Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Store large amount of Binary Data in FB |
---|---|
Author | Aage Johansen |
Post date | 2007-06-25T21:16:07Z |
Milan Babuskov wrote:
I meant to indicate that an incremental backup (e.g. a few hundred
files) is "in some ways" more convenient than doing a new backup of a
100GB database.
Our images is never (well, hardly ever) changed. Images just get
added. Which means that incremental backups are fast (and
affordable). Moving a 100GB backup to tape every night is another matter.
Even so, I'm heading for the database solution!
--
Aage J.
> Aage Johansen wrote:The word "easier" was an unfortunate choice...
>> 2.
>> Often, having files in a blob field is a very good solution (good
>> access control, transaction control). At other times it is a good
>> thing to use files (easier backup)
>
> I'd say that backup is easier when everything is in a single database
> and you just have to back it up.
>
> If you have files in directory and database separated it's always easy
> to get out of sync as database can change while you backup the directory
> with files and vice versa. OTOH, when everything is in a single
> database, you can be sure that you have a consistent snapshot of data.
>
> Having files in directory is faster, but I wouldn't say it's easier to
> backup.
>
I meant to indicate that an incremental backup (e.g. a few hundred
files) is "in some ways" more convenient than doing a new backup of a
100GB database.
Our images is never (well, hardly ever) changed. Images just get
added. Which means that incremental backups are fast (and
affordable). Moving a 100GB backup to tape every night is another matter.
Even so, I'm heading for the database solution!
--
Aage J.