This content has been marked as final. Show 10 replies
Sorry, but I will start my reaction from the last point:
*11g not chosen due to WebLogic licencing requirements for our client - anyone know if 11g will ever be released standalone?What do you mean? UCM license contains a restricted license of Weblogic EE for the purpose of hosting UCM. In other words, WLS is there for free (only it cannot host anything else). 11g will never be standalone - it will only support other application servers, namely, Websphere and JBoss (it follows the logic for other non-Oracle middleware products).
File system vs. database - there's been a couple of posts on this topic.
In a nutshell:
- with regard to the speed: unless you have really a lot of items (millions a month at least, maybe even millions a day), file system will be slightly faster or equal
- in Oracle DB 11.2 or higher you can use SecureFiles, which can effectively work with unstructured content. It can squeeze the disk space needed for storage, speed up operations (checkins, but also e.g. backups)
- with DB you will effectively have one system to manage - well, UCM still requires file system (shared storage for clusters), because some operations like conversions cannot run on the content in the database
- DB gives you further options like partitioning, hierarchical storage management, advanced security, etc. Your SAN storage can have some of these too.
It is not really true to suggest that one is always faster or always better.
The real answer is it depends.
Even if using SecureFiles you should consider the following general recommendations
1)Storing Content in the DB as well as metadata and search index definitely simplifies the process of backup and recovery.
2)Use of SecureFiles in 11g also allows (transparent to UCM) use of Deduplication, Compression, encryption and partitioning which can all help reduce the costs of storage
As far as DB vs Filesystem...
If you are storing losts of small images that tend to be accessed frequently (e.g. website assets, images, css, js) then file system really is the best place to serve these from in terms of performance -at least in all the data I have seen
If your files are larger > 1MB and accessed less often (e.g. DocMan) then I think DB storage makes a lot of sense as the performance figures tend to get swapped.
The FileStoreProvider can let you have the best of both worlds by allowing the definition of rules which would store the valut copy on the DB and a weblayout copy on the filesystem.
Just blogged about this here:
has links to the Oracle benchmarking reports and file store provider (FSP) how-to instructions too.
Overall, usage patterns should govern your storage architecture. Think through both contribution/ingestion patterns as well as consumption patterns. Then use criteria driven FSP to direct content to the appropriate storage layer.
Remember too that you can use a blended model where the DB holds the authority copy and the FS is used as a quick-access cache.
Hope this helps.
W/r to performance - we're running the latest version of UCM 11g against an 11g database.
We have set up some file storage rules to test performance of large files (2MB - 20MB) going into filesystem vs database storage.
Bottomline is we are seeing very* slow performance and timeout errors on anything above 2MB.
thanks for your input but without knowing ANY details of your system this information is largely irrelevant.
There could be bottlenecks or problems just about anywhere - I have seen nothing to suggest that this will be an inherent UCM, DB or JDBC file storage issue. It is probably a local environment issue that you have.
I have deployed a large 11g instance on 11g DB w SecureFiles and have had no performance issues with files going up to ~ 1GB
Windows Server 2008 v6.0 (build 6002) SP2 64-bit
Oracle UCM 11gR1-188.8.131.52.0
Database Version:184.108.40.206.0 ---Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release --- - 64bit Production With the Partitioning.
We will continue to look at the environment.
The problem has been logged with Oracle but if you say you have deployed 1GB securefiles successfully using db storage than we must be
missing something not too obvious in our configuration.