Sounds like performance is going to be fair and acceptable. I am not
sure of the bandwidth on the network mounted file system but I believe
its fairly good, probably gigabit.

Seems like my only worry is the data corruption possibilities. That's
the crunch.

Thanks for answering the latency question, Wayne.
Anil.

-----Original Message-----
From: WB Stow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, 2 February 2007 1:12 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: RE: [sqlite] Appropriate uses for SQLite

I think that he said that he is running one website on four different
servers using loadbalancing, in which case they do need to all share the
same database.

I have not tested this with SQLite, but if all four servers are
connected via a gigabit ethernet backbone then you shouldn't have to
worry about network latency much.

I do not know anything about the warning about using SQLite with *high
concurrency* websites. I thought that I read something about locking
issues, but maybe someone else on the list can clarify that warning a
little.

Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:39 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Appropriate uses for SQLite

I am not an expert on SQLite - but if you are running separate websites
from your multiple servers, then why not use 4 instances of SQLite ??
That is unless the websites need to share the same database/tables.

If they do need to share the same database/tables, then PostgreSQL or
MySQL may be the more appropriate choice.  They are designed to be
distributed (hence their increased overhead) while SQLite is designed to
be lean-and-mean.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Phil

On Feb 1, 2007, at 7:03 PM, Anil Gulati -X ((agulati - Michael Page at
Cisco)) wrote:

> Hi SQLite users
>
> Thank you for your attention - I am just hoping for some clarification

> of usability of SQLite.
> Referring to: http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html
> - SQLite works well in websites
> - Other RDBMS may work better for Client/Server applications
> - SQLite will work over a network file system, but because of the 
> latency associated with most network file systems, performance will 
> not be great
>
> I am trying to decide whether I can use SQLite for a website that runs

> on 4 load-balanced servers using networked file storage mounted by all

> servers for common data access. SQLite will have to load its database 
> from the network file space.
>
> These servers run multiple web-sites, hence the additional servers, 
> but my pages are not high hit-rate. The sites I am planning anticipate

> a maximum of 200 users altogether. Current raw, uncompressed data 
> (mostly
> text) is about 2MB growing to around 4MB. The current starter database

> of 1.6MB raw compresses to 963KB.
>
> My concerns are:
>
> 1. Network file system
> How bad is the latency introduced from using a network file system?
>
> 2. Concurrent access
> I can't understand how SQLite is recommended for 99.9% of websites but

> only *high* concurrency is not recommended? I currently use a flat- 
> file system which uses a single file per record. If users happen to 
> write to the same record simultaneously one of the updates will be 
> lost but corruption is highly unlikely, if not impossible. It seems 
> that for SQLite the risk for concurrent access is always data 
> corruption, which would be unacceptable for me.
>
> The issue is that there may be short periods where multiple users will

> be updating around the same time and I want to make sure that the 
> possibility of corruption is extremely low. I am asking for more 
> detailed information on the above issues to clarify my decision.
>
> All feedback gratefully received.
> Thanks.
> Anil.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
-
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
-


------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to