On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Carilda Thomas wrote:
> From a pure systems point of view, I fail to see why anyone would want
> to. If the picture is accessed from the file system, it is served as an
> http request, but we are all using keep-alive, aren't we, so there should
> be minimal overhead here.
>
> If the file is stored in the database as a large object, then the entire
> file must be packaged into some shared memory location and transferred to
> whatever process is looking for it. Now, getting it out of the database
> is still a filesystem access, with the additional overhead that the data
> base puts on it.
Not necesarily. MySQL can't but most large database seem to offer BLOB
streaming so you can stream straight to the client. FS access is fine
but deeply nested directories can be a strain on the server too.
Anyway, the issue is not whether the BLOBs get stored in the FS or
he DB, but whether Midgard will offer a clean, integrated approach
to management of BLOBs. If you want over the web management you don't
want to have people need to do FTP just for the images, and I generally
don't want to grant my content managers any sort of system account
(telnet, ftp or otherwise) on my systems. And replication must not involve
two totally unrelated steps. And security must be managed by one means
(and I hate apache's security 'management').
emile
--
This is The Midgard Project's mailing list. For more information,
please visit the project's web site at http://www.midgard-project.org
To unsubscribe the list, send an empty email message to address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
