[THIN] Re: OT: Store files in SQL Server 2005 or Filesystem
- From: "Landin, Mark" <Mark.Landin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:36:49 -0500
What you are talking about is basically a document management system.
Have you considered buying something off-the-shelf rather than rolling
your own? Since you are a veterinary hospital, I presume you don't have
to worry about HIPAA complications (right?) so a straight document
management backend with a little custom code for your own interface
might do the trick.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Sirmons
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:31 PM
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] OT: Store files in SQL Server 2005 or Filesystem
>
> Howdy,
>
> I know this is fairly far off topic but you guys always seem
> to know exactly what you are talking about....
>
> I am part of a team writing an updated hospital information
> system for a Veterinary Hospital.
> We are moving from a VB6 application (partly distributed to
> macs via Citrix which is why I'm on this list) to an ASP.NET
> 2.0 web app.
>
> We want to be able to take client pictures, surgery pictures,
> scanned PDF's, etc. and add them to the patient records. I
> know there are two lines of thought here:
> 1. Store the files on the file system and use a "pointer" in
> the database to access the file.
> 2. Store the file in the database and write custom code to access it.
>
> We currently do allow file uploads to the database using the
> pointer method and serve the files back out via a web browser
> plugin embedded in the VB app.
>
> I understand a lot of the pros and cons my research has
> returned from general Google searches, and the general
> consensus is to never store the images in the database.
>
> I want to throw a few caveats in to the problem:
> 1. After the images are uploaded fairly few people will be
> accessing the images.
> 2. Once the case is discharged there will be even fewer
> attempts to access the file.
> 3. I need to not only store images, though that will be 90%
> of the files stored, but also store PDF, doc, and tiff.
> 4. The IIS logs for the last month show one PDF being
> accessed 1133 times, though most are around 30/month and most
> patient photos being accessed 10-20 times total per month.
> 5. I have a total of 9620 PDF and jpgs accessed/viewed over
> the last month.
>
>
> The reasons I am suggesting a change to the database
> structure is so that when we restore a database back onto a
> development server the images are restored along with it.
> We can have a training database with real files that should
> something be deleted, there is no way we "accidently" delete
> a file from the production server.
>
> And it just seems logical to keep everything in one place.
>
> The server is a beast for our environment.. Dual 3.6 GHz
> XEONS, 4GB Ram, 500GB raid 5 about to be upgraded to 900GB.
> It normally runs around 5%-10% processor utilization.
> Our average load is less than 100 clients connected at a single time.
> The database is currently backing up to a 29GB .bak file and I have
> 23.9 GB (+36,000 files) in raw files that I would like to
> move into the database.
>
> Any suggestions would be appreciated,
> Thank you,
> Keith
>
> Keith Sirmons
>
> College of Veterinary Medicine
>
> ************************************************
> For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or
> Vacation mode use the below link:
> //www.freelists.org/list/thin
> ************************************************
>
>
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************
Other related posts:
