Re: [LUG] Unix file system folder limits

[Aaron Trevena <betty@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Steve Marvell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:11:08PM +0000, Adrian Midgley wrote:
> > static is more reliable than database.

Not necessarily - both can be distributed, clustered and load-balanced.

> and maintainable, and portable, ..

A database is far more maintainable, most admin can be done with a quick
and easy sql statement without horrific trawls of the FS

using mysql or other db's can also provide an alter log so that you can
rollback or at least track changes.

> > and quicker.
>
> Hell yeah.

oddly I got this on the mod_perl mailing list :

Perrin Harkins wrote:
> I thought some of you might be interested in this thread from Perlmonks.org:
> http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=243899
>
> I benched BerkeleyDB against multiple files for medium-sized documents,
> and the results were that Berkeley was faster for writes and slower for
> reads.

and

> At a suggestion from Aaron Ross, I adjusted the Cachesize parameter for
> BerkeleyDB, which brought it up to par with the file system for reads on
> my machine.  It seems to work even better on slower machines.  See the
> URL above for details.

showing that it is quote possible to serve pages just as fast as static
from berkeley db, and possibly others.

regards,

A.




--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.