[Mongrel] Possible memory leak problem...

cr _ at whats-your.name
Sat Sep 1 17:46:30 EDT 2007

> Not necessarily so, Ezra. Storing images in the database is perfectly 
> legitimate.  However, just like Rails HTML views, you could implement 
> caching of the images on the filesystem (i.e. write them to both the FS 
> and the DB). Whatever action "renders" the image could take care of 
> caching on the FS, serving the FS version if the DB version has, for 
> example, the same MD5 hash as the one in the DB.

and why do all that then put them on the fs when you can just put them on the FS in the first place?

> Yes, performance will be a bit less than pure FS, but backups are a 
> whole lot simpler (just backup and restore the DB).

rsync and tar are very simple

> Besides, servers are 
> cheap compared to developers

you get a significant productivity boost out of putting binary files into the database? really?

More information about the Mongrel-users mailing list