On 4 Sep 2008, at 06:56, Yannick Warnier wrote:
Le mercredi 03 septembre 2008 à 22:07 +0100, Luke a écrit :
seperate databases is a hassle, since you have to mess with multiple
connections, I would go with the one database. Just cut down on data
storage, use userids instead of usernames for identification in the
tables
and such.
Not only is it a hassle, it is also a major system bottleneck on most
filesystems. If using MySQL for example, each database creates one
directory. If you get to 10.000 directories in /var/lib/mysql for
example (based on Debian systems), you will start to feel the weight
of
having so many items in only one directory. If you ever reach 30.000,
you'll start to think it *really* was a bad idea.
Not to mention any database backup will be accordingly slower.
Personal recommendation: don't go for the multiple database solution
if
you plan to have more than 100 and you can avoid it.
How bad this is depends on the OS and filesystem you're using. One of
the sites I manage has a directory with over 300k files in it, and
it's never a problem unless I want to list the contents (which I never
do!). Accessing the files (for backups or other purposes) is just as
fast as it is with only a few files. That's a CentOS box using ext3.
It's possible the limitation you're seeing is related to MySQL rather
than the filesystem, but I've never had anywhere near that number of
databases on a single box so I can't speak to that.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
