I am creating a site whose content is dynamic and has images in it.
What/How much performance hit will my DB (MSSQL) take if I save content/Images in DB?
I am just trying to understand what kind of problems I may run into.
I appreciate any responses.
Thanks!
If you keep content (e.g. images) outside of the database, you can let IIS serve this content directly without calling ASP.NET at all (and as a consequence, no database access is needed).
You can even put static content on a different server is you have huge load (like here on StackOverflow).
So if you need to scale in any way, keep static content outside of both ASP.NET and database.
In the company where I'm employed we are using a custom-made CMS.
It renders content and controls for a page dynamically. The content are stored in a table for all pages, (each page has one main content), and other tables store information regarding UserControls, path to it, and which properties should be set with which value via reflection.
The performance is good, even for lets say 10 dynamically created controls. Our biggest client's page has about 70k hits a day and there is no performance problem. The page renders really fast.
Storing the images in your database can also work.
Just keep in mind that you need to use server-side caching for your images (e.g. get them via a generic handler *.ashx and use chaching there) and hope that your imageurl gets recognized for clientside caching.
If you want to be sure, expose your images directly on a dedicated image application. (e.g. www.foobar.com is your URL, then you can create images.foobar.com and store all your images there)
If would definetly advise to store often used images there, like images for the layout, or userpictures (if you are using a forum, or some kind of web application that uses several pictures all the time). But there is nothing wrong with storing not often used pictures in the database (user related uploads et cetera).
If you store your images in DB, database size will increase and this will result in slower DB queries. Better store on other media and guide your DB to do the stuff for you.
Related
I have a situation where I need to display an image to an end user following the below method.
When the user request the image from a URL, the C# code behind should start by looking in an azure blob/cdn to see if the image is there. If the image is there and less than x days old, it should pass the image to the end user in the most efficient way (preferably without spending too many resources (memory & cpu) passing it to the user.
If the image is not there or more than a week old, the image will be generated based on the parameters supplied in the url the user requested, after which it is stored on the blob/cdn and displayed to the end user.
My problem is how, I in the most efficient way on azure, can generate a lot of images simultaneously as well as being able to pass the data from the cdn while still being able to first check if it is too "old" and needs to be regenerated or if it isn't there and needs to be generated before being displayed to the user. Since the second I pass the image through the c# code will loose the cdn's strengths.
There are many ways to do things on azure. You will need to look through the extensive azure documentation and determine what will best fit your needs.
If you want to get something working quickly azure blobs can be served directly to a client (straight to their browser) - see the doco keep in mind anonymous access is not secure.
I am currently optimizing my site for search engines. It is mainly a database driven site. I am using C# on the back end but database content is loaded via jQuery ajax and a web service. Therefore, my database content is not in html at the point that the bots will crawl it. My site is kind of like an online supermarket format in that there are thousands of items in my database, users can load a single one of these or more onto the web page at a time and the page does not change significantly once items are loaded.
My question is, how (if at all) can I get my database contents indexed? I was thinking of having an anchor that links to an aspx page (eg called mydatabase) which loads all of my database items as a big html list. Then, using jQuery, I would make the anchor invisible to users. The data would still be accessible to users but not by this link, it would be accessed by using the jQuery interface I have created.
The thing is, I don't really want users to see this big, messy list - would google results show this page eg www.mysite.com/mydatabase.aspx as a search result? Also would google see this as "keyword rich" spam page? I have done quite a lot of research but found nothing on this. only instructions for php. Please help I'm not sure what to do and need to know the best way to go about this.
It's a shame you haven't taken the progressive enhancement approach as it would mean you would have started with a standard HTML output that's crawlable, and then adding the layering behaviour (AJAX) on top for the user experience.
Providing a single file (e.g. mydatabase.aspx) that lists all of your products in a list format provides no real value for the reason you gave - it would just be a big useless list. No editorial content relevance for each link etc.
You're much better off taking another look at your information architecture and trying ensure that each product is accessibile by it's own unique URL, then classifying the products into groups (result pages), being careful to think about pagination.
You can still make this act like a single-page application using AJAX, but you'd want to look into HTML5's History API to achieve this in a search engine friendly way.
I have a lot of small pictures to store and these are pictures users can change very often.
The images have an average of 50Kb - 150Kb. Let's say I have 5000 of these images. Will FTP get unmanageable in the end or will a MsSQL database get to much load giving a normal webpage might use 25 of these images.
What technique should I choose? By the way, in my case im using a hosting solution consisting of a webfarm.
You might want to look at hosting these images on a CDN or similar. Take what SO use as a good example, imgur.
I'm thinking the performance and user experience would take you a long time to match. You might want to store some reference of the images as well.
Of course this may not be an option to you then I'd still put your images on a sub domain of your site, that is setup to deliver static content, again look at how SO do it for an detailed example.
I know this question has been asked before but I'm confused as to the best approach so please forgive me asking again...
I have an MVC3 application that will be an extranet, allowing users to log in, via Forms Authentication. The users will be accessing confidential information so, in order to prevent somebody from hitting Back after they log out (and I SignOut of FormsAuthentication), I have disabled all caching, forcing the redirection to the logon page.
Everything works well from a security point of view, but my problem is that I'd like to cache the non-secure elements of the page, such as images, backgrounds, logos, etc.
At the moment, each page renders with an ugly flicker, because all my artwork is being downloaded each time.
Of course, this also has a negavtive impact on bandwidth too.
How can I control the caching such that the artwork, css, scripts, etc. get cached whilst preventing the dreaded Back button after FormsAuthentication SignOut problem?
Thank you in advance,
Simon.
Assuming the images are not dynamically generated you can either do it internally via MVC or using IIS.
Internally you'd need to serve all your images and set expires by.
If your using IIS it becomes much much simpler, you just edit the expires header in the IIS Custom headers section to a date in the future (a date in the past auto expires it). If you wish to ensure an image is not cached add a query string to it
<img src="image.png?dummy=8sn7ahh2" />
Then the image wouldn't be cached too so you basically want to cache all images and then black list (using query string) the ones you don't want cached.
Heres a nice example on how to switch it on/off for IIS7
I am creating application in which I would have database which users can´t edit. It just have data and it shows to user. I found that I dont have to use localstorage I just can add database to project and it is readonly. So I did it and everything is ok. Now I want to add images to my app and I am not sure what is better way. I can every image add to folder, in database store path to image and It´s very easy and It can do now. Or I found that I can store image in database as image (byte[]). What is better? Would be images in database smaller? Would be loading of images faster? If images in database is better solution have can I easy way add images to my existing database? Is there any article to do this in winforms? Thanks
Edit:
I'm glad that my question has so many answers and opinions. I want to explain more my needs. My application should have about 150 pictures and picture should be sized 150px and 100px. I want to app would work without internet connection. It could connect for updates but that´s all. Again thanks for all opinions :)
For our application, we found a hybrid approach worked best. We configured our SQL environment to support FILESTREAM and then imported all of our images. That gives us the flexibility of having the images 'in sql' while still storing the actual images to disk. Its a fast solution that may work well for you, too.
There are a lot of 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes' about where you put you put your images and I don't think there is a right or wrong way.
One thing worth mentioning is that if the application is business critical with high availability I would store them in the database, simply because the can be backed up with the rest of the data. Databases can be mirrored etc so having all the images treated as 'data' can be beneficial. Also if things get big and a web farm is employed and load balancers etc it helps when the images live in one place.
For me, I'd go with the database. But it all really depends on the scale of your application.
I personally would store all the images in isolated storage and in the database I would store the path to the image.
I would store all the images as a byte[] in the isolatedstorage
Nothing wrong with the answers already here but it really depends on what you are trying to accomplish and how it is currently set up.
Best would be to use a content delivery network for static images to ease the load of your web server.
You can serve from database or as resource file in file structure to your liking. If the images are static don't forget to add appropriate caching which for static content would be far future.
If you're rendering images I would definitely keep the images in the database to make it possible to access the images from any number of web servers.
If you want you can develop this further by keeping the images most recently used in memory or store on local filesystem so you don't have to get the file from the database every time.
web folder. also think about remote loading them from a cloud server like Amazon S3 to free up access to your own server
THe best option is to store your images on web folder, if you save them in DB, you will waste time retreiving them from DB because it takes more time