From: | Jorge Godoy <jgodoy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John McCawley <nospam(at)hardgeus(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jorge Godoy <jgodoy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Clodoaldo <clodoaldo(dot)pinto(dot)neto(at)gmail(dot)com>, imageguy <imageguy1206(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images |
Date: | 2007-01-05 21:20:31 |
Message-ID: | 87irfli31c.fsf@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
John McCawley <nospam(at)hardgeus(dot)com> writes:
> This is a web app, so in my example all of the images live on a web server,
> and our data lives on a separate database server. We have a completely
> duplicated setup offsite, and mirror images of every server at the backup
> site. Every night we use rsync to duplicate everything offsite. Also, a cron
> job pg_dumps every night and copies the dump over to the backup DB server.
>
> And before anybody gives me any guff, our office is in New Orleans, and we
> went through Katrina with less than an hour of downtime, and without losing
> anything. So there ;)
Anyway, you have no guarantee that all your images exist on file and that all
existing files have a corresponding entry in your database.
--
Jorge Godoy <jgodoy(at)gmail(dot)com>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jorge Godoy | 2007-01-05 21:25:20 | Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images |
Previous Message | Gavin Hamill | 2007-01-05 21:14:55 | Re: vacuum v. vacuumdb |