5 ms·
> price for storing 70 small images Do you have to use an object store in that case? Or does it have to be separate from whatever application instance?
by bongobingo1 3y ago
> price for storing 70 small images
Do you have to use an object store in that case? Or does it have to be separate from whatever application instance?
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y agoI don't have to use an object store, but it makes the cost of setting up a server more expensive if I use the filesystem, if I delete the instance, the data is gone. A volume kinda offset this, but it's way less portable and accessible only by one instance at a time The peace of mind of managed is nice, all I have to think about is running the app, without having to deal with making sure db and files don't get lost
- Dylan16807 3y agoAt that level I think I'd just put the images in the database.
- Takennickname 3y agoIn the git repo even
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y agoThe images are supplied by the users, so that wouldn't be an option
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y agoThat's an option, but I want to keep things simple and the assumption is usually "filesystem" but weirdly most libraries assume S3 usage. I don't think I've seen native support for db-stored images in any of the libraries I use, which is sad but a reality.
- Dylan16807 3y agoMaybe not directly in libraries but there's a few programs to make a fuse filesystem backed by a database.
- bongobingo1 3y agoYa cant just throw em at a blob type field/column?