Posted by Rik Wasmus on 01/09/08 04:08

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=3D"*"> tags are not (yet?) commonly supported by browsers, you n=
eed
>> 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 t=
he =

> 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 o=
ne =

uses persistent connections.
-- =

Rik Wasmus

[Back to original message]