The queue idea is a good one, and you can use Gearman to do that really easily. Another, even simpler, way to handle this is to use some kind of shared NFS mount for the storage. All things being equal, scaling a filer or SAN will be much easier than scaling your DB, specially if - like most similar cases I've seen in the past - most of you db becomes blob data.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:32 AM, David De La Harpe Golden < david.delaharpe.gol...@ichec.ie> wrote: > > Lewis Taylor wrote: > > > Is there a better solution django offers, and why are > > blobs not supported. ideally i would have the image stored in DB and > > that way there would never be sync issues. > > > > FWIW (which given you're concerned about scaling mightn't be all that > much), it's fairly straightforward to stash small to middling sized* > binary stuff naively to a database rather than fs without even writing a > full custom file storage backend: just base64 encode it to text (using a > postgres bytea would be preferable, but BinaryField or whatever isn't in > Django yet, so my get_internal_type returns "TextField"). > > e.g. (...not efficient (watch it slurp the whole thing into memory), > some might say pretty dumb): > http://python.pastebin.com/d1c577e71 > > * postgres text and bytea go up to 1GB IIRC. > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
