|
database
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Document management is SQL ServerWe have a small web server farm that includes two machines. One machine contains the folder where all uploaded document are stored. The other machine links to the documents vai a mapped drive. Meta data about the files is stored in a group of tables in a SqlServer 2005 database. /********[WEB FARM]*****************************/ [Web Server 1]---[Mapped Drive] | [Wen Server 2] | | | \>[FileFoler]</ ************************************************/ | [DataBase Server/DataBase]| | \>[Simple Document Management Tables] Question: Would a better model house the files in the database? Why/why not? What are the performance ramifications on SqlServer? [Other Info] Database Size: 150 Mb (Increases by 4-10 Mb per month) File Stats: 535 files 525 Mbs (Increase by 500 files per month) Wes wrote:
Show quote > Current sturucture: No, what you are doing is very common, and very accepted. Storage of > We have a small web server farm that includes two machines. > One machine contains the folder where all uploaded document are stored. > The other machine links to the documents vai a mapped drive. > Meta data about the files is stored in a group of tables in a SqlServer 2005 > database. > > /********[WEB FARM]*****************************/ > [Web Server 1]---[Mapped Drive] > | > [Wen Server 2] | > | | > \>[FileFoler]</ > ************************************************/ > | > | > | > [DataBase Server/DataBase] > \>[Simple Document Management Tables] > > Question: > Would a better model house the files in the database? Why/why not? What > are the performance ramifications on SqlServer? > > [Other Info] > Database Size: 150 Mb (Increases by 4-10 Mb per month) > File Stats: 535 files 525 Mbs (Increase by 500 files per month) large binary objects in a database tends to get really messy. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||