locked
Trading the Silly useless Photo Album for another one.... RRS feed

  • Question

  • User-1011205861 posted

    Has anyone exchanged the photo album that comes in this Starter Kit for another one that has more functionality or that it doesn't save pictures to the SQL DB ????

    MSSQL Hosting is not so cheap. And if per any high res pic that I post to the site, I get extra mbs into my SQL DB,..... well it's not so funny.

    I understand that that one that comes in the Kit, makes a good job in showing what can be done. But it makes no sense in real life.

    I'm planning on using the one that comes as part of the Community Server from "telligent systems" (http://communityserver.org/default.aspx)  The One used in this forum.

    I don't believe it will be Plug'n'Play, so if anyone has a better, easier solution..... welcomed!

     

    Friday, December 16, 2005 1:32 PM

All replies

  • User-1011205861 posted

    Is everyone using the SQLDB to store your photos???? It's madness!!!! just a couple of photos and the DB went from 10 to 35 mbs!!!! And the hosting price for SQL Mbs are not that cheap to afford a various GB DB!!!!

    Has anyone any ideas of adapting this photo album to save photos to disk instead?

     

    Thanks!

    Wednesday, January 4, 2006 5:53 PM
  • User-1909038188 posted
    The SQL DBs also store the data on disk. That is usually on the server's disk. If you store large photo images and you want your web site to have access to them they have to be stored somewhere. SQL MDs are pretty good for that type of task
    Thursday, January 5, 2006 6:36 PM
  • User-1653776603 posted

    One the problems with many hosters is that they don't give you permissions to be able to write back to the website from within code in the site. If they do, then adapting the kit to store the images on the file system should not be that hard.

    All the code for inserting images into the database is included in app_code/ImageHandling.xx. All the image display is done using imagefetch.ashx, or avatarimagefetch.ashx.

    My initial suggestion would be to store the images on disk, and then store the URL to them instead of the data in the database. However upon thinking about it a bit more there are 2 other optimizations that could be made:

    a) Store the images on disk, using a name based on the id in the database. That way you could just modify the code where it points to imagefetch.ashx to create the url based on the ID and size required. This will involve some code churn, but as most image access is done through the imagethumbail control, its only about 9 places.

    b) Store the images on disk, but have imagefetch.ashx actually return the content. This will take a touch more server load, but not much if you use the Response.WriteFile method. This has the advantage of very few code changes, and the images don't have to be directly accessible through a URL.

    I hope this helps.

    Friday, January 6, 2006 3:46 PM
  • User-1011205861 posted

    Wayne, are you for real? I guess we all know that SQL DBs store data on disks!!!... not on the air....

    If you knew a little bit about hosting policies, you'd knew that hosters, charge extra money for using MS SQL database space.

    Besides... .a 2 mb picture, does not imply 2mb on the SQL DB where it maight be stored... just because of overhead data, saved in DB along with the picture...

    SQL DBs are good for storing pictures, but small and when you don't have the problem of hard disk space, and you need the extra security and specially if the pictures are small.

    But in this case - the club site - I guess everybody needs/wants to store big pictures of stuff related to the club.... I  think the SQL photo album is not the best choice.

     

     

     

     

    Monday, January 9, 2006 8:44 AM
  • User-1909038188 posted

    Wayne, are you for real? I guess we all know that SQL DBs store data on disks!!!... not on the air....

    If you knew a little bit about hosting policies, you'd knew that hosters, charge extra money for using MS SQL database space.

    Besides... .a 2 mb picture, does not imply 2mb on the SQL DB where it maight be stored... just because of overhead data, saved in DB along with the picture...

    SQL DBs are good for storing pictures, but small and when you don't have the problem of hard disk space, and you need the extra security and specially if the pictures are small.

    But in this case - the club site - I guess everybody needs/wants to store big pictures of stuff related to the club.... I  think the SQL photo album is not the best choice.

    Yes, I'm for real and I didn't appreaciate the tone of the response. If you knew a little more about hosting services you'd know that not all charge extra for MS SQL Server! In your original post you stated: " I understand that that one that comes in the Kit, makes a good job in showing what can be done. But it makes no sense in real life.". Apparently your knowledge of "real life" is a bit limited!

    Monday, January 9, 2006 11:24 AM
  • User1052258516 posted

    Is everyone using the SQLDB to store your photos???? It's madness!!!! just a couple of photos and the DB went from 10 to 35 mbs!!!! And the hosting price for SQL Mbs are not that cheap to afford a various GB DB!!!!

    Has anyone any ideas of adapting this photo album to save photos to disk instead?

     

    Thanks!

    While I didn't do it for the Club Starter Kit I did it for the Personal Web Starter Kit.  Not sure if the code is the same or not.  I actually re-wrote the code as a provider; so it can be done for sure.  Over at the PWSK forum lots of people are talking about it and doing it.

    - Will
    http://www.willyd.ca

    Monday, January 16, 2006 4:18 PM
  • User-1011205861 posted

    Excellent whighfield !!!!

    It seems not many people has used the club site for real as for the personal starter kit, where - in the real world - people has faced the problem of DB Mbs...

    Thanks! I'll try to make to fix and publish it here.

     

     

    Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:36 PM
  • User838325616 posted
    Yes, please publish your change.  That would be helpful.

    Thanks

    Dan
    Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:09 PM