I have worked with many digital storage systems and they all store digital objects on the file system. They tend to use a branch approach, so there will be an archive tree on the file system, often starting with year of entry e.g. 2009, subdirectory will be month e.g. 8 for August, next directory will be day e.g. 11 and sometimes they will use hour as well, the file will then be named with the records persistent ID. Using BLOBS has its advantages and I have heard of it being used often in the IT parts of the chemical industry for storing thousands or millions of photographs and diagrams. It can provide more granular security, a single method of backup, potentially better data integrity and improved inter media searching, Oracle has many features for this within the package they used to call Intermedia (I think it is called something else now). The file system can also have granular security provided through a system such as XACML or another XML type security object. See D Space of Fedora Object Store for examples.

有一件事我还没有看到任何人提到，但绝对值得注意的是，在大多数文件系统中也存在与存储大量图像相关的问题。例如，如果您采用上面提到的方法，以主键命名每个图像文件，在大多数文件系统上，如果您试图将所有图像放在一个大目录中，一旦您达到了非常大的图像数量(例如数十万或数百万)，您将遇到问题。

常见的解决方案是将它们散列到平衡的子目录树中。

我是一个企业文档管理系统的首席开发人员，一些客户在这个系统中存储了数百gb的文档。在不久的将来会达到tb级。我们使用文件系统方法是出于本页提到的许多原因，另外还有一个原因:存档。

我们的许多客户必须遵守行业特定的存档规则，例如存储到光盘或非专有格式的存储。此外，您还可以灵活地向NAS设备添加更多磁盘。如果你把文件存储在你的数据库中，即使使用SQL Server 2008的文件流数据类型，你的存档选项也会变得非常狭窄。

通常，我强烈反对采用基础设施中最昂贵和最难扩展的部分(数据库)，并将所有负载都放在其中。另一方面:它极大地简化了备份策略，特别是当你有多个web服务器，需要以某种方式保持数据同步时。

像大多数其他事情一样，这取决于预期的规模和预算。

我负责一些管理许多TB图像的应用程序。我们发现在数据库中存储文件路径是最好的。

这里有几个问题:

database storage is usually more expensive than file system storage you can super-accelerate file system access with standard off the shelf products for example, many web servers use the operating system's sendfile() system call to asynchronously send a file directly from the file system to the network interface. Images stored in a database don't benefit from this optimization. things like web servers, etc, need no special coding or processing to access images in the file system databases win out where transactional integrity between the image and metadata are important. it is more complex to manage integrity between db metadata and file system data it is difficult (within the context of a web application) to guarantee data has been flushed to disk on the filesystem

关于这个话题，这里有一份有趣的白皮书。

是否使用BLOB:数据库或文件系统中的大型对象存储

答案是“视情况而定。”当然，这取决于数据库服务器及其blob存储方法。它还取决于存储在blob中的数据类型，以及如何访问这些数据。

使用数据库作为存储机制，可以有效地存储和传递较小的文件。较大的文件可能最好使用文件系统存储，特别是如果它们将经常被修改/更新。(blob碎片在性能方面成为一个问题。)

Here's an additional point to keep in mind. One of the reasons supporting the use of a database to store the blobs is ACID compliance. However, the approach that the testers used in the white paper, (Bulk Logged option of SQL Server,) which doubled SQL Server throughput, effectively changed the 'D' in ACID to a 'd,' as the blob data was not logged with the initial writes for the transaction. Therefore, if full ACID compliance is an important requirement for your system, halve the SQL Server throughput figures for database writes when comparing file I/O to database blob I/O.