Leonel Nunez wrote: >> I think the arguments for keeping stuff inside the database are >> (a) far easier to maintain transactional semantics for insert/delete, >> and (b) easier to serve the data out to clients that aren't on the >> same machine. You aren't going to find a performance win though. >> > > (c) easy to replicate I don't follow that. Suppose your database minus images is 3 GB, and your images are another 50 gigabytes. Which is easier to replicate, 3 or 53? Put the images on a file server, separate from the DBs - no need to replicate them. And if you do want to copy (e.g., your replicated DB is in a remote location), you can do a simple file system copy to the corresponding remote file server. > (d) easy to load balancing If you're load balancing, both databases are in the same location, right? In which case you only need one set of images on a central file server. -- Guy Rouillier
