Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: Thomas Fromm <tf@inubit.com>
Organization: inubit AG
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: FileDataStore vs DatabaseDataStore
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:01:52 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
References: <25517799.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <510143ac0909201441u4d3e9a20l71ce9f882f68039c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <510143ac0909201441u4d3e9a20l71ce9f882f68039c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200909211001.52452.tf@inubit.com>


> > 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.

You can make some snapshots with your SAN storage. But nice things like point 
in time recovery you have only with database ;-).

Beside this the file storage is prone to JVM crashes (then you have lots of 
corrupt written files... often enough the storage doesn't work anymore after 
this happens). Because of this I recommend my customers to use a database in 
productive environments.