--On Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2003 15:32 +0900 Wankyu Choi <wankyu@neoqst.com> wrote:
If most Zope users ( including yourself ) feel Filestorage is not a solution for more than 20GB of data, wouldn't ZC feel the same too? It seems the stock Zope is not up to a large-scale web site. (if you call 300,000 user web site large-scale... I wouldn't but...) Some even say a coule of thousand users would be the limit. I've posted similar queries about Zope's scalibility on a number of occasions, but replies suggest "one might do this" kind of stuff. There's been no concrete answer to these queries, an answer out of real experience, not a guesstimation. That confuses me. Does that mean nobody has reached the limit using Zope? 20GB of data is so normal these days. I already have double the amount of data on my site. Guess I'll start worrying about Zope's scalibility again.... Please convince me. Anyone?
The largest Data.fs files I have seen so for and heard of were up to 30-40GB. It is not a question of scalablility but a question of handling. I don't like to handle a single 40GB large file.
One mentioned months ago that Filestorage is so robust that it could withstand most abuse I could throw at it. Okay, I believe it so. But the question still remains. Why couldn't we have a FileStorage that can split over partitions ( in multiple files, I mean, why one single golliath? ) and that has an option to turn off versioning? One might say, "It's opensource, please yourself. Write one yourself." ;-) But I just really wanted to know why ZODB guys hasn't done that. Is there a reason I'm missing? Or is it still on the to-do list?
Maybe I'm assuming wrong. Would you please elaborate what you mean by 'RDBMS backend'? Do you really mean I should write my own products to use MySQL as backend bypassing ZODB , for example? Or is there an RDBMS storage ( Orcale is not an option, if you mean Oracle storage )?
I was not thinking about an RDBMS as storage but about a normal database to store your data. -aj