|
|
Posted by The Natural Philosopher on 01/09/08 08:38
Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 05:05:21 +0100, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> NC wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 8:56 am, missmoo <mor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I would like to know what the differences are in terms of security,
>>>> reliability and resources between storing user-uploaded images in a
>>>> file or storing them in a mySQL database.
>>> The only significant difference is the DB server load. Since <img
>>> data="*"> tags are not (yet?) commonly supported by browsers, you need
>>> a separate instance of an image display script (and a separate
>>> connection to the DB server) to display each image. So if your Web
>>> page has 100 images on it, it will require 101 nearly simultaneous
>>> connections to display itself and the images, as opposed to one
>>> connection if images were stored in the file system. Granted, image
>>> retrieval connections would be very short, but at high loads, this
>>> architecture would be patently inferior to disk-based alternative.
>>>
>>
>> Not true. <img> tags are handled identically by the client, whether
>> the image comes from the database or the file system. The client
>> doesn't know or care if the image is from a database or not.
>
> I think NC is talking about 'in this scenario, for every image request a
> database connection is opened and closed again'. Which is true, unless
> one uses persistent connections.
Thats true, but what overhead is that? Compared with dishing out all
that data?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|