[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
]
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
:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: image storage confusion
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
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
]
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo