[ZODB-Dev] Re: PartitionedFileStorage

[Myroslav Opyr]

Shane Hathaway wrote:

>There's no need.  The current "stable" choices for maintaining databases
>larger than 2 GB are:
>
>- BDBStorage, which works quite well now and is likely the most scaleable
>solution (I presume it could survive well into the TB range), but it
>requires periodic maintenance and AFAIK it's not easy to use on Windows;
>
I'm concerned about upgrading of BDB. IMHO upgrade of librabies can 
potentially break things. Who is guru in BDB administration? Or just 
SleepyCat's support, bdb maillists for us to consult?

>- DirectoryStorage, which works well if your filesystem can handle hoardes
>of small files;
>
Are ntfs and reiserfs fine with that?

>- Get your kernel, filesystem, and Python to support files > 2 GB;
>
Probably that should be done anyway.

>- Use OracleStorage, which isn't very speedy;
>
...too fat for Zope, IMO.

>- Mount databases to split up storage into multiple files; or
>
Is that like wikistorage on zope.org? Packing mounted storages, what is 
issue with that?

>- Use PartitionedFileStorage.
>
:)

>The advantage of PartitionedFileStorage is that it's just as easy to use
>as FileStorage.  It creates multiple files only as needed, so you can
>forget it's there.  It's only a small step above FileStorage, though, so
>don't use it to store 100 GB.
>  
>
But 10Gb database should survive with that. PartitionedStorage should 
solve the issue for application with 2Gb/year ZODB growth speed.

m.
-- 
Myroslav Opyr
zope.net.ua <http://zope.net.ua/> ° Ukrainian Zope Hosting
e-mail:  myroslav at zope.net.ua <mailto:myroslav at zope.net.ua>
cell:  +380 50.3174578