Attachments in DB - #1039 Response
I wanted to comment on the feature #1039 for the .7 release.
I'm not a big fan of image/binary storage in the db for attachments - I'd at least like to be given the option to continue to store attachments outside the database.Reasons:
- I can back up the attachments on a different schedule than the database.
- The volume of our attachments may become large over time - I can partition this off to a SAN attached drive for greater storage.
- If the database becomes inaccessible, I can still retrieve my attachments easily.
- If I want to migrate to another type of system in the future, I don't have to figure out how to gather up all the attachments from the database.
- Database agnostic - perhaps sometime in the future I'll want to convert over to postgresql instead.
Just a few reasons to continue to provide external file support. I'm not opposed to having an option to store inside the database, but would really not be a fan of that being the only option.
RE: Attachments in DB - #1039 Response - Added by Thomas Löber about 10 years ago
One more reason:
When making daily backups of the Redmine data using rsync with the "--link-dest" option it's beneficial to have the attachments stored as separate files because once saved on disk the files will never change and can be backed up efficiently.