On 14 March 2014 16:25, Dave Crozier <[email protected]> wrote: > Because storing them in the standard file system with pointers to them is: > > 1. Slow .... access times deteriorate as the depth of the tree and number of > documents in each folder increases > > 2. Potentially insecure. I know you can lock down the data via group policies > etc and we did in fact do this when we used a "pointer system" but it is a > potential insecurity. > > 3. Data in a filesystem if present is by nature by definition insecure once > accessed as files can be moved, renamed etc. > > 4. Access of documents (blobs) direct from sql is a lot lot faster than > folder access and the data can be mirrored/clustered automatically as opposed > to having to set up external folder synchronisation. We in fact mirror our > main SQL database so down time and disaster recovery i.e 100% uptime (as we > are on a 3 node SAN) is totally covered > > 5. Shipping around data in SQL server and setting up internal OCR recognition > with the scans is easier > > 6. Network Disconnects can and do happen when the "pointer system" is used.
^^^ What Dave said, especially number 2 & 3 :-) I can control what application users do based on their access rights. Some users cannot delete files. Yes, I could control these via NT user rights, but some of the people installing our software barely know what a UNC path is... -- Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/cadwx0+l0exy-nld88he8nn7vudte2fd-j-5tdm5jud0ugos...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
