Re: Storing Video's or vedio file in DB.

On 12/17/2014 07:37 PM, Arthur Silva wrote:
> This! I'm surprised it took so long to somebody suggest an object store.

I thought they did, a file system:)

>
> On Dec 17, 2014 9:22 PM, "Jonathan Vanasco" <postgres@2xlp.com
> <mailto:postgres@2xlp.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     I wouldn't even store it on the filesystem if I could avoid that.
>     Most people I know will assign the video a unique identifier (which
>     is stored in the database) and then store the video file with a 3rd
>     party (e.g. Amazon S3).
>
>     1. This is often cheaper.  Videos take up a lot of disk space.
>     Having to ensure 2-3 copies of a file as a failover is not fun.
>     2. It offloads work from internal servers.  Why deal with
>     connections that are serving a static file if you can avoid it?
>
>     In terms of FS vs DB (aside from the open vs streaming which was
>     already brought up)
>
>     I think the big issue with storing large files in the database is
>     the input/output connection.
>     Postgres has a specified number of max connections available, and
>     each one has some overhead to operate. Meanwhile, a server like
>     nginx can handle 10k connections easily, and with little or no
>     overhead.  While the speed is comparable to the OS, you end up using
>     a resource from a limited database connection pool.  And you run the
>     risk of a slow/dropped client tying up the connection.
>     Why allocate a resource to these operations, when there are more
>     lightweight alternatives that won't tie up a database connection ?
>
>
>
>     --



--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com