    retrofiting an Alfa Romeo Engine on a Jeep Wrangler, just does not seem right.

     

    Friday, April 28, 2006 11:37 AM
  • User-73676471 posted

    Well, ASP.NET and MYSQL works for me...
    Hosting done by IN.be for 60euro/year including domainname registration/renewal every year.

    Monday, May 8, 2006 10:27 AM
  • User1275632693 posted

    Lucifer, you devil you !

    Nice to see that this is actually possible and potentialy still leaves some hair on  your head.

    Are you using C# or VB.NET as the front end?

     

    Monday, May 8, 2006 10:50 AM
  • User-73676471 posted

    Well I have to admit it took quit some cafeine and some sleepless nights to get this working, but now it runs. I've used a modified version of the Mysql .NET Connector 1.0 for ASP.NET2.0 from these guys http://www.nux.co.za/ I rewrote the providers which are used in the Starter kit to handle the MySql calls. So I have a MySQLMembershipProvider, ect, ect...

    I'm using C# and Visual Web Developer Express for this (first web project I've done in C#, but I'm a developer in C, C++ and java so its quit easy to understand C#)

    Cheers!

    Tuesday, May 9, 2006 11:34 AM