Database or System File Storage

[deleted]

I have started my first AIM application and have a customer lined up. Like many of you documents are an important part of the system.

I expect to eventually use a multiple database & application server configuration and I was wondering if anyone had a similar configuration scenario. When files are stored in the database replication between server is easy to deal with files stored on the file system it is an extra step that must have robust replication.

Sure it is nothing new but I would hate to configure one way and find I should have gone the other, not knowing any of AIM limitations. . . . . . if any. File sizes will be typically around 5mb but with the possibilities of going up to the occasional 100mb file, short term user count would be about 25 users.

Do you have any experience you can share with me?

Thanks in advance, James

aware_support

By default Aware IM stores all documents in the database. I see no reason not to use the default.

RocketRod

For a large number of documents I would prefer to store them outside of the database. However this is not easily done with AwareIM which is why I would like to have an option to upload a link rather than the file itself. The database is great for storing meta data but I just feel uncomfortable about having large documents and large numbers of documents stored within the database. It also would be quicker to just upload a link. Of course you have issues if the file is relocated on disk. I would also like the option re pictures as well. Having them outside the database has other benefits as well such as backing them up separately and being able to be maintained more easily. Again though you need to worry more about security at the OS level. So its all a trade off, I'd just like the option to be able to do either as in some cases depending on the application it may be better to store outside.

So for now I do store them within the database but don;t like it.

Cheers Rod

[deleted]

I think I may follow the rule, if its a limited photo set lets say for a staff members mugshots, store in the database but 1000's images or files for a construction project will be in the file system. Especially seeing there are no real aim native image manipulation functions . . . apart from scale_image which at first glance seems limited.

I cannot trust users to do the right thing and resize images before upload. Support may see no reason not to use the default but

RocketRod

Yep the image upload is an issue as you will find users just don't even consider it any really why should they. There needs to be a way for developers to resize then upload and store. This means we can keep a handle on DB size as well as upload times.

Cheers ROd

RLJB

Guys my 2 cents: we upload the pic, export to a directory, get the size, run a bash script to resize the image (we use ImageMagick), and reimport it into the DB, delete all the old stuff.

It's a mission, but it works.

[deleted]

RLJB,

Looking at the options of ImageMagic on could resize images based on area (area@) and assume a 1024x768 image has an area of 786432 pixels. It can then resizes your image to that area while maintaining the aspect ratio. Cool.

This will deal with both portrait and landscape images.

How do you execute a bash script in aim?

Thx

RLJB

Check out function EXECUTE_PROGRAM (or something like that) in user guide