The technology turkey awards

You don't need me to tell you that there was some odd expenditure on
Information Technology during the DOT COM years. Now that we can look
back on it from the relative sanity of 2003, surely there should be an
award initiated for the best (worst) examples of IT expenditure during
that period? We could call them the 'Technology Turkey Awards', thus
following in an established tradition of celebrating the awful[1].

If I were honored to put forward a nomination for a Technology Turkey
Award, I would have no hesitation putting forward the phenomenon of
spending money on IT systems that simply stuffed Web content into
relational databases.

Here is the scenario I am thinking of. A business in the late Nineties
decides it needs a website. It runs its business with a solid relational
database and has no track record of handling electronic documents.
Historically, all their public facing brochures, forms and so on have
been outsourced to a printing company. These are now coming back in
house for publication on the new website.

'Why not use the database we have already paid for, and have expertise
in, to manage the content for the web site?' asks management. 'Why not
indeed', replies a willing IT market, only too happy to help by
bludgeoning HTML pages into database tables using BLOB fields. After
all, to be managed properly, the HTML must be some sort of database,
right?

Not always. In fact, looking back at my own experiences, I would say,
not even 'most' of the time. Sure, there are times when this makes total
sense but not always. In fact I would go so far as to say that in the
engagements I have had with clients since the late Nineties, it has
nearly always been difficult to find good technical reasons for the
database-centric approach to web content management.

When content gets stuffed into a relational database table, a number of
bad things can happen which turn a merely ironic situation into a
problematic one. For starters, by funneling all content through a
database, you create a single point of failure and a comprehensive
Input/Output bottleneck. For sure, these problems can be solved with the
aid of some more expenditure. You will find no shortage of solutions
that involve expensive database failover trickery and perhaps some
liquid helium cooled processing power or application clustering
technology.

However, it is often worth asking the question - is all this stuff
really necessary? How much of this stuff is required as a direct result
of the decision to store the content in a database in the first place?
What if the database disappeared in puff of logic? What then?

Well, you could store all the content on the file system (I can hear the
shrieks of horror now!) - using the hierarchical directory structure
provided for you by the file-system. Why not? You could use sticky HTTP
sessions to load balance access to the content across multiple web
services. This is trivial stuff these days. You could achieve very high
reliability through the use of redundancy of commodity hardware and
software such as Linux based Pentium class machines. The result? A
website that screams along, is highly scaleable and reliable at probably
a fraction of the annual maintenance cost of the database-centric
alternative.

Something to think about perhaps.

[1] http://members.tripod.com/~cosmics/TurkeyAward/

Read more about opinion in ITworld's Opinion section

» posted by ITworld staff

ITworld

Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine