jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FileDataStore vs DatabaseDataStore
Date Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:41:37 GMT
Hi,

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:49 AM, freak182 <eman.nollase@gmail.com> wrote:
> what is your recommended data store in production environment?

I would recommend using FileDataStore unless you have strict
operational reasons to put everything into a database. Due to the
append-only nature of the data store feature, FileDataStore is not
affected by the transaction limitations of our file-based persistence
managers. And since the data is stored directly on the file system,
you don't need to worry about the complexities or performance
limitations of an intermediate database.

> which datastore can be easily manage like backup and restore, space
> occupied and fast access? (given a same hardware specs)

FileDataStore wins on all these counts. Backup/restore can be done by
just copying the files, and incremental backups are also possible.
Only minimal extra disk space (intermediate directories and the file
inodes) is required beyond your binary content. And you can access the
data at file system speed.

> has anyone implemented this "Theoretically the data store could be split to
> different directories / hard drives."?

I haven't heard about anyone doing something like that. Note that you
can also achieve similar functionality by using ZFS or another file
system that natively allows you to extend the storage capacity by
adding new disks to the volume.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message