Jon Hylands wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:02:14 +0100, Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si>
> wrote:
> 
>> Why I like a concept of image as a database? Because it simply works, 
>> and that is my concrete experience. Also a fear of losing data is mostly 
>> baseless - a chance of losing data is very small, again from experience. 
>> So small that it is close to a chance of loosing of data on relational 
>> databases, I would say. That is a strong wording I know, but let we at 
>> least start thinking about this probability.
> 
> One issue I have with image-based is it is all or nothing. I want to be
> able to make small incremental changes, and persist those changes.
> 
> The other issue for me, and the real deciding factor, is you can't fit the
> amount of data I need persisted in an image. I expect its going to be
> measured in hundreds of GB, and the image is just going to be a small cache
> of recently used/accessed data.

Fantastic!

Is Magma currently ready for 10s or 100s of GB of data?
Or maybe soon?

Outside of moving from the all or nothing of the image, a what point
(size) does the image start losing advantages as a data store?

In that vein, is there a point where an image is larger than desired
from a caching point of view?

I know there may not be any hard data, or even honest opinions regarding
such. But if you have any opinions or data for some possible best
practices regarding such, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Jimmie