[UPHPU] Storing 20mb files in mysql... is it a bad idea?

[Sean Thayne]

What kind of fits would you expect?

The only thing with replication I would expect is that there would be  
a little delay because a 20mb is going to take a little longer to  
transfer than a 1kb text field...


- Sean Thayne

On Jul 30, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Joseph Scott <joseph at josephscott.org>  
wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 29, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Sean Thayne wrote:
>
>> It can be a shared resource, it can handle requests on the  
>> localhost or by
>> vmware images in the same way.
>> I don't have to create a bunch of symlinks to folders and use nfs/ 
>> samba for
>> vmware images
>> It is password protected
>> I can easily attach additional information to a file, without  
>> actually
>> touching the file
>> I can use foreign keys to handle garbage collection of files
>> I can easily manage additional versions of files... For instance I  
>> could
>> cache different versions of a image.
>>
>> All in all I think it would just be much easier to manage a large  
>> set of
>> files in a database, rather than a filesystem
>
>
>
> Are you going to be (or planning to in the future) any sort of  
> database replication?  I haven't tested this particular case, but  
> I'd expect the single threaded/serialized nature of MySQL  
> replication have some fits with 20MB data fields.
>
> --
> Joseph Scott
> joseph at josephscott.org
> http://josephscott.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> UPHPU mailing list
> UPHPU at uphpu.org
> http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu
> IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net