Hi, I think it is a matter of weighting the ease of setting it up vs. the power needed.
And if you are certain, that you will never have more then one backuppc server using one database, you might as well get rid of the network overhead. For simple queries it might even be faster than mysql and for more complicated ones PostgreSQL would be better, I think. Note that there are recent developements: The new WAL mode makes writes more efficient, and you can use BerkeleyDB as an alternative backend. And administration should not be necessary anyways :). And yes: Saving large binary blobs in databases is generally a bad idea (It is written twice for one thing). Regards Am 07.08.2012 16:47, schrieb Tyler J. Wagner: > On 2012-08-07 15:07, Tobias Stroh wrote: >> 2) Database >> >> I would suggest not abusing the file system as database and using something >> like SQLite. This gives you features like transactions, atomic operations, >> etc. and also improves speed. > I do not understand why people object to MySQL for this. If you're going to > use a database, use a good one. Sqlite is fine for small, simple apps doing > a small number of transactions. BackupPC is not that. MySQL is fast > (enough), reliable (enough), and well understood with tons of useful HOWTOs > and software tools (phpmyadmin, mytop, mysqldump, webmin). > > Regards, > Tyler > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-devel mailing list [email protected] List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
