Can the Photo Albums handle 1 million pictures?

[TNCclubman]

I upload about 75,000 pics a year alone. Can the albums handle 1 million pics and above? It should be unlimited because it uses the database correct?

(obviously up to the size of the hard drive on the server...)

[Jake Bunce]

There are no hard limits on the albums. You just need enough server resources to handle it.

With that many pictures you will want to store them in the file system. There is an option for this.

[TNCclubman]

Why's that? Ithought large amounts of pics should use database and that the file system may become corrupt with large numbers of pics?

Can you explain the difference? Thanks!

[TNCclubman]

nevermind, read this just now...

http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/main/album_picture_storage

How do I know I'll have an issue? High Server Load? Can I switch over when it becomes an issue?

[Jake Bunce]

High load on the database is a good indicator. Yes you can move the pictures at a later time if you want to start with the database storage method.

[TNCclubman]

When I hit what amount is a good time to switch?

[Jake Bunce]

Yes. If load becomes a problem then you can change the storage method.

[goyo]

When I hit what amount is a good time to switch?

Sorry for the interruption...

Just let you know that I'm dealing with large amounts of pictures for many years now...mysql not meant to be store binary files so I don't recommend storing several 100.000 media in database in any circumstances...

As far as I know vB's 3.8 album feature only stores max. 1000 files/folder then it creates a new folder so file system will not become corrupt because of large number of files in one folder...

[Suiram]

so if i use the database now, and later switch to file system, will only newly added pics be used in the file system (so that way i'll have some in the db and the rest from then on in the fs) or will the database spew the old pics into the file system too ?

[goyo]

so if i use the database now, and later switch to file system, will only newly added pics be used in the file system (so that way i'll have some in the db and the rest from then on in the fs) or will the database spew the old pics into the file system too ?

You'll have all your pics in the file system only (you'll still have your attachment table with some important info but physical location of the files is in the fs).

[Suiram]

really ??
so hundres of pictures will somehow and automatically go from the db to the specified folder ??? i find that hard to believe. i think after a switch from db to fs only from then on will pics be placed into the folder.

[glennybee]

No...the pics will be copied from the database to the filesystem and then deleted from the database. All subsequent pics will be uploaded to the filesystem and all previously stored pics will be stored in the filesystem.

The same applied to avatars, profile pics and attachments.

[Suiram]

No...the pics will be copied from the database to the filesystem and then deleted from the database. All subsequent pics will be uploaded to the filesystem and all previously stored pics will be stored in the filesystem.

The same applied to avatars, profile pics and attachments.

if true, when will that happen ?? as soon as i make the change in admincp ??
so if a site that has several year's worth of attached pics does this, the site is down for a while ? or what happens ? surely a large site would need some downtime ? or.......????

[Zachery]

The move is done without much if any down time. The files are copied into the file system. once the copy is done you remove the files from the database. The users shouldnt even notice.

[bigwater]

if true, when will that happen ?? as soon as i make the change in admincp ??
so if a site that has several year's worth of attached pics does this, the site is down for a while ? or what happens ? surely a large site would need some downtime ? or.......????

This does work very transparently. One of my client's database started thrashing after about 10GB of binary attachments (pictures) had piled up in the DB. He contacted me wondering what was wrong, and all I could do for him was close my eyes and punch the button. It went amazingly fast, probably only took 2-3 minutes, and went completely un noticed by users, or at least if they noticed they never said anything. It's made a tremendous difference in the performance of his server, and backups are so much easier now that we're just pulling incrementals (new stuff, stuff that changed) every night instead of having to dump the entire db.

In reality storing images in the file system should be the default way it's done, but I understand why Jellsoft chose db as the default way... it's compatable with more server setups... but if you can put the binaries in the file system, by all means, do.