Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 06/12/07 16:17

cbmeeks wrote:
>> First of all, you should be asking this in a database newsgroup, not a
>> PHP one. And preferably a newsgroup aimed at the database you're using.
>
> Well, that's assuming I would only use MySQL and not PHP to serve my
> files. :-)
>
>> I store pictures in databases. It works quite well. Takes some tuning,
>> but I find it provides good performance.
>
> Yeah, I'm not surprised you replied. I have been reading some of your
> posts about images in db's. You really have me thinking about images
> in db's. I have to admit, I am walking on top of the fence and could
> jump to either side when it comes to file system/db for storing
> images. I agree with your postings about actually doing it instead of
> quoting theories.
>
> Scalability is very important but it's not the only thing.
> Portability is also important. I am thinking of using Amazon's S3
> (which I believe is a flat file system). But the bad thing about
> using Amazon is that I put all of my eggs in one basket. They just
> recently had a price change that made a lot of people happy but not
> all...point is, they did that because they can.
>
> I would love to be the fly on the wall at Amazon, eBay, Google, etc
> and see how they store images. I know Google has their BigTable.
>
> I guess I should follow by example. SmugMug uses their own internal
> system that is helped along with S3. But I have no idea of how much
> they serve from S3 or if they just use S3 as a backup.
>
> Oh well, sorry for the rambling.
>
> cbmeeks
> http://www.eblarg.com
>

Either way you're going to have to use PHP (or PERL or some language) to
serve the images up. But the database design and configuration is the
more important thing here. That's why I suggested a database newsgroup.
It's a better place to discuss these things.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]