Posted by d on 04/13/06 19:56

"Andy Jeffries" <news@andyjeffries.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.04.13.15.33.42.697799@andyjeffries.co.uk...
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:42:45 -0700, fletch wrote:
>> It is much more efficient to let the webserver deliver images directly,
>> and as I see it, there is no _good_ reason not to go that route.
>
> What about situations where there are multiple front-end web servers
> connecting to multiple database servers.
>
> You don't really want to allow users to upload images (profiles, forums,
> etc) in to a folder on one of the machines (whichever one of the farm they
> happen to connect to for the upload process) and then have to sync between
> every server to every other server every few minutes.
>
> Of course, shared storage (NFS etc) is another way of getting the same
> goal, but multiple DBs may be more fault tolerant.

Shared storage is the answer in that situation - storing images in a
database has such a massive overhead, not to mention cumbersome file access.
It might be easier from the coder's point-of-view, but that doesn't mean
squat to a project :)

> Cheers,
>
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andy Jeffries MBCS CITP ZCE | gPHPEdit Lead Developer
> http://www.gphpedit.org | PHP editor for Gnome 2
> http://www.andyjeffries.co.uk | Personal site and photos
>

[Back to original message]