how to secure documents in server

[RAZZ]

Hello, Can anyone suggest me solution?

I Need to manage different types of documents (doc,xls,ppt etc) in
server. I have folder structure to maintain these documents in server.

Say folder1 is having all doc files; folder2 is having all xls files
and so on.
Now these documents should not be able to get access through the url
by directly typing path.
E-g if I try to access directly www.mywebsite.com/folder1/xyz.doc it
will open the document in browser itself.
At the same time these documents should be access only through our
website once they are login. But without login also if you know the
path you can get these documents how should I avoid it?

How can I provide security to these documents in server?

[Jorge]

On Jul 18, 8:58*pm, The Natural Philosopher <[e-mail] e:

J.O. Aho wrote:

The idea of storing binary files in a database is quite good, but it
will affect the sql server in a negative way, specially the larger the
binary files are.

Ok, why should it take longer to pull a large file out of one locatin in
a database than one location in a filesssytem?

I think the point is that retrieving such a large data chunk from a db
might momentarily impact the performance of forthcoming db operations,
think about what happens to the sql database caches.

--Jorge.

[Bart Van der Donck]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Bart Van der Donck wrote:

>Captain Paralytic wrote:

>>http://www.php-mysql-tutorial.com/php-mysql-upload.php

>I'm surprised this document doesn't mention how disastrous it can be
for the performance of a database. Only use for tiny binary data and a
limited amount of records, I'ld say... I would even vote to dismiss
LONGBLOB; it often creates more problems than it solves.

You're just using the database for what it's made for - storing and
accessing data. *It's not at all disastrous - in fact, if you get enough
files in the database, performance may actually improve over that file
system's.

I would be interested to see some articles or benchmarks about this
issue. Got any ? From my experience I've actually always encountered
the opposite (MySQL and MS Access) whose performance dramatically
decreases with larger BLOBS. I'm working with many GB's of pictures
for whom I store nothing in tables (ID of the record = name of the
picture / application ties pics to IDs). I've good experiences with
this approach, even under heavy load. But I'm always interested to
learn how this strategy could be improved.

--
Bart

[Paul Lautman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Paul Lautman wrote:

>The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>>J.O. Aho wrote:
The idea of storing binary files in a database is quite good, but
it will affect the sql server in a negative way, specially the
larger the binary files are.

Ok, why should it take longer to pull a large file out of one
locatin in a database than one location in a filesssytem?

IME the things that slow databases down are not getting data out of
them, its performing complex relational queries.

I have tested this and I have found it slightly slower to get files
from a database table than from the file system. Then again, it is
slightly slower building pages dynamically with php/MySQL than it is
to serve fixed html pages. So basically, when I find that storing
files in a database is the best way to handle the application I am
writing, that's the way I do it.

Paul,

But try putting 100K files in a directory on the file system and see
how much it slows things down. Whereas the database will hardly
notice any performance decrease.

I have always found it slightly slower to get the equivalent file from the
database rather than from the file system. But as I say, it doesn't bother
me. If the application is generally better with the files in a database,
that's where they go. If the application is easier with them on disk, then I
put them there. Likewise, if something works better with static html pages I
will use them. When it comes to down to it, we have a vast range of
technologies at our disposal. I look upon my role as being good at picking
the right one for the right task. There is always a balance to be struck
between speed of processing, functionality, ease of maintenance, ...

[Jerry Stuckle]

Bart Van der Donck wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Bart Van der Donck wrote:

>>Captain Paralytic wrote:
http://www.php-mysql-tutorial.com/php-mysql-upload.php
I'm surprised this document doesn't mention how disastrous it can be
for the performance of a database. Only use for tiny binary data and a
limited amount of records, I'ld say... I would even vote to dismiss
LONGBLOB; it often creates more problems than it solves.

You're just using the database for what it's made for - storing and
accessing data. It's not at all disastrous - in fact, if you get enough
files in the database, performance may actually improve over that file
system's.

I would be interested to see some articles or benchmarks about this
issue. Got any ? From my experience I've actually always encountered
the opposite (MySQL and MS Access) whose performance dramatically
decreases with larger BLOBS. I'm working with many GB's of pictures
for whom I store nothing in tables (ID of the record = name of the
picture / application ties pics to IDs). I've good experiences with
this approach, even under heavy load. But I'm always interested to
learn how this strategy could be improved.

--
Bart

Over 20 years of experience doing it, starting with DB2 on mainframes.

But don't count MS Access in there. Use a real database. MySQL
qualifies. And it has to be configured properly.

BTW - benchmarks tell exactly one thing - how a database runs UNDER
THOSE CONDITIONS. Change the conditions and benchmarks aren't valid any
more.

With that said, under live conditions, I've seen virtually no slowdown
when accessing blob data in a database. And in some cases it actually
runs faster.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jerry Stuckle]

Paul Lautman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Paul Lautman wrote:

>>The Natural Philosopher wrote:
J.O. Aho wrote:
The idea of storing binary files in a database is quite good, but
it will affect the sql server in a negative way, specially the
larger the binary files are.
>
Ok, why should it take longer to pull a large file out of one
locatin in a database than one location in a filesssytem?

IME the things that slow databases down are not getting data out of
them, its performing complex relational queries.
I have tested this and I have found it slightly slower to get files
from a database table than from the file system. Then again, it is
slightly slower building pages dynamically with php/MySQL than it is
to serve fixed html pages. So basically, when I find that storing
files in a database is the best way to handle the application I am
writing, that's the way I do it.

Paul,

But try putting 100K files in a directory on the file system and see
how much it slows things down. Whereas the database will hardly
notice any performance decrease.

I have always found it slightly slower to get the equivalent file from the
database rather than from the file system. But as I say, it doesn't bother
me. If the application is generally better with the files in a database,
that's where they go. If the application is easier with them on disk, then I
put them there. Likewise, if something works better with static html pages I
will use them. When it comes to down to it, we have a vast range of
technologies at our disposal. I look upon my role as being good at picking
the right one for the right task. There is always a balance to be struck
between speed of processing, functionality, ease of maintenance, ...

Yes, but with that many files in a directory, even Linux slows down
quite a bit. It isn't made to handle that many different files.

But for a good database, you're just starting.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jerry Stuckle]

Jorge wrote:

On Jul 18, 8:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher <[e-mail] e:

>J.O. Aho wrote:

>>The idea of storing binary files in a database is quite good, but it
will affect the sql server in a negative way, specially the larger the
binary files are.

Ok, why should it take longer to pull a large file out of one locatin in
a database than one location in a filesssytem?

I think the point is that retrieving such a large data chunk from a db
might momentarily impact the performance of forthcoming db operations,
think about what happens to the sql database caches.

--Jorge.

Not at all, if the database is properly configured.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[The Natural Philosopher]

Paul Lautman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Paul Lautman wrote:

>>The Natural Philosopher wrote:
J.O. Aho wrote:
The idea of storing binary files in a database is quite good, but
it will affect the sql server in a negative way, specially the
larger the binary files are.
>
Ok, why should it take longer to pull a large file out of one
locatin in a database than one location in a filesssytem?

IME the things that slow databases down are not getting data out of
them, its performing complex relational queries.
I have tested this and I have found it slightly slower to get files
from a database table than from the file system. Then again, it is
slightly slower building pages dynamically with php/MySQL than it is
to serve fixed html pages. So basically, when I find that storing
files in a database is the best way to handle the application I am
writing, that's the way I do it.

Paul,

But try putting 100K files in a directory on the file system and see
how much it slows things down. Whereas the database will hardly
notice any performance decrease.

I have always found it slightly slower to get the equivalent file from the
database rather than from the file system. But as I say, it doesn't bother
me. If the application is generally better with the files in a database,
that's where they go. If the application is easier with them on disk, then I
put them there. Likewise, if something works better with static html pages I
will use them. When it comes to down to it, we have a vast range of
technologies at our disposal. I look upon my role as being good at picking
the right one for the right task. There is always a balance to be struck
between speed of processing, functionality, ease of maintenance, ...

Yes. Exactly. The key is to not get religious about it ..."the RIGHT way
is to.."

Advantages of the database...

- one point backup of all data
- definitely not directly accessible via HTML
- has much better indexing and searching than a flat file system in a
directory.
- possibly simpler integration with other bits of data assciated with te
file to be served )i.e. you MIGHT want a decsription of what it is).

On the downside, its a few more machine cycles and possibly a lot more
RAM to serve it up.
HOWEVER it is perfectly possible to have separate database on even a
separate machine to do the serving, if it gets too onerous.

[Paul Lautman]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Advantages of the database...

- one point backup of all data
- definitely not directly accessible via HTML
- has much better indexing and searching than a flat file system in a
directory.
- possibly simpler integration with other bits of data assciated with
te file to be served )i.e. you MIGHT want a decsription of what it
is).

Also, and this is the bit I really like, when you delete the record the file
automatically goes with it.

[Paul Lautman]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Paul Lautman wrote:

>The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>>J.O. Aho wrote:
The idea of storing binary files in a database is quite good, but
it will affect the sql server in a negative way, specially the
larger the binary files are.

Ok, why should it take longer to pull a large file out of one
locatin in a database than one location in a filesssytem?

IME the things that slow databases down are not getting data out of
them, its performing complex relational queries.

I have tested this and I have found it slightly slower to get files
from a database table than from the file system. Then again, it is
slightly slower building pages dynamically with php/MySQL than it is
to serve fixed html pages. So basically, when I find that storing
files in a database is the best way to handle the application I am
writing, that's the way I do it.

Paul,

But try putting 100K files in a directory on the file system and see
how much it slows things down. Whereas the database will hardly
notice any performance decrease.

Actually I guess I ought to qualify my timings comment. I have no proof that
it is the database that was slowing things down per-se. To serve the images
required invoking a load of script, which wasn't going to help and of course
the MySQL installation was on a shared server, so no opportunity to optimise
the settings for this task.

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(The Natural Philosopher)

>Yes. Exactly. The key is to not get religious about it ..."the RIGHT way
is to.."

Advantages of the database...

- one point backup of all data
- definitely not directly accessible via HTML
- has much better indexing and searching than a flat file system in a
directory.
- possibly simpler integration with other bits of data assciated with te
file to be served )i.e. you MIGHT want a decsription of what it is).

On the downside, its a few more machine cycles and possibly a lot more
RAM to serve it up.

Some more pros and cons:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...e4dd4f90eafa84

Micha