|
|
Posted by Shawn Wilson on 09/26/14 11:24
"Jasen Betts" <jasen-b@free.net.nospam.nz> wrote in message
news:55ngt2-utl.ln1@news.compass.net.nz...
> In article <1122737220.848907.303500@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jim
> wrote:
>> Finally, has anyone had any experience storing images in a MySQL DB
>> against storing in the standard file system? Much difference in
>> performance?
I too have had this question and have gotten basically the same response
from a lot of people. Storing images (or any binary data) in the DB itself
isn't generally recommended.
The first point they stated (pro-FS) was that the DB will serve your files
slower than the file system (most always - although I guess if your DB is on
a brand new quad cpu machine with SATA raid and the file system is on a 486
ATA-66 IDE drive then maybe not).
If the FS and DB are on the same machine, then the FS will serve your
content better, especially as traffic explodes.
Another point (pro-DB) was ease of backing up/restoring or transferring the
site. If EVERYTHING is in the DB, then all you have to do to move it or
restore it is insert a dump of your DB. If you put your binary data in the
FS, then you have to insert your DB backup, as well as FTP your files.
Personally, I've found that it's much more efficient to store large binary
data in the FS. I have had acceptable results with storing just a thumbnail
of an image in the DB itself, but not the full sized (2-5meg) image. The DB
wasn't horribly slow, but where the file system took less than a second to
serve my image, the DB took just over a second. For one client, it's a toss
up, but for 1000 hits a day, that'll get much worse.
-----------
Shawn Wilson
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|