[wp-hackers] multiple databases vs different database prefixes

[Curtis McHale]

If you're concerned about backups look at VautlPress. It's invite only 
but I got my invite in a week or two. If you went that route the better 
option would be one DB since you could probably back it up off one 
install. Course you'd have to look at how VaultPress determines 
different 'site' backups.

Ken Zaraque wrote:
> Thank you all again for the responses.
>
> I too have concerns about backup&  restore regimes.  that's why i'm leaning towards multiple small DBs.  It just seems safer. Each of these sites will need to be backed up separately, and a situation may arise where on a few of the sites needs to be restored to a previous version.
>
> I suppose if I use a large DB, I could always backup/restore a subset of the tables.
>
> @Ryan - I like the quote by Mark Twain. That's why I'm cautious about using WP version 3.0's multisite feature.  It puts everything in one basket.  All the sites even share a common base code ( If I'm not mistaken ).  You mentioned you found articles on large vs small DBs. Can you send me a couple of links? I can't seem to find anything of great value. I might be searching with the wrong keywords.
>
>
> @Jeremy - regarding PHPAdmi:  You bring up a good point with PHPAdmin choking on a large DB.
> @Jeremy - regarding backups/export: I don't see how having multiple DBs would be much of a pain during backups compared to one large DB. I would have thought that it's a simple script that goes through all the databases and does a msqldump. Am I missing something important?
>
>
>
>
> I appreciate all the advice guys.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Ryan Bilesky wrote:
>
>> I have to agree with Jeremy on this. Heck I'm having a hard time just
>> figuring out what one person/company could need 300 diffrent sites for.
>> Maybe a large company liek Microsoft might need hundreds of sites for
>> diffrnet things.  But I agree if you are going to have alot of sites why not
>> use multisite.
>>
>> Back on topic, if you do an internet search there are many forums and other
>> sites that talk about using one large db versus several small dbs.  The
>> consesus I am seeming to find is that one large database is easier to
>> maintain but several smaller dbs work well if each site for instance would
>> need a seperate backup regimine, or if you want to split the databases
>> accross multipule servers.
>>
>> Oh and a random but perhaps appropriate quote I found during this search:
>> "Put all your eggs in one basket. And then, watch that basket!" -Mark Twain
>>
>> I think ultimatley it comes down to needs, idk that any one solution is
>> beter than the other.  Each has  its own advantages and its abot what works
>> best for your situation.  Such as do you want to split over multipule
>> servers, do you want to easily share data between sites.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Jeremy Clarke<jer at simianuprising.com>wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. With regard to your original question, wherein you are absolutely
>>> required to have 300 sites and not use MS: I have to call into question the
>>> decision-making that resulted in those requirements. Whatever you are
>>> doing,
>>> you are likely doing it wrong if that is your solution.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Clarke | http://jeremyclarke.org
>>> Code and Design | http://globalvoicesonline.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wp-hackers mailing list
>>> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
>>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wp-hackers mailing list
>> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

-- 
Curtis McHale

604.751.3482
http://curtismchale.ca
http://twitter.com/curtismchale
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/curtismchale