Re: CMS-Blog system

On 4 Sep 2008, at 06:56, Yannick Warnier wrote:

Le mercredi 03 septembre 2008 à 22:07 +0100, Luke a écrit :

seperate databases is a hassle, since you have to mess with multiple connections, I would go with the one database. Just cut down on data storage, use userids instead of usernames for identification in the tables and such.

Not only is it a hassle, it is also a major system bottleneck on most filesystems. If using MySQL for example, each database creates one directory. If you get to 10.000 directories in /var/lib/mysql for example (based on Debian systems), you will start to feel the weight of having so many items in only one directory. If you ever reach 30.000, you'll start to think it *really* was a bad idea. Not to mention any database backup will be accordingly slower. Personal recommendation: don't go for the multiple database solution if you plan to have more than 100 and you can avoid it.

How bad this is depends on the OS and filesystem you're using. One of the sites I manage has a directory with over 300k files in it, and it's never a problem unless I want to list the contents (which I never do!). Accessing the files (for backups or other purposes) is just as fast as it is with only a few files. That's a CentOS box using ext3. It's possible the limitation you're seeing is related to MySQL rather than the filesystem, but I've never had anywhere near that number of databases on a single box so I can't speak to that. -Stut -- http://stut.net/