[ZODB-Dev] FileStorage database unrecoverable?

[Greg Czajkowski]

This brings up a question of mine, does packing time
increase with the size of FileStorage? If so, is it
linear? Now how does PartitionedFileStorage compare?

The reason I am asking is my database will be growing
to over 10GB within the next six months, it stores one
OOBtree which consists of
strings,lists,tuples,longs,ints, and dicts.
I have been trying to find the best Storage solution
in terms of first size, then speed of analyzing every
single BTree item. (I dont need undo support, just
read/write/del)

Berkeley was out of the question because database grew
way too large. Not enough memory for MappingStorage.
Haven't tried DirectoryStorage. Read CompressedStorage
has bugs, so I stuck with FileStorage.

Regards,
--G

--- Steve Alexander <steve@cat-box.net> wrote:
> 
> >>Am I wrong in thinking that another reason is that
> DirectoryStorage and
> >>BerkeleyStorage already break the database up in
> separate files too,
> >>which alleviates this problem to an extent?
> > 
> > 
> > That's right.  PartitionedFileStorage doesn't do
> anything that the more 
> > interesting storages can't do.  At the time I
> created the hack, the 
> > alternatives were not yet mature, but now they
> are.
> 
> But, Directory Storage pretty much requires that you
> use ReiserFS or 
> NTFS or something like that. It is a little bit
> slower that File Storage.
> 
> Berkeley Storage requires that you run a Berkeley
> DB. It is somewhat 
> slower than File Storage.
> 
> Partitioned File Storage is simple and just works on
> any system, and has 
> no particular external dependences. It is as fast as
> File Storage.
> 
> 
> I think there's a viable niche for Partitioned File
> Storage.
> 
> --
> Steve Alexander
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com