<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: About time</title>
	<link>http://www.denyerec.co.uk/posts/205</link>
	<description>Photography, Graphic Design, Art, Code...</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Martiankeeper</title>
		<link>http://www.denyerec.co.uk/posts/205#comment-1914</link>
		<author>Martiankeeper</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.denyerec.co.uk/posts/205#comment-1914</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I kind of assume that you are using some form of SQL based server (especially given the nasty "SQL/DB Error" messages popping up .. 
mySQL is it ???&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I would suggest two databases .. for several reasons:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;1) It is best to separate independently operating systems into their own environments. This make maintainability and portability easier.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;2) If you ever want to shift "just your gallery" somewhere, you would have it (and associated data) in it's own database&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;3) Backup and restore procedures pose less risk as each database can be interrogated independently.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;4) Security can be improved, with each database sporting it's own security settings and passwords.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;(does this sound waffly enough yet??)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Apart from it looking good and trying to keep the coding simple, there are very few good reasons to keep everything in a single system (I'm talking of course about small, single-server operations .. which I'm assuming yours is?)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;my &#163;0.02 worth ..&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Martiankeeper&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I kind of assume that you are using some form of SQL based server (especially given the nasty &#8220;SQL/DB Error&#8221; messages popping up .. 
mySQL is it ???</p>

<p>I would suggest two databases .. for several reasons:</p>

<p>1) It is best to separate independently operating systems into their own environments. This make maintainability and portability easier.</p>

<p>2) If you ever want to shift &#8220;just your gallery&#8221; somewhere, you would have it (and associated data) in it&#8217;s own database</p>

<p>3) Backup and restore procedures pose less risk as each database can be interrogated independently.</p>

<p>4) Security can be improved, with each database sporting it&#8217;s own security settings and passwords.</p>

<p>(does this sound waffly enough yet??)</p>

<p>Apart from it looking good and trying to keep the coding simple, there are very few good reasons to keep everything in a single system (I&#8217;m talking of course about small, single-server operations .. which I&#8217;m assuming yours is?)</p>

<p>my &#163;0.02 worth ..</p>

<p>Martiankeeper</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
