Talk:Cloud database: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:50, 2 April 2012

Articles for creation Start‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted on 11 October 2011 by reviewer Matthewrbowker (talk · contribs).

Computing Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Overview of offerings seems random and badly sourced

The part of the article that tries to enumerate current offerings seems rather random, and has little information as to why various database systems are or are not listed in a given quadrant.

Example 1: Microsoft's special Microsoft hosted MS SQL Azure service is listed, but there is no information as to why other editions of MS SQL server are not listed in the left column as something that can be hosted in a cloud virtual machine. Does the article's author editor know it to be impossible or is he just lacking a "source" for it being possible.

Example 2: The only information about running PostgresSQL in cloud VMs is a "source" which is just a bad journalistic rehash of a self-serving product announcement for someone trying to sell an "enhanced" user interface for managing PostgresSQL in a cloud context. Neither informative nor trustworthy.

This trend seems to permeate the whole table as it currently stands.

The table is a good classification system, but the current data points look dubious (and I don't know what they should be, I actually came to the article to find out).

Additionally, the article seems to assume (wrongly) that all virtual machine cloud hosting companies suffer from the Amazon EC2 specific limitation that such machines are not persistent by default. As this is a talk page, I will not go deeper into sources for this, than to note that most VPS hosting providers, as well as VM hosting companies such as GoGrid, Rackspace and ElasticHosts all default to making virtual machines persist as long as you are willing to pay for them. This assumption probably affects the classifications in the left column.

77.215.46.17 (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=Start|ts=20111011001007|reviewer=Matthewrbowker}}
 {{WikiProject Computing | class = Start|importance=mid}}
+== Overview of offerings seems random and badly sourced ==
+The part of the article that tries to enumerate current offerings seems rather random, and has little information as to why various database systems are or are not listed in a given quadrant.
+* '''Example 1''': Microsoft's special Microsoft hosted MS SQL Azure service is listed, but there is no information as to why other editions of MS SQL server are not listed in the left column as something that can be hosted in a cloud virtual machine.  Does the article's author editor know it to be impossible or is he just lacking a "source" for it being possible.
+* '''Example 2''': The only information about running PostgresSQL in cloud VMs is a "source" which is just a bad journalistic rehash of a self-serving product announcement for someone trying to sell an "enhanced" user interface for managing PostgresSQL in a cloud context.  Neither informative nor trustworthy.
+This trend seems to permeate the whole table as it currently stands.
+The table is a good classification system, but the current data points look dubious (and I don't know what they should be, I actually came to the article to find out).
+Additionally, the article seems to assume (wrongly) that all virtual machine cloud hosting companies suffer from the Amazon EC2 specific limitation that such machines are not persistent by default.  As this is a talk page, I will not go deeper into sources for this, than to note that most VPS hosting providers, as well as VM hosting companies such as GoGrid, Rackspace and ElasticHosts all default to making virtual machines persist as long as you are willing to pay for them.  This assumption probably affects the classifications in the left column.
+[[Special:Contributions/77.215.46.17|77.215.46.17]] ([[User talk:77.215.46.17|talk]]) 19:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)