Hi Hans-Rudolf Thanks for the swift reply. So the (Psql > Mysql ) still stands in 2015 that's kind of a pity, installing psql is not a problem but fixing a crashed database (which never happened to us on our mysql -> psql migrated database) would still be me pushing some buttons to fix everything and I know for sure that these sysadmins are better in documenting stuff and following SLA's But a perfect running galaxy server would be concern nr 1. For your concerns about your migration. If "sh manage_db.sh upgrade" works on your new or test psql database after a galaxy upgrade I think you're safe. Eric On 27 July 2015 at 15:35, Hans-Rudolf Hotz <hrh@fmi.ch> wrote:

Hi Eric

Well, there is no official statement besides the one you have quoted below, but anyone in the Galaxy team I have spoken to recently told me to move to PostgreSQL.

And that's why, I've been through the painful process of migrating our MySQL database to a PostgreSQl database. Actually, the switch for our production server just happened this morning - and I am still anxious whether I have done everything correctly.

Our system admin also prefers MySQl. Hence I had to set up my own PostgreSQL server. And now, I am running the back-ups myself.

For your case: why not moving the Galaxy server to the "new more powerful environment" but still connected to the old PostgreSQL server? I don't think the database server (unless it is sqlite) is ever the bottleneck, is-it?

Regards, Hans-Rudolf

On 07/27/2015 02:35 PM, Eric Kuyt wrote:

...

Hi All,

We are thinking of putting our galaxy instance in a new more powerful environment. Galaxy is now on a single server containing a psql database which is migrated from mysql a few years ago. The new environment already houses a really nice backupped highly available mysql server.

as galaxy admin I am quite reluctant of migrating back to mysql, the system admin is quite reluctant of installing this psql database with the same grade of backup and availability just for galaxy.

I could only come up with the line "/PostgreSQL is much preferred since we've found it works better with our DB abstraction layer, SQLAlchemy <http://www.sqlalchemy.org/>./" from the galaxy wiki, which is a rather slim argument.

My question now is.

Is Postgres still the preferred database or is Mysql now also a safe bet.

For mysql we would have to migrate back, system management would have a lot of experience tuning databases and a high quality instance is already running.

For Psql a new database instance would have to be installed, less knowledge of the database system is available but it is the preferred database.

Could someone point out some more pros and cons in this question?

Thanks,

Eric

-- Central Veterinary Institute of Wageningen UR (CVI) Department of Infection Biology PO box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, NL Visiting address: ASG, Edelhertweg 15, 8219 PH Lelystad

Tel: +31-(0)320-293391 Fax: +31-(0)320-238153 E-mail: eric.kuijt@wur.nl <mailto:eric.kuijt@wur.nl> Web:http://www.cvi.wur.nl <http://www.cvi.wur.nl>

___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: https://lists.galaxyproject.org/

To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/

-- Central Veterinary Institute of Wageningen UR (CVI) Department of Infection Biology PO box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, NL Visiting address: ASG, Edelhertweg 15, 8219 PH Lelystad Tel: +31-(0)320-293391 Fax: +31-(0)320-238153 E-mail: eric.kuijt@wur.nl Web: http://www.cvi.wur.nl