files left, right and centre...It took
> > >> > literally days to clean up millions of (zero byte
> > >> > size) files...after which point that file system
> > >> > needed to be rebuilt anyway, the directory structure
> > >> > was in such a mess
> >
n such a mess
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Connor
> > >
> > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Arup,
> > > >
> > > > What Connor may have been referring to is the
> > > > inefficiency
It took
> >> > literally days to clean up millions of (zero byte
> >> > size) files...after which point that file system
> >> > needed to be rebuilt anyway, the directory structure
> >> > was in such a mess
> >> >
> >> >
s
>> > Connor
>> >
>> > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Arup,
>> > >
>> > > What Connor may have been referring to is the
>> > > inefficiency
>> > > of managing 20 million files in a filesystem.
>> > >
>> > &
des ( assuming unix ). It's a
> > > bit much
> > > for a filesystem to deal with.
> > >
> > > Jared
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Arup Nanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sen
lot of inodes ( assuming unix ). It's a
> > bit much
> > for a filesystem to deal with.
> >
> > Jared
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Arup Nanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
; bit much
> > for a filesystem to deal with.
> >
> > Jared
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Arup Nanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 12/03/2002 07:14 AM
> > Please respond to ORAC
a
> bit much
> for a filesystem to deal with.
>
> Jared
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Arup Nanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 12/03/2002 07:14 AM
> Please respond to ORACLE-L
>
>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
TECTED]
> 12/03/2002 07:14 AM
> Please respond to ORACLE-L
>
>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject:Re: image storage confusion
> ??
>
>
> Connor,
>
> I seem to th
ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Arup Nanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 12/03/2002 07:14 AM
> Please respond to ORACLE-L
>
>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
I would test it on raw disk device because it avoids double buffering.
-Original Message-
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:49 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Guys , i posted this already and this time my question is a bit
different .
I have to store 20,000,000 images of
ephane Paquette
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: im
> Jared
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Arup Nanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 12/03/2002 07:14 AM
> Please respond to ORACLE-L
>
>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
CTED]
12/03/2002 07:14 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: image storage confusion ??
Connor,
I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily a
pretty prop
oraora
I've provided a couple of thoughts before in response to this issue, but
I think that the only way you will get a satisfactory answer is to code a
simple test. I hope someone else has extensive experience with 5k images and
will reply to you. However, I think the answer to your question w
You should/must do a benchmark.
If not, how can you justify your decision ?
If your management do not ask for a benchmack then you
have bad management (and that's no good for you
either...)
Anyway, in a previous life, we did a benchmarck with
files of similar size and it was faster on the OS.
The
Excellent points all around. I am dealing with these issues currently. The
original design was to use BFILE and external files. Now, they are leaning
towards BLOBs. Here are some points to consider.
If the system design calls for a standby or other backup site, you have to
remember to replicate da
Connor,
I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily a
pretty proposition either when you consider hot backups and archived log
generation, etc. I presume you are concerned about the management of the
image files considering the sheer volume of it. But that's precisely wha
Managing 20mil of anything (images/text/etc) in a file
system isn't a nice proposition. Go with the database
hth
connor
--- oraora oraora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guys , i posted this already and this time my
> question is a bit
> different .
>
> I have to store 20,000,000 images of 5k
Guys , i posted this already and this time my question is a bit
different .
I have to store 20,000,000 images of 5k each either in DB ( on
win2k) or linux o/s file system.
the images are to be displayed over mobile phones.so the time to
retrieve the images should be minimum.
for this to be
20 matches
Mail list logo
