> Windows 2008 server standard. Python 2.6/2.7
> I'm not sure. I think living without clustering and memcached for the moment
> is fine.
I would agree.
>> And what about blob storage? Are blobs inside the DB in little chunks
>> enough, do you want them on the filesystem via shared network drive or new
>> efficient filestream support in SQL server 2008+
> I don't know enough to answer this but for our purposes support SQL Server
> in a basic capacity so Plone runs ok is enough to start with.
This really depends on usage patterns and capacity. I would recommend keeping
the BLOBs on the filesystem.
> Our need is to 'state' support for SQL server to our client. They have SQL
> server licenses and they'd prefer to use them. The job is for 3 plone sites,
> public, extranet and intranet but with no estimate yet of the data size.
> Availability concerns are an issue.
> In the case where the work goes ahead and if performance is an issue then
> we;d be in a better position to either implement greater support for
> sqlserver or recommend they switch to a more mature relstorage option. Hope
> that helps put things in context.
If you can depend on mxODBC then I do not believe this is a huge problem.
I would be skeptical of pyodbc stability/performance - its worked ok for us but
we dont have anything 24x7 running with it.
As someone said earlier it is not difficult just very time consuming to test.
I would be more than happy to help test. Some more thoughts:
- If you run mxODBC you will have much less adoption/testing by the community.
due to license and pain to install mxODBC.
- pyodbc i would skeptical of and test. you would get the most
usage using this
- pywin32 is another candidate. it should work just fine but you
may need to watch
for scaling issues (you may have to add some smarts the mssql storage)
I would love to see this support added.
Office:: 713.942.2377 ext 111
http://ploud.com/ Plone site in less than 10 seconds
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org