I suggest staying with seperate DB-systems for Groupware, ERP, and the like for several reasons. First of all a DB crash only kills parts of the server, secondly the system load is distributed more evenly on multicore/multicpu boxes, backups - at least with bacula - are more straightforward, on hardware RAID5/6/10 disk access is faster, .... I could think of several more reasons but I don't want to be too chatty.
I don't like the single-datastore-idea (like the SME servers approach keeping everything in mysql) - it makes the systems too vulnerable. For example a corrupt mySQL instantly kills an SME box. Actually that (and the lack of 64bit support) made me switch from SME to invis ....
Fair enough! But... To databases on an middles sized server are faster than one? the raid is faster when two databases access one disk? It is "more starightforward" making a backup of two databases than one? An even, i think a half crushed system is as worse than the hole system crashes, by the way it would be mor easy to administrate, giving the customer the opportunity using invis as a little webserver would also pint to mysql. And if the system (one of the databases) crashes, its for normal users hard to find out, just because of there will be only a part of the software which does not work, what normally make users just dont use them anymore. But [2]... okay, we should use the two databases. Jörg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-invis+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-invis+help@opensuse.org