I was wondering how many links can Links 2.0 hold before it starts acting up? The most I have seen so far is 3000 or so. I am planing to get at least 5-10 thousand links so I was wondering if the non-sql version would work...

Not very efficiently...say hello to LINKS SQL unless you are satisified with several seconds to process the various forms and data, and also a lot of time-outs with LINKS 2.0.

Regards,

Eliot Lee

I was at Google the other day and it took 0.11 seconds to find 70,000 links - not bad hey!

Paul Wilson.
Installations:
http://www.wiredon.net/gt/

Nope...and they are using very robust data storage technology...Oracle, and also they are using robust web applications...Google is not based on "LINKS" technology.

Regards,

Eliot Lee

Google is NOT based on "Oracle" technology either. Where in the world did you get that idea???

Google is written in C or C++ and runs on either Solaris or Linux. PageRank is the heart of the system, not Oracle. PageRank measures the importance of web pages by solving an equation of 500 million variables and more than 2 billion terms. This is rocket science, not CompUSA stuff.

This is stated in many places on the Web. I suggest you do a search before making such statements in the future.

------------------------
Lenon.com's Links 2.01
http://www.lenon.com

Snap Head,

I don't think Eliot would have posted that information unless he had good reason to believe it was true.

Paul Wilson.
http://www.wiredon.net/gt/
http://www.perlmad.com/

Sorry for the old cliche, but just because he thinks it's so doesn't make it so. Google is based on proprietary patent-pending software that has absolutely nothing to do with Oracle.

------------------------
Lenon.com's Links 2.01
http://www.lenon.com

For a good read on technology behind Google, have a look at:

http://www7.scu.edu.au/...ers/1921/com1921.htm

Cheers,

Alex

--
Gossamer Threads Inc.

By the look of it, you already cut and pasted some text from that link Alex gave.

Paul Wilson.
http://www.wiredon.net/gt/
http://www.perlmad.com/

------------------------
Lenon.com's Links 2.01
http://www.lenon.com

Err yes thats exactly the point I was making...well done!

Did you fail to read Alex's post about keeping your sarcasm to yourself?
I expect if you keep this behaviour up, you won't be a member for much longer.

Paul Wilson.
http://www.wiredon.net/gt/
http://www.perlmad.com/

I believe you were inferring that I was remiss in copying that text when, in fact, I clearly stated (in the same message) that the information could be found in many places on the Web. You then restated that to which I had already admitted, as if found by discovery. Hello???

...back to the original point, then...
Right or wrong?

------------------------
Lenon.com's Links 2.01
http://www.lenon.com

Goodbye Snap Head.

I hope you enjoy having conversations with yourself.

From now on I have nothing more to say to you. Goodbye .

Paul Wilson.
http://www.wiredon.net/gt/
http://www.perlmad.com/

The apparent absence of a definitive answer is probably due to the fact that I did not present a clearly articulated question. Therefore, I will try again.

Does Google use Oracle software for its' data storage?

Come on, this is a discussion forum, Paul. Let's discuss it. Don't go away mad.

------------------------
Lenon.com's Links 2.01
http://www.lenon.com

Snap,

It seems to me that this thread ceased to be a discussion when you chose a "Gee, what are you? Stupid?" attitude to someone's erroneous statement. You set the negative tone and it ceased to be a discussion and became an pointless argument. Perhaps if you apologized for your the nasty tone of your reply it might once again become a discussion.