performance comparision of ERAS with mysql & mssql as databases

[sanjay mehta 6]

i quote from eset remote administrator help page hxxp://help.eset.com/era/6/en-US/index.html?installation_package.htmon website.

 

"For best performance, we recommend that you use Microsoft SQL Server as your ESET Remote Administrator database. While ESET Remote Administrator is compatible with MySQL, using MySQL can negatively impact system performance when working with large amounts of data including dashboards, threats and clients. The same hardware with Microsoft SQL Server is capable of handling about 10x the number of clients as with MySQL."

 

does that sound like trying to smear mysql ? never heard such huge performance differential. is it due to way eras works ? could u explain ?

[sanjay mehta 6]

while the wilders forum was very active & responsive, don't get replied to here. happening to me perhaps second time.

[Marcos 5,074]

Personally I'm not aware of any performance benchmarks. I'd say it depends on the number of clients connecting to ERAS; if you have dozens of clients, MySQL should suffice. If you have hundreds or thousands of clients, consider using MS SQL Server.

[sanjay mehta 6]

but i was under the impression that mysql would support equally large installations at near identical performance. if eset has tested ERAS V6 for larger installations & then noticed MySQL performs 10x slower, should it be assumed that this could be a temporary problem & likely to be sorted out as the product matures. or the problem will persist due to some clearly identifiable technical issues, which should be explained.

 

there are several clients who would prefer MySQL over MSSQL.

[bbahes 29]

i quote from eset remote administrator help page hxxp://help.eset.com/era/6/en-US/index.html?installation_package.htmon website.

 

"For best performance, we recommend that you use Microsoft SQL Server as your ESET Remote Administrator database. While ESET Remote Administrator is compatible with MySQL, using MySQL can negatively impact system performance when working with large amounts of data including dashboards, threats and clients. The same hardware with Microsoft SQL Server is capable of handling about 10x the number of clients as with MySQL."

 

does that sound like trying to smear mysql ? never heard such huge performance differential. is it due to way eras works ? could u explain ?

 

It's not lie that commercial enterprise class databases have better performance than free open source alternatives. It's good thing that ESET offered alternative to MSSQL unlike some other antivirus solutions.

From what I know you would have to have thousands of clients that are geographically dispersed in order to feel performance hit if on MySQL.

[sanjay mehta 6]

my argument is simple :

 

either eset has clear basis & confirms any significant performance deterioration by using MySQL, in any scenario, leaving aside the 10x claim. (often it is the case that as software matures, performance bottlenecks are resolved)

 

otherwise, it's best to remove the vague comment in help file that discourages an user from using MySQL.

[sanjay mehta 6]

 

i quote from eset remote administrator help page hxxp://help.eset.com/era/6/en-US/index.html?installation_package.htmon website.

 

"For best performance, we recommend that you use Microsoft SQL Server as your ESET Remote Administrator database. While ESET Remote Administrator is compatible with MySQL, using MySQL can negatively impact system performance when working with large amounts of data including dashboards, threats and clients. The same hardware with Microsoft SQL Server is capable of handling about 10x the number of clients as with MySQL."

 

does that sound like trying to smear mysql ? never heard such huge performance differential. is it due to way eras works ? could u explain ?

 

It's not lie that commercial enterprise class databases have better performance than free open source alternatives. It's good thing that ESET offered alternative to MSSQL unlike some other antivirus solutions.

From what I know you would have to have thousands of clients that are geographically dispersed in order to feel performance hit if on MySQL.

 

but is "10x better" claim a truth ? 1.1x, 1.2x or maybe even 1.5x sound believable.

[jimwillsher 65]

Does it actually matter?