Christoph Berendes wrote:
Why so many, in separate files, you ask...

1. why not? (what's the cost/risk of multiple Data.fs files and mount points), hmmm?

Because it's not a common use case, so you end up pushing limits and bumping into bugs that no-one else cares about ;-)

2. makes it easy to move a single client site between instances and servers (we don't yet know how load is going to mount up, and whether we'll need to set up a new server at, say, 30 sites, or 100, or ...)


3. site import/export doesn't work as well, and it seems that import/export of "large" Zope objects is deprecated...

huh? rubbish. What specific problems have you had?

4. I'm told that, occasionally, Data.fs become corrupted.

I've yet to see that in 5 years of extensive ZODB use, other than by hardware failure, in which case you're screwed however you have things set up ;-)

We have some protection if that happens, since it should (I'd think) affect only one client, not many.

Nah, the stuff you're worried about will trash multiple mounted storages just as well as one big one ;-)

I'm very interested in answers to #1 (things that will make me regret our current strategy)

The biggest risk is that you'll be the only person who cares if things go wrong because of that setup...


Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting

Zope maillist  -
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to