Images And SQL 2000

Hello,
I'm looking to add imaging to an insurance application that was written in
house. We are programming in .Net with SQL2000 as the back end. The images
will be on average 50K and need to be stored for 7 years. Users will need
to retrieve these images from a web client to make underwriting decisions.
I was leaning towards storing the image in the data base, but while
researching the project the examples I've seen on the market all use a path
to a location to reference the image. This makes me think they either they
have found some issue with store large amounts of data in the data base or
they developed so early they the support of storing images in databases wasn
't there.
Our current SQL data base is 30Gig and the Image store we have is 275 Gigs.
I was hoping to get your opinion on the pluses and minuses of storing images
in a SQL data base.
Thanks in Advance,
MarkIn article <uyaJvCNmDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, mark@.getamco.com
said...
> I'm looking to add imaging to an insurance application that was written in
> house. We are programming in .Net with SQL2000 as the back end. The images
> will be on average 50K and need to be stored for 7 years. Users will need
> to retrieve these images from a web client to make underwriting decisions.
> I was leaning towards storing the image in the data base, but while
> researching the project the examples I've seen on the market all use a path
> to a location to reference the image. This makes me think they either they
> have found some issue with store large amounts of data in the data base or
> they developed so early they the support of storing images in databases wasn
> 't there.
> Our current SQL data base is 30Gig and the Image store we have is 275 Gigs.
> I was hoping to get your opinion on the pluses and minuses of storing images
> in a SQL data base.
The pluses are that you have everything in one place for backup and
storage. The minuses are that you have everything in one place.
I find that I can use much cheaper storage for files than I use for my
database as a whole and I can easily add new volumes when I need to grow.
For some it's easier to just use the database for everything. In my
situation I have about 14 terabytes of image data in about 70 million
files driven by 35GB database.|||i read someplace that if you store images in SQL the front end must compose
the images from binary, send the images to SQL which in turn convert the
images into binary again to keep it in the tables => over head?
i am also in insurance business, don't see such apps using SQL to store
actual images. Hard drive being cheap ins't a reason I would save images in
SQL.
"Mark" <mark@.getamco.com> wrote in message
news:uyaJvCNmDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm looking to add imaging to an insurance application that was written in
> house. We are programming in .Net with SQL2000 as the back end. The
images
> will be on average 50K and need to be stored for 7 years. Users will need
> to retrieve these images from a web client to make underwriting decisions.
>
>
> I was leaning towards storing the image in the data base, but while
> researching the project the examples I've seen on the market all use a
path
> to a location to reference the image. This makes me think they either
they
> have found some issue with store large amounts of data in the data base or
> they developed so early they the support of storing images in databases
wasn
> 't there.
>
> Our current SQL data base is 30Gig and the Image store we have is 275
Gigs.
>
> I was hoping to get your opinion on the pluses and minuses of storing
images
> in a SQL data base.
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Mark
>