I've not read Sun's argument, but I've never understood the rationale for storing large invariant data in an RDBMS. Or course the RDBMS vendor wants you to do it - they want the whole world stored under their product. And the DASD vendors love it. But what does it buy you, the user who implements such a solution? Say in the example below you have 20 GB of PDFs. Every time you do a full database backup, you are going to be backing up that same, **unchanged** 20 GB of PDFs! What is the point in that? Just store a reference to a location in the filesystem, and keep the binary files in the filesystem. You can back up your filesystem as easily as you can back up your Oracle logs.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Bruce Lynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "JBoss Users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Store large pdfs with JBoss On Saturday 04 January 2003 04:48, Pete Beck wrote: > I agree with Sun 100% on this. Using the file-system is bad news for > maintenance, scalability and as the article says security. > I've seen the chaos that using the filesystem can cause in clustered > environments and I would say avoid it if you can. > > Of course, the problem is Oracle seems to have totally pathetic support > for large objects from Java. However I am using Postgres and it works > like a charm. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
