|
sql
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Storing Files as Blobs vs using File System ?
we have a pretty important decision to make. We are looking at converting our Records System (EDMS) to a new SQl Server version that will store all files as BLOBS rather than how it is currently being done - storing all the files on the fileserver in a docs folder. I am concerned with a few issues. Obviously the database (1 GB) will grow initially by the size of our files (10GB). I am concerned as to how to easily manage backups / restorations / corruptions etc etc on such a large and growing database. In theory I could see the DB grow to 50gb in a few years - is this a problem ? I am much more confident in keeping the database quite small and keeping the files on a file server. Can anyone give me some feedback - I am keen to hear from everyone. cheers, Adam 10GB or even 50GB is a small db especially on the proper hardware. If you
get to where the DB gets bigger, look at litespeed or sqlsafe to ease the backup pain. Show quoteHide quote "acs68" wrote: > Hi all, > > we have a pretty important decision to make. > > We are looking at converting our Records System (EDMS) to a new SQl Server > version that will store all files as BLOBS rather than how it is currently > being done - storing all the files on the fileserver in a docs folder. > > I am concerned with a few issues. > > Obviously the database (1 GB) will grow initially by the size of our files > (10GB). > > I am concerned as to how to easily manage backups / restorations / > corruptions etc etc on such a large and growing database. In theory I could > see the DB grow to 50gb in a few years - is this a problem ? > > I am much more confident in keeping the database quite small and keeping the > files on a file server. > > Can anyone give me some feedback - I am keen to hear from everyone. > > cheers, > > Adam > > > I agree that LiteSpeed is always a good choice but be aware that since most
of the data is of the Blob type the compression will be less than normal. -- Show quoteHide quoteAndrew J. Kelly SQL MVP "Jeffrey K. Ericson" <JeffreyKEric***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:0733D21F-1B5E-450C-AD7C-1D5FE450BCF2@microsoft.com... > 10GB or even 50GB is a small db especially on the proper hardware. If you > get to where the DB gets bigger, look at litespeed or sqlsafe to ease the > backup pain. > > "acs68" wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> we have a pretty important decision to make. >> >> We are looking at converting our Records System (EDMS) to a new SQl >> Server >> version that will store all files as BLOBS rather than how it is >> currently >> being done - storing all the files on the fileserver in a docs folder. >> >> I am concerned with a few issues. >> >> Obviously the database (1 GB) will grow initially by the size of our >> files >> (10GB). >> >> I am concerned as to how to easily manage backups / restorations / >> corruptions etc etc on such a large and growing database. In theory I >> could >> see the DB grow to 50gb in a few years - is this a problem ? >> >> I am much more confident in keeping the database quite small and keeping >> the >> files on a file server. >> >> Can anyone give me some feedback - I am keen to hear from everyone. >> >> cheers, >> >> Adam >> >> >> 50GB is considered small for a SQL Server db these days. I would put 10GB as
trivial. Your biggest concern working with blobs is to make sure you have a good disk subsystem or enough memory to keep most of it in cache. If you expect the db to have 10GB of files then make sure you start out with the db files large enough to handle all the data before you start loading. Never rely on AutoGrow to kick in. Always leave plenty of free space in the files and if you already know you need 10GB then size it accordingly. Otherwise your data loads will be slow and you risk more fragmentation. -- Show quoteHide quoteAndrew J. Kelly SQL MVP "acs68" <adamst@NOSPAMlaidley.qld.gov.au> wrote in message news:OkMCaGlYFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > Hi all, > > we have a pretty important decision to make. > > We are looking at converting our Records System (EDMS) to a new SQl Server > version that will store all files as BLOBS rather than how it is currently > being done - storing all the files on the fileserver in a docs folder. > > I am concerned with a few issues. > > Obviously the database (1 GB) will grow initially by the size of our files > (10GB). > > I am concerned as to how to easily manage backups / restorations / > corruptions etc etc on such a large and growing database. In theory I > could see the DB grow to 50gb in a few years - is this a problem ? > > I am much more confident in keeping the database quite small and keeping > the files on a file server. > > Can anyone give me some feedback - I am keen to hear from everyone. > > cheers, > > Adam > I agree with Andrew, 50 GB is nothing to be worried about at all... Backup
for this is a non-issue.. The real issues is whether you store the items as blobs or as filenames.... Sharepoint stores the entire file in SQL Server... But messing with blobs in SQL is more difficult than normal row storage... Don't worry about the backups, you'll be fine there. -- Show quoteHide quoteWayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP Mariner, Charlotte, NC www.mariner-usa.com (Please respond only to the newsgroups.) I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's community of SQL Server professionals. www.sqlpass.org "acs68" <adamst@NOSPAMlaidley.qld.gov.au> wrote in message news:OkMCaGlYFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > Hi all, > > we have a pretty important decision to make. > > We are looking at converting our Records System (EDMS) to a new SQl Server > version that will store all files as BLOBS rather than how it is currently > being done - storing all the files on the fileserver in a docs folder. > > I am concerned with a few issues. > > Obviously the database (1 GB) will grow initially by the size of our files > (10GB). > > I am concerned as to how to easily manage backups / restorations / > corruptions etc etc on such a large and growing database. In theory I > could see the DB grow to 50gb in a few years - is this a problem ? > > I am much more confident in keeping the database quite small and keeping > the files on a file server. > > Can anyone give me some feedback - I am keen to hear from everyone. > > cheers, > > Adam >  
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
