Re: RE: image storage confusion ?? -- UUDECODE

2002-12-10 Thread Yechiel Adar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/03/2002 07:14 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor

Re: Re: Re: RE: image storage confusion ?? -- UUDECODE

2002-12-10 Thread Yechiel Adar
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily a pretty proposition either when you

Re: RE: image storage confusion ?? -- UUDECODE

2002-12-09 Thread oraora oraora
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily a pretty proposition either when you

Re: Re: RE: image storage confusion ?? -- UUDECODE

2002-12-09 Thread chao_ping
AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily

Re: Re: Re: RE: image storage confusion ?? -- UUDECODE

2002-12-09 Thread oraora oraora
to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily a pretty

Re: image storage confusion ??

2002-12-04 Thread Mark J. Bobak
Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily a pretty proposition

RE: image storage confusion ?? -- UUDECODE

2002-12-04 Thread Connor McDonald
recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily a pretty proposition either when you consider hot backups and archived log

Re: image storage confusion ??

2002-12-03 Thread Connor McDonald
Managing 20mil of anything (images/text/etc) in a file system isn't a nice proposition. Go with the database hth connor --- oraora oraora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guys , i posted this already and this time my question is a bit different . I have to store 20,000,000 images of 5k each

Re: image storage confusion ??

2002-12-03 Thread Arup Nanda
Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily a pretty proposition either when you consider hot backups and archived log generation, etc. I presume you are concerned about the management of the image files considering the sheer volume of it. But that's precisely

RE: image storage confusion ??

2002-12-03 Thread Fink, Dan
Excellent points all around. I am dealing with these issues currently. The original design was to use BFILE and external files. Now, they are leaning towards BLOBs. Here are some points to consider. If the system design calls for a standby or other backup site, you have to remember to replicate

Re: image storage confusion ??

2002-12-03 Thread Stephane Paquette
You should/must do a benchmark. If not, how can you justify your decision ? If your management do not ask for a benchmack then you have bad management (and that's no good for you either...) Anyway, in a previous life, we did a benchmarck with files of similar size and it was faster on the OS. The

RE: image storage confusion ??

2002-12-03 Thread DENNIS WILLIAMS
oraora I've provided a couple of thoughts before in response to this issue, but I think that the only way you will get a satisfactory answer is to code a simple test. I hope someone else has extensive experience with 5k images and will reply to you. However, I think the answer to your question

Re: image storage confusion ??

2002-12-03 Thread Jared . Still
Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily a pretty proposition either when you consider hot

Re: image storage confusion ??

2002-12-03 Thread Connor McDonald
] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/03/2002 07:14 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image

Re: image storage confusion ??

2002-12-03 Thread JApplewhite
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: image storage confusion

RE: image storage confusion ??

2002-12-03 Thread Wong, Bing
I would test it on raw disk device because it avoids double buffering. -Original Message- Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:49 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Guys , i posted this already and this time my question is a bit different . I have to store 20,000,000 images of

RE: image storage confusion ?? -- UUDECODE

2002-12-03 Thread MacGregor, Ian A.
by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/03/2002 07:14 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image

RE: image storage confusion ?? -- UUDECODE

2002-12-03 Thread Cary Millsap
] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB of image is not necessarily a pretty proposition either when you consider hot backups and archived log generation, etc. I presume you are concerned about

RE: image storage confusion ?? -- UUDECODE

2002-12-03 Thread MacGregor, Ian A.
PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/03/2002 07:14 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: image storage confusion ?? Connor, I seem to think otherwise. Storing 100 GB