[plug] web serving alternatives

[Sham Chukoury]

Sol wrote:

>1) When it comes to small files (ie:plain HTML) which method of serving is 
>faster: the UNIX filesystem, a database (MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc), or 
>something else?
>
I dunno which is faster, but HTML in a database isn't too bad. 
Especially useful for dynamic web sites. Tho the output could become 
quite messy... :P

>2) When it comes to large files (ie: mp3's) which method of serving is faster:
>the UNIX filesystem, a database (MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc), or something else?
>
I do believe some database servers can handle records large enough to 
fit certain binary files, but I reckon that process is a bit slow and 
inefficient. An alternative is to store the path and filename in the 
database and the file itself on the filesystem.

>3) Whilst there are many methods of authentication and many considerations 
>when it comes to security, generally speaking, which is faster: the UNIX 
>filesystem, a database (MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc), or something else?
>
I'm quite lame where it comes to security on the web, but I do believe 
having the web server securing an area of the site is better. e.g. 
.htaccess files with Apache. And maybe have a CGI script down the back 
to administer the authentication and handle the .htaccess files.

>There's lots of material on the web when it comes to comparing different 
>databases, scripting languages and CMS's, but I'm not sure where to find out 
>(how to search for) information comparing fundamental storage and serving of 
>files to the WWW. Any thoughts, links, crude humour appreciated. :P
>  
>
I always say: "Google is your friend" ;)
It all depends on what you need really - that accounts for the various 
alternatives out there. What you need, also what you're more familiar 
with (e.g. PHP vs Perl), since it would be a lot easier to administer a 
system built with tools and a language you're familiar with.

§:)