Hi Wade, I mostly use Linux. This client I think has an in-house windows server that they are planning on using. Also, Yes I was planning on using a thumbnail function. I'm also looking into some kind of caching too. Thanks.
Sincerely, Mike -- Mike Brandonisio * IT Planning & Support Tech One Illustration * Database Applications tel (630) 759-9283 * e-Commerce [EMAIL PROTECTED] * www.techoneillustration.com On May 23, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Wade Smart wrote: > 05232007 2208 GMT-6 DST > > If your client has as many images as they say, Im guessing that your > going to write a thumbnail function so you are not storing two of > every > image. I personally wouldnt do this on Windows just because, its > unknown > as to how many people will be accessing this information at any > point in > time. Im not sure about the performance issue here. You have the > php/mysql lookup, the thumbnail function, the retrieval of the actual > image..... I would think Linux would be better speed wise. > > Wade > > On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 21:07 -0500, Mike Brandonisio wrote: >> Hi Wade, >> >> Thanks for taking time to decipher my posting. Yes I figures that a >> DB would be better than a flat file. All of the image will have meta >> data to search on in the DB. The result will show a thumbnail and >> link to the larger image. I read some where that windows folders on >> FAT32 are something like 65,534 and on NTFS are 4,294,967,295 files >> on a folder or folders in a folder. I cannot find anything on linux >> though. Some say theoretical 10 to the 18 power. >> >> Sincerely, >> Mike > > > > Community email addresses: > Post message: [email protected] > Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Shortcut URL to this page: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/php-list > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
