Sergey V. wrote:
Nick Davis-3 wrote:
Makes life a lot
simpler.
Not if your sites begin to grow and you end up with a single multi-gigabyte
Data.fs and then you need to migrate just one of 10 sites to a newer version
of Plone, for example :) Or just to move a site to another Plone instance...
or use per-site filesystem quotas... or...
I've yet to see much evidence that a single multi-gigabyte Data.fs
causes a significant performance loss, compared to all the other things
that can affect overall performance. So I'm not sure what the problem is
with multi-Gb Data.fs?
Running various live sites at different versions of Plone within the
same organisation, sounds to me like a maintenance headache, and best
avoided unless there's an extremely good reason (like a vital 3rd-party
product that's not been upgraded or something).
Having a number of sites each with seperate Data.fs, means you must run
migration individually on each of them. Since migration involves some
manual tweaking, this means there's more room for user error and the
whole process takes many times longer than it would for a single Data.fs.
So, I stand by the KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) principle. ;-)
Regards,
Nick
--
Nick Davis
Web Application Developer
University of Leicester
http://www2.le.ac.uk
_______________________________________________
Setup mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/setup
