On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Sander van Zoest wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > Lots of places use databases for read-only queries. Having a database
> > that gets lots of similar queries that are read-only makes it an
> > unnecessary single point of failure. Why not use the local disk and
> > use rsync to replicate the data around. This way if a machine goes down,
> > the others still have a full copy of the content and keep on running.
> What is the actual use of the flat files in this case? Wouldn't generating
> your HTML offline be better if your data is that static?
The actual use of the flat files can vary. XML in some sense is a good
example, generated HTML is another. Sometimes a csv or other format
works best. And other times, although technically not being a flat file,
a dbm file could be a good/fast alternative as well. It really depends
on how flexable you need/want to be. XML is definately becoming a
useful alternative here.
It is just that databases can create a lot of unnecessary features/overhead
that can be pre-computed ahead of time.
> > You can do things terribly using Oracle and you can do things well using
> > Oracle. The same can be said about just about everything. ;-)
> You put your point well, and my only remaining point is that I think its
> far far easier to screw up a flat file system by not taking into account
> locking issues (just look at all those perl hit-counters that did it
> wrong), and perhaps some reliability issues, than it is with a real
> database. Caveat emptor, and all that.
I still have some locking issues with the mailing list archive. *grin*
I totally agree that it is far easier to screw up a flat file system.
It might not be as flexable as you really need it to be, because it was
build for a particular query and performance on that in mind. Databases
are great and I am happy to have them. It is just that it isn't that
when you throw down the money to get Oracle, it will be the answer to
all your problems. ;-)
Sometimes an LDAP system can make more sense then an RDBMS. Other times
a distributed system based on DNS. It all depends on what you value
most, how much you control your environment and what you can live with
and what you can't.
Matt,
I am not sure if you are on Dean Gaudet's scalable mailing list
<http://archive.covalent.net/new-httpd/2000/09/0478.xml>, it is
definately a great place to see how people accomplish things with
their problem sets. In some odd way it reminds me of the old
alt.hackers days.
Cheers,
--
Sander van Zoest [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Covalent Technologies, Inc. http://www.covalent.net/
(415) 536-5218 http://www.vanzoest.com/sander/
