On Fri, July 14, 2006 9:52 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote: > > >> I'm more concerned about the disaster recovery of a DB from a >> crashed >> hard drive, which has been cluttered up with binary data, making >> data >> recovery. > > One of the greatest benifits of binary DB storage is a single point > of back up > mysqldump db_name > backup.sql -u username -p > It really is as simple as that and no need to bother about referential > integrity when rebuilding, simple > mysql db_name < back.sql -u username -p > > How much easier does it get? Assume, for the sake of argument, that your hard drive crashed. And your backup tape was invalid. And the weekly backup tape is also invalid. And, for good measuere, the monthly tape is just so out-of-date, that recovering from the crashed hard drive actually looks like an attractive option. Your images will make this final last stand not viable. >> Then your field storage size has to be large enough. > > LONGBLOB Not big enough. If it *WAS* big enough, we wouldn't have the posts here asking why their monster image didn't work in their database, and got corrupted. >> Given the number of posts here in PHP-General alone, of people >> getting >> tripped up by these things, I have concluded that cramming images >> into >> the DB is far more trouble than it is worth. >> >> It *seems* like a Good Idea until you actually do it for awhile, and >> then run into all these snags. > > Oddly enough, I have never run into them. Nor has terraserver which > stores > hundreds of thousands of images in its db, although not mysql. You may well have the needed skill set. Alas, the sheer number of problem posts here would indicate that that skillset is not the norm. I'll stop advising against images in the DB when you answer all the posts here from the problems it causes. :-) -- Like Music? http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
