dan wrote:
> a reference in a database is essentially the same thing as a hardlink on
> a filesystem as far as function.
except... creating the hardlink is a mostly atomic operation and once
created it is permanently tied to the actual data. You'd have to
include the data in the database to get the same effect with
transactional operations - otherwise you'd have a reference to a
filename that might in fact contain something different when you access it.
> a filesystem is a more flexible way to store files but a database is
> much more efficient at accessing data.
Not necessarily. It's one of those things where a rigged demo is
indistinguishable from magic.
> i have given up on the mission to get backuppc to use a database, but
> have looked into some projects that put a 'virtual' (meaning each
> attribute of ext2 is converted to an appropriate sql function) ext2
> filesystem in a mysql database. that would make the database access
> transparent to backuppc but it would gain all the speed of not creating
> inodes and hardlinks as well as speed running the nighty cleanup. it
> would unfortunately degrade the speed of storing large files as a
> regular filesystem just does that faster.
I think the only hope of making a database faster would be to have an
expert tune the system to spread the indexes and tables across different
drives in the most efficient way - and that won't be practical for most
people.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
