Wikipedia Migrates to MariaDB

MyWorld

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Messages
5,001
More and more Oracle is looking like the place where good software goes to die a slow and lonely death. Sure, Oracle is still developing MySQL, but who’s there to work on it anymore? Since the best and brightest tend to leave Oracle soon after their project is acquired, it comes as no surprise that MariaDB is emerging as the de facto successor to the most popular open source database on the web.

We all predicted this way back when, everything Oracle touches in the Open Source world leads to a slow death for that project. Java, OpenOffice, MySQL, etc.

On another note, I never even heard of MariaDB, but then again I'm not into software/web development.

http://ostatic.com/blog/wikipedia-migrates-to-mariadb
 

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,382
I haven't kept up with MariaDB, but I find this kind of writing sad and somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

MySQL is still actively developed, two major releases since the Oracle takeover, and it's only gotten better. If anything, having both InnoDB and MySQL under the same roof has had some positive outcomes that would otherwise never have happened.

Java has always been a stinking POS, and ironically it's Oracle that started doing sensible things like giving you the ability to turn off the browser plugin (I believe it's now disabled by default).
 

MyWorld

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Messages
5,001
I have not found another source stating why Wikipedia would move to a new DB solution, if this piece is one sided it would be nice if we can some more info on the matter.

Just did a Google now and found this:
http://www.zdnet.com/wikipedia-moving-from-mysql-to-mariadb-7000008912/
Why is Wikipedia making this move? Feldman wrote, "The main goal of migrating to MariaDB is not performance driven. More so, I think it's in WMF's and the open source communities interest to coalesce around the MariaDB Foundation as the best route to ensuring a truly open and well supported future for mysql derived database technology. Performance gains along the way are icing on the cake."
It seems like it started December last year and if I understand everything correctly, the migration is now complete.
 

stoymigo

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
966
Wow, migrating from one db to another in half a year considering the size of wikipedia, quite impressive.
 

Tinuva

The Magician
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
10,270
Wow, migrating from one db to another in half a year considering the size of wikipedia, quite impressive.
Not so much until you realize the data files are mostly compatible going mysql to mariadb, you literally just uninstall the one, install the next and test your data.
 

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,382
Wow, migrating from one db to another in half a year considering the size of wikipedia, quite impressive.

As Tinuva said, the data is compatible. Also, it's a comparitively small dataset - only 42GB. We routinely migrate datasets 10 to 100 times that size at work, often without downtime.

But I don't wish to diminish the accomplishment - there are obviously other challenges involved. I imagine they're not running off a single database server - it's likely a fairly complex replicated setup, which is more of a logistical nightmare to migrate.
 

Tinuva

The Magician
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
10,270
As Tinuva said, the data is compatible. Also, it's a comparitively small dataset - only 42GB. We routinely migrate datasets 10 to 100 times that size at work, often without downtime.

But I don't wish to diminish the accomplishment - there are obviously other challenges involved. I imagine they're not running off a single database server - it's likely a fairly complex replicated setup, which is more of a logistical nightmare to migrate.
I agree, the replication was probably a bigger migration than the database servers themselves.

Wikipedia is known for running multiple sql clusters, including over multiple sites, some in Europe even, others in USA ect. In fact I remember back a year or 2 ago reading on their whole setup. Really is impressive what they have done in that regard.
 

InvisibleJim

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
1,694
As Tinuva said, the data is compatible. Also, it's a comparitively small dataset - only 42GB. We routinely migrate datasets 10 to 100 times that size at work, often without downtime.

But I don't wish to diminish the accomplishment - there are obviously other challenges involved. I imagine they're not running off a single database server - it's likely a fairly complex replicated setup, which is more of a logistical nightmare to migrate.

Reading your link, it looks to me tha 42GB is just the size of the current pages and they are actually dealing with more data that isn't included in that download. I'm also not clear if that download is just English or whether it contains the other language pages as well.
 

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,382
Reading your link, it looks to me tha 42GB is just the size of the current pages and they are actually dealing with more data that isn't included in that download. I'm also not clear if that download is just English or whether it contains the other language pages as well.

Yeah, you're right. Reading it again, I see it refers to an xml file. Probably English only. I think this might be what I was looking for. Towards the bottom there are a bunch of sql downloads, which looks a lot like the mediawiki tables. Still doesn't look huge though. Remember, plain text doesn't take up that much space. I'm sure their media is at least a couple of TB, but that wouldn't affect the database.
 
Top