[Mongrel] Possible memory leak problem...

Zed A. Shaw zedshaw at zedshaw.com
Sat Sep 1 17:51:09 EDT 2007


On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:46:18 -0400
Will Green <will at hotgazpacho.com> wrote:

> 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.

No, not right at all.  All RDBMS were originally designed to store relations, not files.  It's only recently that people started putting every damn thing they could into a RDBMS.  The smart folks just put the data on a file system behind a specialized image web server.  Then, when you need to serve the image, you, uh serve it.  Doesn't get much easier than that.

> Yes, performance will be a bit less than pure FS, but backups are a 
> whole lot simpler (just backup and restore the DB). Besides, servers are 
> cheap compared to developers (just ask the 37s guys), right?

That's it?  Backups?  Seriously man, that's a lame reason to do anything.  Especially since backing up a file system is *infinitely* easier than a database.  In real companies around the world there are little children crying because every night the DBA has to shut the production databases down to back them up, even if Oracle says they don't.

Backing up a file system does not require shutting it down, and can even be done with just simple rsync scripts.

-- 
Zed A. Shaw
- Hate: http://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/
- Good: http://www.zedshaw.com/
- Evil: http://yearofevil.com/


More information about the Mongrel-users mailing list