Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Watts Newsgroups: comp.databases.mysql Subject: Re: Can MySql database store images? Followup-To: comp.databases.mysql Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:04:09 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <55md88-7pb.ln1@squidward.dionic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6oIlEBqCjOm0MjsSUEk5CA"; logging-data="3007"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fIsGJVuVZ5WEPNcrT2HQcjyc7nElggAs=" User-Agent: KNode/4.4.6 Cancel-Lock: sha1:BYRAJRYhjXZV3yi0Jk/EO4hPdsI= Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.databases.mysql:610 Jerry Stuckle wrote: > Not that bad, but if you really want, you could do incremental backups. OK > However, I always do full backups of both the file system and databases > - incremental backups are fast and take less space, but are very tedious > and error prone to restore because you have to go back to the last full > backup then restore from the incremental backups in order. > Additionally, incremental backups done with rsync usually end up > restoring files which had been deleted, wasting more space. > > Storage is cheap. True - though I'm also factoring in time and network bandwidth. A backup that has to transfer 100% of a very large DB everytime over a weak offsite link may not be practical if that were the scenario. But referencing your earlier points about rsync - I've always run reverse- incrementals, ie the latest copy is always a full and the previous sets are what changed going backwards in time which is ery natural for rsync as you know so I don't see any issues with restoration from that. >> Just my opinion, based on Postgresql - but the principles mostly apply to >> MySQL unless it has some particular features to help with the problems I >> posed. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tim > > Just my opinions based on 25 years of experience, starting with DB2 but > also including MySQL, Oracle and SQL Server. > That's fair enough - I will not answer for DB2 as I am aware it is a pretty powerful system with a lot of funky features, but I will stand by my personal preference that I prefer to keep RDBMSs "compact" with any lumpy stuff to one side. Note, I don't say it is the *only* way, but it's the way I default to advising my users. On an aside, how would you do "incrementals" with MySQL - would you code something into the database with triggers, or do something along the lines of keep (in Postgres speak) the journals/WAL logs for the incrementals? Cheers Tim -- Tim Watts