Re: Storing Images in SQL Server (2005)

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 09:50:17PM -0400, Brian A. Reiter wrote:
> I've seen a lot of negatives on storing files as BLOBs in a database in this
> thread. I think it's worth looking at the other side of the coin.
>
> {excellent points elided}

Also:

Backing up "the system" is done by backing up the database, all within
transaction contexts. No worries about timing skews where the filesystem
data is backed up separately from the database, and pointers not matching
up because of activity going on during backup time.

It may well be that SQL-backed storage scales better when distributing an
application beyond just one server: it's hard enough to split a database
up among multiple backend servers as it is, but with the SQL-only method
you only have to solve this once. If using the filesystem, you have to
build a parallel system for the image files.

But speaking more generally: I'll trade some amount of speed in order to
get reduced complexity any day of the week; complexity is the enemy of
security and maintainability.

Steve

--- 
Stephen J Friedl | Security Consultant |  UNIX Wizard  |   +1 714 544-6561
www.unixwiz.net  | Tustin, Calif. USA  | Microsoft MVP | steve@unixwiz.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------