Re: Best database for implementing a cache
- From: "vj" <mr.vaibhavjain@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Mar 2007 14:59:46 -0700
Why not just write then to the disk directly? Most File Systems can be
treated as a form a database, and it seems like thats kind of what you
want anyway.
Yes i am writing the image files directly to the filesystem as it is.
However i need to limit the size of the cache so that it may not grow
arbitarily large. that would require me to maintain access count
metric for evicting existing stored images. Since filesystem itself
would not let me assiciate this info with the image I tought of a
utilizing a database that would store the access count as well as all
the available images in the cache.
How fast is the connection to the remote server? How
much faster than that connection must your database be in
order to qualify as "very fast?" ;-)
The remote server is situated in another continent and will be
connected via a measly 100 Kbps isdn. The average image size is abt 1
Mb that would theoretically take 80 seconds to download. The clients
are connected to the server via 1000Mbps lan that can receive this
image in 0.008 seconds. So for the database connection that would
qualify as 'very fast' should let me acheive this theoretical limits
as close as possible ;-)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Best database for implementing a cache
- From: Arne Vajhøj
- Re: Best database for implementing a cache
- References:
- Best database for implementing a cache
- From: vj
- Re: Best database for implementing a cache
- From: Daniel Pitts
- Best database for implementing a cache
- Prev by Date: Networking works from computer A to computer B, but not vice versa ?!?
- Next by Date: Re: Best database for implementing a cache
- Previous by thread: Re: Best database for implementing a cache
- Next by thread: Re: Best database for implementing a cache
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|