On Sun, May 20, 2007 10:43 pm, Robert Cummings wrote: > On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 20:35 -0500, Greg Donald wrote: >> On 5/20/07, benc11@xxxxxxxxx <benc11@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I am in the process of adding a part to my website which would >> include >> > pictures, pdf files, txt files, and excel files. The files sizes >> > could be anywhere on average of 100k to 2mb. Do you think I >> should be >> > uploading the files to a MySQL database or to my server? >> >> >> http://www.zend.com/zend/trick/tricks-sept-2001.php?id=342 >> >> [snip] >> cuts performance by approximately a third >> [/snip] > > Sure, if you use database file storage in the naive way described in > the > document. But I'm quite certain a database stored binary file > dispensed > to multiple servers that keep a locally cached copy for subsequent > requests beats NFS retrieval hands down. Sure, you could do the same > caching with the NFS file but then the solution is quite likely just > as > good as the database storage solution. So the 1/3 performance penalty > is > for the naive solution. Or you could put all the images on a multi-million dollar content-distribution-network of image servers... There are so many ways to skin this cat and make up a "benchmark" to prove whatever you want to prove. So just do whatever makes sense to you for your application at the tim you do it, and accept the consequences, either way, down the road. -- Some people have a "gift" link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
