4 ms·
I 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
by Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
I 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?