> What would you expect to gain from this storage backend? Certainly not
> performance, I hope! And shared cache data is easier and more efficient
> using ICP or Digests...So I just don't see what could be gained by the
> addition of such code.
I see ability to easily purge outdated objects, validate records, find
duplicates. Why don't you expect performance ? I imagine standalone
powerful SQL server and depending on my experience see no bottlenecks.
Reliability can suffer in case of putting storage system down, but this
could also be done by turning DNS server or uplink router off. Shit
happens.
> I can see benefits to storage of the cache object index in a database
> (I've even written a log analyzer that does such a thing to an SQLite
> DB), but I don't see why you would want your objects in an SQL database.
I absolutely agree on index things (see above), but it naturally comes to
storing objects' body in the same database to not duplicate file sizes and
to use the same way to extract them.
P.S. It's just an idea, that seems useful to me and I wished to donate it
here.
DO4-UANIC
Received on Fri Oct 11 2002 - 08:10:09 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:16:55 MST