We have seen this problem on several SQL 2000 Standard Servers and was wonde
ring if anyone else had encountered it:
We started having problems restoring databases. We were receving errors tha
t the physical files paths were incorrect. When we looked at the file paths
for the databases we noticed that they looked like this "e:\mssql\data\\fil
e.mdf" and "F:\mssql\logs\\
logfile.ldf"" Note the double slashes.
What we found that is we changed the default data and log paths through ente
rprise manager. When we did it, we went to EM, clicked the browse button an
d then selected the target directories. This left the settings looking like
this:
"E:\mssql\data\"
"F:\mssql\logs\"
When you create a database through EM, everything works fine. When you crea
te a database using the create database command, it gets created with the do
uble backslashes in the file path for the data and log files.
We have been able to re-create this on several servers. If you take out the
trailing backslashes and stop and start the MSSQL Service (it appears chang
es to this setting only takes affect after a service stop and start even tho
ugh the running value would
indicate otherwise) then the 'create database' function work fine and only i
nserts single slashes from then on.
We are running SQL 2000 SP3 and we haven't been able to find any other docum
ented instance of this. If anyone else can re-create this issue we would be
very grateful to hear that it isn't something we are doing wrong.
ThanksThis is a known issue but I don't think there is a KB article. As you have
found, the default data and log directory strings should not have a trailing
backslash or you get the \\ in the filepath. Whilst it may be fixed in a
future service pack, it seems unlikely as it has been round for a while, is
fairly benign and has a simple workaround.
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Mike Holleran" <mholleran@.infodir.com> wrote in message
news:ED046519-1519-4579-A6FE-F5EE63C18B05@.microsoft.com...
> We have seen this problem on several SQL 2000 Standard Servers and was
wondering if anyone else had encountered it:
> We started having problems restoring databases. We were receving errors
that the physical files paths were incorrect. When we looked at the file
paths for the databases we noticed that they looked like this
"e:\mssql\data\\file.mdf" and "F:\mssql\logs\\logfile.ldf"" Note the double
slashes.
> What we found that is we changed the default data and log paths through
enterprise manager. When we did it, we went to EM, clicked the browse
button and then selected the target directories. This left the settings
looking like this:
> "E:\mssql\data\"
> "F:\mssql\logs\"
> When you create a database through EM, everything works fine. When you
create a database using the create database command, it gets created with
the double backslashes in the file path for the data and log files.
> We have been able to re-create this on several servers. If you take out
the trailing backslashes and stop and start the MSSQL Service (it appears
changes to this setting only takes affect after a service stop and start
even though the running value would indicate otherwise) then the 'create
database' function work fine and only inserts single slashes from then on.
> We are running SQL 2000 SP3 and we haven't been able to find any other
documented instance of this. If anyone else can re-create this issue we
would be very grateful to hear that it isn't something we are doing wrong.
> Thanks
>
>
>
Showing posts with label standard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standard. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Bug (?) in SQL2005 x64 SP1 CTP
We're testing the same DB (~ 5GB, ~ 500 tables) with
Server32 (Win2003 Standard 32 bit, SQL2005 Developer 32 bit SP1 CTP, 1gb Memory) and with
Server64 (Win2003 x64 Standard 64 bit, SQL2005 Developer 64 bit SP1 CTP, 6gb Memory).
Server32 (Win2003 Standard 32 bit, SQL2005 Developer 32 bit SP1 CTP, 1gb Memory) and with
Server64 (Win2003 x64 Standard 64 bit, SQL2005 Developer 64 bit SP1 CTP, 6gb Memory).
exec sp_MSforeachtable @.command1="SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON DBCC DBREINDEX ('?', '', 90)"
On Server32 the SQL above runs without errors. On Server64 there comes the following error message:
Msg 8621, Level 17, State 1, Line 1
The query processor ran out of stack space during query optimization. Please simplify the query.
A 64bit server with 6gb memory has less stack space than a 32bit server with 1gb memory?
Regards
Peter
PS: I know sp_MSforeachtable is not an official stored procedure, but I don't thinkt there's the problem. I got the same error on Server64, when I run the following cursor:
DECLARE tablename CURSOR
READ_ONLY
FOR select [name] from sys.tables where type = 'U'
DECLARE @.name varchar(80)
OPEN tablename
FETCH NEXT FROM tablename INTO @.name
WHILE (@.@.fetch_status <> -1)
BEGIN
IF (@.@.fetch_status <> -2)
BEGIN
DECLARE @.message varchar(800)
SELECT @.message = 'SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON DBCC DBREINDEX (''' + @.name + ''', '''', 90)'
EXEC (@.message)
END
FETCH NEXT FROM tablename INTO @.name
END
CLOSE tablename
DEALLOCATE tablename
GO
Please file a bug using the MSDN Product Feedback Center. And mention the OS platform, server versions, number of tables in the database etc.|||Bug report created
Thanks
Peter
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Budget Clustering Standard Edition.
I am aware that the standard edition does not 'include'
fail over clustering.
I have read this newgroup on items containing the
budget / standard edition clustering.
I get the strong impression that 'budget clustering' is
strongly advised against.
WHY ?
Thanks for your attention,
ben brugman
Elaboration :
We want to have two options :
1. Standard edition.
2. Enterprise / San / Fail over.
Offcourse for high availability, you have to pay and
go for the second solution.
But to make the first solution as good as possible,
we are thinking in lines of the 'suggested' budget
fail over clustering.
So we plan :
Two servers with internal OS / SQL-server software.
Two Raid storage units which will be host based mirrored.
(So each file is stored four times).
Two locations, one for each server, storage unit.
If a part of the storage fails, there is plenty of redundancy.
But if a server fails we plan to do a fail over to the 'second'
machine, just reattaching the disks. (With MSA management
software).
We want the maximum amount of availability which can be
obtained with using the standard edition.
If that is not enough management can choose for the second
configuration, which will be more expensive.
We do not want to make the choice but supply the management
with enough 'numbers' and arguments to make a sollid choice on
the configuration.
1) Standard Edition is not supported
2) No Cluster resources will be created, thus adding tons of work during the
install
3) It is a violation of EULA
4) It will not failover properly
5) See number 1
Cheers,
Rod
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:%23kCvdN%23REHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I am aware that the standard edition does not 'include'
> fail over clustering.
> I have read this newgroup on items containing the
> budget / standard edition clustering.
> I get the strong impression that 'budget clustering' is
> strongly advised against.
> WHY ?
> Thanks for your attention,
> ben brugman
>
>
>
>
> Elaboration :
> We want to have two options :
> 1. Standard edition.
> 2. Enterprise / San / Fail over.
> Offcourse for high availability, you have to pay and
> go for the second solution.
> But to make the first solution as good as possible,
> we are thinking in lines of the 'suggested' budget
> fail over clustering.
> So we plan :
> Two servers with internal OS / SQL-server software.
> Two Raid storage units which will be host based mirrored.
> (So each file is stored four times).
> Two locations, one for each server, storage unit.
> If a part of the storage fails, there is plenty of redundancy.
> But if a server fails we plan to do a fail over to the 'second'
> machine, just reattaching the disks. (With MSA management
> software).
> We want the maximum amount of availability which can be
> obtained with using the standard edition.
> If that is not enough management can choose for the second
> configuration, which will be more expensive.
> We do not want to make the choice but supply the management
> with enough 'numbers' and arguments to make a sollid choice on
> the configuration.
>
>
|||Sorry could you explain what "budget clustering" is? Are you talking about 3rd party software?
Thanks
DaveK
http://www.sqlporn.co.uk
|||He is asking about a low-cost cluster. Using Standard Edition instead of
Enterprise.
Cheers,
Rod
"DaveK" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:31F9BABD-78FB-4174-B831-9E1B0C3D3093@.microsoft.com...
> Sorry could you explain what "budget clustering" is? Are you talking about
3rd party software?
> Thanks
> DaveK
> http://www.sqlporn.co.uk
|||First of all thanks for your time.
I would like to go over the points one at the time.
In my original mail I did (on purpose) elaborate, but
only at the end of the message.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:uonKad#REHA.3708@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> 1) Standard Edition is not supported
We do not intend to automatically fail over, but doing the fail over by
'hand',
in this group there are a lot of advices how to do this.
> 2) No Cluster resources will be created, thus adding tons of work during
the
> install
We need an extra machine and an extra installation of OS/SQL-server and
of course the setting up of the hardware and hardware management.
But I doubt if 'real' clustering has less work.
> 3) It is a violation of EULA
I do not see a violation of the EULA, with this set up.
(But then EULA's are so complex that allthough I do understand them,
this is not totaly 100 %).
> 4) It will not failover properly
I think by hand it wil. If this is not true please point out why.
> 5) See number 1
See number one.
As said we will do the switch manually, also switching the
application servers. (By newly resolving the name and reconnecting).
So the fail over is manually, but we do not need to restore and recover.
So there is less availability than for 'real' clustering, but more than
if a (backup) restore recover is done in case of a server failure.
Any new insights ?
ben brugman.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:%23kCvdN%23REHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OskDg1#REHA.3660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> He is asking about a low-cost cluster. Using Standard Edition instead of
> Enterprise.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "DaveK" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:31F9BABD-78FB-4174-B831-9E1B0C3D3093@.microsoft.com...
about
> 3rd party software?
>
I do not see the 'original message of DaveK, so I'll attach my anwser here.
By budget clustering, different people have different meanings.
What I did understand and mean by budget clustering is :
Using the standard edition SQL-server.
Setting up a second machine similar to the first machine.
If the first machine fails, attach the 'database' disks to the
second machine.
And start up SQL-server on the second machine.
Because this machine has a different name and ip address the
applications have to reconnect after a new name resolve.
(So this has to be changed as well).
Of course here we are missing a lot of the advantages of the
'real' clustering mechanism where 'everything' goed automatic.
(failure detection, switching over, name resolving and if the
application is cluster aware the reconnection).
But the advantage of this way creating high availability is that
you do not have to restore and recover a database in case of
a server failure.
So in my this 'might' give a higher availability then using the
backup and restore route.
Remarks :
Offcourse have you datastorage redundant. So that a storage failure
(disk or system) can be handled.
A server failure will be a rare event (using servers which have redundancy
in power supply, memory etc.). So during a server failure you might lose
some availability time.
But losing say an hour every two years because of a server failure, or
paying for the more expensive 'real fail over' capable system, is something
that has to be decided by the management.
Off course there will also be down time during regular upgrades of mainly
software and rearely hardware, but that can be planned.
Although we run a 7 x 24 hours shop, planned downtime is not to disruptive.
With my question, I hope to get some insight in how realistic this set up
is. I would like to form an opinion based on more than : "That won't work"
or "That is not supported" or "That is not allowed".
ben brugman
|||I think you want to look at creating a SQL Standby Server, which is
supported and very easy to do. Nothing to do with clustering, but neither
does your solution.
Cheers,
Rod
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c9k4ft$dt5$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
> First of all thanks for your time.
> I would like to go over the points one at the time.
> In my original mail I did (on purpose) elaborate, but
> only at the end of the message.
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:uonKad#REHA.3708@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We do not intend to automatically fail over, but doing the fail over by
> 'hand',
> in this group there are a lot of advices how to do this.
> the
> We need an extra machine and an extra installation of OS/SQL-server and
> of course the setting up of the hardware and hardware management.
> But I doubt if 'real' clustering has less work.
>
> I do not see a violation of the EULA, with this set up.
> (But then EULA's are so complex that allthough I do understand them,
> this is not totaly 100 %).
> I think by hand it wil. If this is not true please point out why.
>
> See number one.
> As said we will do the switch manually, also switching the
> application servers. (By newly resolving the name and reconnecting).
> So the fail over is manually, but we do not need to restore and recover.
> So there is less availability than for 'real' clustering, but more than
> if a (backup) restore recover is done in case of a server failure.
> Any new insights ?
> ben brugman.
>
>
|||Thanks,
ben
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OIAIp1JSEHA.2936@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I think you want to look at creating a SQL Standby Server, which is
> supported and very easy to do. Nothing to do with clustering, but neither
> does your solution.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c9k4ft$dt5$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
during
>
|||"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OIAIp1JSEHA.2936@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I think you want to look at creating a SQL Standby Server, which is
> supported and very easy to do. Nothing to do with clustering, but neither
> does your solution.
Did look up standby servers, but this is not what I meant.
In my mail I described that we didn't want to use the
backup / restore sequence, but just the switching of the
disks.
I have seen this mentioned as "budget clustering", but could
be wrong there. Sorry for that misunderstanding. Haven't got
a name / term for it.
ben
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c9k4ft$dt5$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
during
>
|||FYI, you can do a fully functional "budget cluster" using standard edition
of SQL/Windows using Legato's clustering product. Of course, it ain't free,
so that might blow your budget :-)
Regards,
John
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c9k58t$e84$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:OskDg1#REHA.3660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> about
> I do not see the 'original message of DaveK, so I'll attach my anwser
here.
> By budget clustering, different people have different meanings.
> What I did understand and mean by budget clustering is :
> Using the standard edition SQL-server.
> Setting up a second machine similar to the first machine.
> If the first machine fails, attach the 'database' disks to the
> second machine.
> And start up SQL-server on the second machine.
> Because this machine has a different name and ip address the
> applications have to reconnect after a new name resolve.
> (So this has to be changed as well).
> Of course here we are missing a lot of the advantages of the
> 'real' clustering mechanism where 'everything' goed automatic.
> (failure detection, switching over, name resolving and if the
> application is cluster aware the reconnection).
> But the advantage of this way creating high availability is that
> you do not have to restore and recover a database in case of
> a server failure.
> So in my this 'might' give a higher availability then using the
> backup and restore route.
> Remarks :
> Offcourse have you datastorage redundant. So that a storage failure
> (disk or system) can be handled.
> A server failure will be a rare event (using servers which have redundancy
> in power supply, memory etc.). So during a server failure you might lose
> some availability time.
> But losing say an hour every two years because of a server failure, or
> paying for the more expensive 'real fail over' capable system, is
something
> that has to be decided by the management.
> Off course there will also be down time during regular upgrades of mainly
> software and rearely hardware, but that can be planned.
> Although we run a 7 x 24 hours shop, planned downtime is not to
disruptive.
> With my question, I hope to get some insight in how realistic this set up
> is. I would like to form an opinion based on more than : "That won't work"
> or "That is not supported" or "That is not allowed".
> ben brugman
>
fail over clustering.
I have read this newgroup on items containing the
budget / standard edition clustering.
I get the strong impression that 'budget clustering' is
strongly advised against.
WHY ?
Thanks for your attention,
ben brugman
Elaboration :
We want to have two options :
1. Standard edition.
2. Enterprise / San / Fail over.
Offcourse for high availability, you have to pay and
go for the second solution.
But to make the first solution as good as possible,
we are thinking in lines of the 'suggested' budget
fail over clustering.
So we plan :
Two servers with internal OS / SQL-server software.
Two Raid storage units which will be host based mirrored.
(So each file is stored four times).
Two locations, one for each server, storage unit.
If a part of the storage fails, there is plenty of redundancy.
But if a server fails we plan to do a fail over to the 'second'
machine, just reattaching the disks. (With MSA management
software).
We want the maximum amount of availability which can be
obtained with using the standard edition.
If that is not enough management can choose for the second
configuration, which will be more expensive.
We do not want to make the choice but supply the management
with enough 'numbers' and arguments to make a sollid choice on
the configuration.
1) Standard Edition is not supported
2) No Cluster resources will be created, thus adding tons of work during the
install
3) It is a violation of EULA
4) It will not failover properly
5) See number 1
Cheers,
Rod
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:%23kCvdN%23REHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I am aware that the standard edition does not 'include'
> fail over clustering.
> I have read this newgroup on items containing the
> budget / standard edition clustering.
> I get the strong impression that 'budget clustering' is
> strongly advised against.
> WHY ?
> Thanks for your attention,
> ben brugman
>
>
>
>
> Elaboration :
> We want to have two options :
> 1. Standard edition.
> 2. Enterprise / San / Fail over.
> Offcourse for high availability, you have to pay and
> go for the second solution.
> But to make the first solution as good as possible,
> we are thinking in lines of the 'suggested' budget
> fail over clustering.
> So we plan :
> Two servers with internal OS / SQL-server software.
> Two Raid storage units which will be host based mirrored.
> (So each file is stored four times).
> Two locations, one for each server, storage unit.
> If a part of the storage fails, there is plenty of redundancy.
> But if a server fails we plan to do a fail over to the 'second'
> machine, just reattaching the disks. (With MSA management
> software).
> We want the maximum amount of availability which can be
> obtained with using the standard edition.
> If that is not enough management can choose for the second
> configuration, which will be more expensive.
> We do not want to make the choice but supply the management
> with enough 'numbers' and arguments to make a sollid choice on
> the configuration.
>
>
|||Sorry could you explain what "budget clustering" is? Are you talking about 3rd party software?
Thanks
DaveK
http://www.sqlporn.co.uk
|||He is asking about a low-cost cluster. Using Standard Edition instead of
Enterprise.
Cheers,
Rod
"DaveK" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:31F9BABD-78FB-4174-B831-9E1B0C3D3093@.microsoft.com...
> Sorry could you explain what "budget clustering" is? Are you talking about
3rd party software?
> Thanks
> DaveK
> http://www.sqlporn.co.uk
|||First of all thanks for your time.
I would like to go over the points one at the time.
In my original mail I did (on purpose) elaborate, but
only at the end of the message.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:uonKad#REHA.3708@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> 1) Standard Edition is not supported
We do not intend to automatically fail over, but doing the fail over by
'hand',
in this group there are a lot of advices how to do this.
> 2) No Cluster resources will be created, thus adding tons of work during
the
> install
We need an extra machine and an extra installation of OS/SQL-server and
of course the setting up of the hardware and hardware management.
But I doubt if 'real' clustering has less work.
> 3) It is a violation of EULA
I do not see a violation of the EULA, with this set up.
(But then EULA's are so complex that allthough I do understand them,
this is not totaly 100 %).
> 4) It will not failover properly
I think by hand it wil. If this is not true please point out why.
> 5) See number 1
See number one.
As said we will do the switch manually, also switching the
application servers. (By newly resolving the name and reconnecting).
So the fail over is manually, but we do not need to restore and recover.
So there is less availability than for 'real' clustering, but more than
if a (backup) restore recover is done in case of a server failure.
Any new insights ?
ben brugman.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:%23kCvdN%23REHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OskDg1#REHA.3660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> He is asking about a low-cost cluster. Using Standard Edition instead of
> Enterprise.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "DaveK" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:31F9BABD-78FB-4174-B831-9E1B0C3D3093@.microsoft.com...
about
> 3rd party software?
>
I do not see the 'original message of DaveK, so I'll attach my anwser here.
By budget clustering, different people have different meanings.
What I did understand and mean by budget clustering is :
Using the standard edition SQL-server.
Setting up a second machine similar to the first machine.
If the first machine fails, attach the 'database' disks to the
second machine.
And start up SQL-server on the second machine.
Because this machine has a different name and ip address the
applications have to reconnect after a new name resolve.
(So this has to be changed as well).
Of course here we are missing a lot of the advantages of the
'real' clustering mechanism where 'everything' goed automatic.
(failure detection, switching over, name resolving and if the
application is cluster aware the reconnection).
But the advantage of this way creating high availability is that
you do not have to restore and recover a database in case of
a server failure.
So in my this 'might' give a higher availability then using the
backup and restore route.
Remarks :
Offcourse have you datastorage redundant. So that a storage failure
(disk or system) can be handled.
A server failure will be a rare event (using servers which have redundancy
in power supply, memory etc.). So during a server failure you might lose
some availability time.
But losing say an hour every two years because of a server failure, or
paying for the more expensive 'real fail over' capable system, is something
that has to be decided by the management.
Off course there will also be down time during regular upgrades of mainly
software and rearely hardware, but that can be planned.
Although we run a 7 x 24 hours shop, planned downtime is not to disruptive.
With my question, I hope to get some insight in how realistic this set up
is. I would like to form an opinion based on more than : "That won't work"
or "That is not supported" or "That is not allowed".
ben brugman
|||I think you want to look at creating a SQL Standby Server, which is
supported and very easy to do. Nothing to do with clustering, but neither
does your solution.
Cheers,
Rod
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c9k4ft$dt5$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
> First of all thanks for your time.
> I would like to go over the points one at the time.
> In my original mail I did (on purpose) elaborate, but
> only at the end of the message.
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:uonKad#REHA.3708@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We do not intend to automatically fail over, but doing the fail over by
> 'hand',
> in this group there are a lot of advices how to do this.
> the
> We need an extra machine and an extra installation of OS/SQL-server and
> of course the setting up of the hardware and hardware management.
> But I doubt if 'real' clustering has less work.
>
> I do not see a violation of the EULA, with this set up.
> (But then EULA's are so complex that allthough I do understand them,
> this is not totaly 100 %).
> I think by hand it wil. If this is not true please point out why.
>
> See number one.
> As said we will do the switch manually, also switching the
> application servers. (By newly resolving the name and reconnecting).
> So the fail over is manually, but we do not need to restore and recover.
> So there is less availability than for 'real' clustering, but more than
> if a (backup) restore recover is done in case of a server failure.
> Any new insights ?
> ben brugman.
>
>
|||Thanks,
ben
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OIAIp1JSEHA.2936@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I think you want to look at creating a SQL Standby Server, which is
> supported and very easy to do. Nothing to do with clustering, but neither
> does your solution.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c9k4ft$dt5$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
during
>
|||"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OIAIp1JSEHA.2936@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I think you want to look at creating a SQL Standby Server, which is
> supported and very easy to do. Nothing to do with clustering, but neither
> does your solution.
Did look up standby servers, but this is not what I meant.
In my mail I described that we didn't want to use the
backup / restore sequence, but just the switching of the
disks.
I have seen this mentioned as "budget clustering", but could
be wrong there. Sorry for that misunderstanding. Haven't got
a name / term for it.
ben
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c9k4ft$dt5$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
during
>
|||FYI, you can do a fully functional "budget cluster" using standard edition
of SQL/Windows using Legato's clustering product. Of course, it ain't free,
so that might blow your budget :-)
Regards,
John
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c9k58t$e84$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:OskDg1#REHA.3660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> about
> I do not see the 'original message of DaveK, so I'll attach my anwser
here.
> By budget clustering, different people have different meanings.
> What I did understand and mean by budget clustering is :
> Using the standard edition SQL-server.
> Setting up a second machine similar to the first machine.
> If the first machine fails, attach the 'database' disks to the
> second machine.
> And start up SQL-server on the second machine.
> Because this machine has a different name and ip address the
> applications have to reconnect after a new name resolve.
> (So this has to be changed as well).
> Of course here we are missing a lot of the advantages of the
> 'real' clustering mechanism where 'everything' goed automatic.
> (failure detection, switching over, name resolving and if the
> application is cluster aware the reconnection).
> But the advantage of this way creating high availability is that
> you do not have to restore and recover a database in case of
> a server failure.
> So in my this 'might' give a higher availability then using the
> backup and restore route.
> Remarks :
> Offcourse have you datastorage redundant. So that a storage failure
> (disk or system) can be handled.
> A server failure will be a rare event (using servers which have redundancy
> in power supply, memory etc.). So during a server failure you might lose
> some availability time.
> But losing say an hour every two years because of a server failure, or
> paying for the more expensive 'real fail over' capable system, is
something
> that has to be decided by the management.
> Off course there will also be down time during regular upgrades of mainly
> software and rearely hardware, but that can be planned.
> Although we run a 7 x 24 hours shop, planned downtime is not to
disruptive.
> With my question, I hope to get some insight in how realistic this set up
> is. I would like to form an opinion based on more than : "That won't work"
> or "That is not supported" or "That is not allowed".
> ben brugman
>
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Breaking Point
Hi,
We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
Thanks,
Ian
Philippines
It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
|||Thanks,
Do you know of any breaking points with SQL Server 2005 and WIndows Server
2003?
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
|||Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
Thanks again,
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
|||As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there will
be a severe impact on performance of database
"Ian" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
> Thanks again,
> Ian
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
|||> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
> "Ian" wrote:
|||Hi
You may want to read
http://databases.aspfaq.com/database/should-i-store-images-in-the-database-or-the-filesystem.html
As far as breaking point this is will be significntly dependent on the
hardware and application, therefore running your own performance/stress tests
is about the only way you are really going to have some idea of what the
system is capable of. Products such as LoadRunner, Rational Performance
Tester, Visual Studio Team Edition for Software Testers
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/teamsystem/aa718823.aspx or Visual Studio
Team Suite can all help you performance test your web application(s).
John
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
|||yes uri is correct it is binary... thanks uri
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
>
>
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||At my last job, we used the database to store tif images. The tifs were
images of mandates which had bank details on so it made sense to store them
in the database as opposed to the filesystem. We took steps to try and ensure
the best performance, such as putting the blob column into a seperate
filegroup which we put onto a seperate raid array to the main database. The
mandates were scanned in as tifs, inserted into the db, and were viewable
from an asp front end, and tbh the solution worked well.
From a performance pov it'll be down to the quality of product, and the spec
of the machine.. ..a decent storage solution for this is a must.. ..also
spend some time on capacity planning, you'll find the db will grow quickly so
spend some time setting it up properly from the start...
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
|||Ian:
You'll love my response. It's the same as pretty much all of my other
responses:
"It depends".
Do you need to store your images transactionally? That is, it
critically important that your images are there when the database SAYS
they're there? If so, put 'em in the database.
Do you need to read the files from something like a Web server which
serves up a lot of other static content? If so, lean towards the
filesystem.
How big are these files? "Huge" means something very different these
days vs. 5 years ago. What are your size projections? A couple of
gigs? No problem, either way. A couple of terabytes? Do you want to
minimize the load on the database when retrieving images? How many
users are you going to support? These are all considerations.
Note that you'll have to be much more careful about how you size your
database files with the images inside the DB. I'd (sometimes, it
depends) recommend putting the tables storing the images in a different
filegroup...
Also note that in SQL Server 2005, you should use VARBINARY(MAX) instead
of IMAGE. IMAGE and TEXT datatypes are deprecated as of the new version.
-Dave
Ian wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
Thanks,
Ian
Philippines
It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
|||Thanks,
Do you know of any breaking points with SQL Server 2005 and WIndows Server
2003?
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
|||Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
Thanks again,
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
|||As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there will
be a severe impact on performance of database
"Ian" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
> Thanks again,
> Ian
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
|||> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
> "Ian" wrote:
|||Hi
You may want to read
http://databases.aspfaq.com/database/should-i-store-images-in-the-database-or-the-filesystem.html
As far as breaking point this is will be significntly dependent on the
hardware and application, therefore running your own performance/stress tests
is about the only way you are really going to have some idea of what the
system is capable of. Products such as LoadRunner, Rational Performance
Tester, Visual Studio Team Edition for Software Testers
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/teamsystem/aa718823.aspx or Visual Studio
Team Suite can all help you performance test your web application(s).
John
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
|||yes uri is correct it is binary... thanks uri
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
>
>
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||At my last job, we used the database to store tif images. The tifs were
images of mandates which had bank details on so it made sense to store them
in the database as opposed to the filesystem. We took steps to try and ensure
the best performance, such as putting the blob column into a seperate
filegroup which we put onto a seperate raid array to the main database. The
mandates were scanned in as tifs, inserted into the db, and were viewable
from an asp front end, and tbh the solution worked well.
From a performance pov it'll be down to the quality of product, and the spec
of the machine.. ..a decent storage solution for this is a must.. ..also
spend some time on capacity planning, you'll find the db will grow quickly so
spend some time setting it up properly from the start...
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
|||Ian:
You'll love my response. It's the same as pretty much all of my other
responses:
"It depends".
Do you need to store your images transactionally? That is, it
critically important that your images are there when the database SAYS
they're there? If so, put 'em in the database.
Do you need to read the files from something like a Web server which
serves up a lot of other static content? If so, lean towards the
filesystem.
How big are these files? "Huge" means something very different these
days vs. 5 years ago. What are your size projections? A couple of
gigs? No problem, either way. A couple of terabytes? Do you want to
minimize the load on the database when retrieving images? How many
users are you going to support? These are all considerations.
Note that you'll have to be much more careful about how you size your
database files with the images inside the DB. I'd (sometimes, it
depends) recommend putting the tables storing the images in a different
filegroup...
Also note that in SQL Server 2005, you should use VARBINARY(MAX) instead
of IMAGE. IMAGE and TEXT datatypes are deprecated as of the new version.
-Dave
Ian wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
Breaking Point
Hi,
We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
Thanks,
Ian
PhilippinesIt will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.i
f
possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to applicatio
n.
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||If you can, place pictures in filesystem and links to them in database.
MC
"Ian" <Ian@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC7B1026-6DB6-493A-9B99-8CF719840007@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||Thanks,
Do you know of any breaking points with SQL Server 2005 and WIndows Server
2003?
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server
.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to applicat
ion.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
>|||Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
Thanks again,
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server
.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to applicat
ion.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
>|||As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there will
be a severe impact on performance of database
"Ian" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
> Thanks again,
> Ian
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
>|||> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
> "Ian" wrote:
>|||Hi
You may want to read
http://databases.aspfaq.com/databas...filesystem.html
As far as breaking point this is will be significntly dependent on the
hardware and application, therefore running your own performance/stress test
s
is about the only way you are really going to have some idea of what the
system is capable of. Products such as LoadRunner, Rational Performance
Tester, Visual Studio Team Edition for Software Testers
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/te...m/aa718823.aspx or Visual Studio
Team Suite can all help you performance test your web application(s).
John
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||yes uri is correct it is binary... thanks uri
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
>
>
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote i
n
> message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||At my last job, we used the database to store tif images. The tifs were
images of mandates which had bank details on so it made sense to store them
in the database as opposed to the filesystem. We took steps to try and ensur
e
the best performance, such as putting the blob column into a seperate
filegroup which we put onto a seperate raid array to the main database. The
mandates were scanned in as tifs, inserted into the db, and were viewable
from an asp front end, and tbh the solution worked well.
From a performance pov it'll be down to the quality of product, and the spec
of the machine.. ..a decent storage solution for this is a must.. ..also
spend some time on capacity planning, you'll find the db will grow quickly s
o
spend some time setting it up properly from the start...
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
Thanks,
Ian
PhilippinesIt will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.i
f
possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to applicatio
n.
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||If you can, place pictures in filesystem and links to them in database.
MC
"Ian" <Ian@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC7B1026-6DB6-493A-9B99-8CF719840007@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||Thanks,
Do you know of any breaking points with SQL Server 2005 and WIndows Server
2003?
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server
.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to applicat
ion.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
>|||Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
Thanks again,
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server
.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to applicat
ion.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
>|||As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there will
be a severe impact on performance of database
"Ian" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
> Thanks again,
> Ian
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
>|||> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
> "Ian" wrote:
>|||Hi
You may want to read
http://databases.aspfaq.com/databas...filesystem.html
As far as breaking point this is will be significntly dependent on the
hardware and application, therefore running your own performance/stress test
s
is about the only way you are really going to have some idea of what the
system is capable of. Products such as LoadRunner, Rational Performance
Tester, Visual Studio Team Edition for Software Testers
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/te...m/aa718823.aspx or Visual Studio
Team Suite can all help you performance test your web application(s).
John
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||yes uri is correct it is binary... thanks uri
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
>
>
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote i
n
> message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||At my last job, we used the database to store tif images. The tifs were
images of mandates which had bank details on so it made sense to store them
in the database as opposed to the filesystem. We took steps to try and ensur
e
the best performance, such as putting the blob column into a seperate
filegroup which we put onto a seperate raid array to the main database. The
mandates were scanned in as tifs, inserted into the db, and were viewable
from an asp front end, and tbh the solution worked well.
From a performance pov it'll be down to the quality of product, and the spec
of the machine.. ..a decent storage solution for this is a must.. ..also
spend some time on capacity planning, you'll find the db will grow quickly s
o
spend some time setting it up properly from the start...
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
Breaking Point
Hi,
We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
Thanks,
Ian
PhilippinesIt will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||If you can, place pictures in filesystem and links to them in database.
MC
"Ian" <Ian@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC7B1026-6DB6-493A-9B99-8CF719840007@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||Thanks,
Do you know of any breaking points with SQL Server 2005 and WIndows Server
2003?
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> > 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> > I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> > any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> >
> > There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> > will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> >
> > I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> > consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ian
> > Philippines
> >|||Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
Thanks again,
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> > 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> > I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> > any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> >
> > There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> > will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> >
> > I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> > consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ian
> > Philippines
> >|||As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there will
be a severe impact on performance of database
"Ian" wrote:
> Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
> Thanks again,
> Ian
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
> > It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
> > possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
> >
> >
> > "Ian" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> > > 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> > > I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> > > any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> > >
> > > There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> > > will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> > >
> > > I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> > > consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Ian
> > > Philippines
> > >|||> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...
> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
> "Ian" wrote:
>> Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
>> Thanks again,
>> Ian
>> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
>> > It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql
>> > server.if
>> > possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to
>> > application.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Ian" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS
>> > > Server
>> > > 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
>> > > I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can
>> > > foresee
>> > > any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
>> > >
>> > > There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server.
>> > > Where
>> > > will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
>> > >
>> > > I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by
>> > > an IT
>> > > consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Ian
>> > > Philippines
>> > >|||Hi
You may want to read
http://databases.aspfaq.com/database/should-i-store-images-in-the-database-or-the-filesystem.html
As far as breaking point this is will be significntly dependent on the
hardware and application, therefore running your own performance/stress tests
is about the only way you are really going to have some idea of what the
system is capable of. Products such as LoadRunner, Rational Performance
Tester, Visual Studio Team Edition for Software Testers
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/teamsystem/aa718823.aspx or Visual Studio
Team Suite can all help you performance test your web application(s).
John
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||yes uri is correct it is binary... thanks uri
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> > As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> > BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> > will
> > be a severe impact on performance of database
> No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
>
>
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...
> > As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> > BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> > will
> > be a severe impact on performance of database
> >
> > "Ian" wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
> >>
> >> Thanks again,
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
> >>
> >> > It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql
> >> > server.if
> >> > possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to
> >> > application.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Ian" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS
> >> > > Server
> >> > > 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> >> > > I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can
> >> > > foresee
> >> > > any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> >> > >
> >> > > There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server.
> >> > > Where
> >> > > will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> >> > >
> >> > > I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by
> >> > > an IT
> >> > > consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > > Ian
> >> > > Philippines
> >> > >
>
>|||At my last job, we used the database to store tif images. The tifs were
images of mandates which had bank details on so it made sense to store them
in the database as opposed to the filesystem. We took steps to try and ensure
the best performance, such as putting the blob column into a seperate
filegroup which we put onto a seperate raid array to the main database. The
mandates were scanned in as tifs, inserted into the db, and were viewable
from an asp front end, and tbh the solution worked well.
From a performance pov it'll be down to the quality of product, and the spec
of the machine.. ..a decent storage solution for this is a must.. ..also
spend some time on capacity planning, you'll find the db will grow quickly so
spend some time setting it up properly from the start...
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||Ian:
You'll love my response. It's the same as pretty much all of my other
responses:
"It depends".
Do you need to store your images transactionally? That is, it
critically important that your images are there when the database SAYS
they're there? If so, put 'em in the database.
Do you need to read the files from something like a Web server which
serves up a lot of other static content? If so, lean towards the
filesystem.
How big are these files? "Huge" means something very different these
days vs. 5 years ago. What are your size projections? A couple of
gigs? No problem, either way. A couple of terabytes? Do you want to
minimize the load on the database when retrieving images? How many
users are you going to support? These are all considerations.
Note that you'll have to be much more careful about how you size your
database files with the images inside the DB. I'd (sometimes, it
depends) recommend putting the tables storing the images in a different
filegroup...
Also note that in SQL Server 2005, you should use VARBINARY(MAX) instead
of IMAGE. IMAGE and TEXT datatypes are deprecated as of the new version.
-Dave
Ian wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
Thanks,
Ian
PhilippinesIt will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||If you can, place pictures in filesystem and links to them in database.
MC
"Ian" <Ian@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC7B1026-6DB6-493A-9B99-8CF719840007@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||Thanks,
Do you know of any breaking points with SQL Server 2005 and WIndows Server
2003?
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> > 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> > I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> > any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> >
> > There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> > will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> >
> > I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> > consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ian
> > Philippines
> >|||Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
Thanks again,
Ian
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
> It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
> possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
>
> "Ian" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> > 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> > I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> > any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> >
> > There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> > will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> >
> > I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> > consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ian
> > Philippines
> >|||As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there will
be a severe impact on performance of database
"Ian" wrote:
> Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
> Thanks again,
> Ian
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
> > It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql server.if
> > possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to application.
> >
> >
> > "Ian" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> > > 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> > > I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> > > any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> > >
> > > There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> > > will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> > >
> > > I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> > > consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Ian
> > > Philippines
> > >|||> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
"Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...
> As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> will
> be a severe impact on performance of database
> "Ian" wrote:
>> Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
>> Thanks again,
>> Ian
>> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
>> > It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql
>> > server.if
>> > possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to
>> > application.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Ian" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS
>> > > Server
>> > > 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
>> > > I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can
>> > > foresee
>> > > any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
>> > >
>> > > There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server.
>> > > Where
>> > > will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
>> > >
>> > > I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by
>> > > an IT
>> > > consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Ian
>> > > Philippines
>> > >|||Hi
You may want to read
http://databases.aspfaq.com/database/should-i-store-images-in-the-database-or-the-filesystem.html
As far as breaking point this is will be significntly dependent on the
hardware and application, therefore running your own performance/stress tests
is about the only way you are really going to have some idea of what the
system is capable of. Products such as LoadRunner, Rational Performance
Tester, Visual Studio Team Edition for Software Testers
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/teamsystem/aa718823.aspx or Visual Studio
Team Suite can all help you performance test your web application(s).
John
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||yes uri is correct it is binary... thanks uri
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> > As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> > BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> > will
> > be a severe impact on performance of database
> No , SQL Server stores it in BINARY format
>
>
> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" <KhwajaArshaduddin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:380520D9-7BEF-4CFF-82F8-486304BA5B38@.microsoft.com...
> > As i posted earlier LARGE image file should not be loaded that is becuase
> > BLOBs store picture as text datatype u can find datatype in BOL .there
> > will
> > be a severe impact on performance of database
> >
> > "Ian" wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it not good practive to place pics in BLOBs?
> >>
> >> Thanks again,
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >> "Khwaja Arshaduddin" wrote:
> >>
> >> > It will not be good practice to place huge pictures in BLOBs in sql
> >> > server.if
> >> > possible you can arrange an file or image server and mapp them to
> >> > application.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Ian" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS
> >> > > Server
> >> > > 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> >> > > I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can
> >> > > foresee
> >> > > any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> >> > >
> >> > > There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server.
> >> > > Where
> >> > > will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> >> > >
> >> > > I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by
> >> > > an IT
> >> > > consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > > Ian
> >> > > Philippines
> >> > >
>
>|||At my last job, we used the database to store tif images. The tifs were
images of mandates which had bank details on so it made sense to store them
in the database as opposed to the filesystem. We took steps to try and ensure
the best performance, such as putting the blob column into a seperate
filegroup which we put onto a seperate raid array to the main database. The
mandates were scanned in as tifs, inserted into the db, and were viewable
from an asp front end, and tbh the solution worked well.
From a performance pov it'll be down to the quality of product, and the spec
of the machine.. ..a decent storage solution for this is a must.. ..also
spend some time on capacity planning, you'll find the db will grow quickly so
spend some time setting it up properly from the start...
"Ian" wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>|||Ian:
You'll love my response. It's the same as pretty much all of my other
responses:
"It depends".
Do you need to store your images transactionally? That is, it
critically important that your images are there when the database SAYS
they're there? If so, put 'em in the database.
Do you need to read the files from something like a Web server which
serves up a lot of other static content? If so, lean towards the
filesystem.
How big are these files? "Huge" means something very different these
days vs. 5 years ago. What are your size projections? A couple of
gigs? No problem, either way. A couple of terabytes? Do you want to
minimize the load on the database when retrieving images? How many
users are you going to support? These are all considerations.
Note that you'll have to be much more careful about how you size your
database files with the images inside the DB. I'd (sometimes, it
depends) recommend putting the tables storing the images in a different
filegroup...
Also note that in SQL Server 2005, you should use VARBINARY(MAX) instead
of IMAGE. IMAGE and TEXT datatypes are deprecated as of the new version.
-Dave
Ian wrote:
> Hi,
> We recently bought MS SQL Server 2005 (Standard Ed, 32bit) and MS Server
> 2003 (Standard Ed, 32bit) for our company.
> I would like to know the breaking point of the following so we can foresee
> any problems and perhaps be able to avoid them.
> There will be a huge amount of pictures to be stored in our server. Where
> will pics be stored? as BLOBS in SQL or as files?
> I am new to this and appreciate any info. We have been ripped off by an IT
> consultant before so am trying to learn as well.
> Thanks,
> Ian
> Philippines
>
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
Friday, February 10, 2012
boot.ini /3GB problem
Hello,
I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB swich
with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
nothing is working :(
regards
Pawel MylkaHi
Task manager is not the correct tool to evaluate if memory over 2 GB is
being used as it is not capable of it.
Use Windows Performance Monitor (%SystemRoot%\system32\perfmon.msc /s) to
see how much "Target Server Memory" is. It should be close to 2700 when SQL
Server is configured correctly.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working :(
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Hi,
As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working :(
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Don't enable AWE unless you intend to go beyond 3GB.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoI%23Nzt4FHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
> well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
> once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
> news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Hello,
>> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
>> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
>> swich
>> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
>> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
>> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
>> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
>> nothing is working :(
>> regards
>> Pawel Mylka
>>
>
I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB swich
with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
nothing is working :(
regards
Pawel MylkaHi
Task manager is not the correct tool to evaluate if memory over 2 GB is
being used as it is not capable of it.
Use Windows Performance Monitor (%SystemRoot%\system32\perfmon.msc /s) to
see how much "Target Server Memory" is. It should be close to 2700 when SQL
Server is configured correctly.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working :(
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Hi,
As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working :(
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Don't enable AWE unless you intend to go beyond 3GB.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoI%23Nzt4FHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
> well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
> once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
> news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Hello,
>> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
>> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
>> swich
>> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
>> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
>> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
>> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
>> nothing is working :(
>> regards
>> Pawel Mylka
>>
>
boot.ini /3GB problem
Hello,
I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB swich
with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
Does anyone hnow what can be wrong ?
I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
nothing is working
regards
Pawel Mylka
Hi
Task manager is not the correct tool to evaluate if memory over 2 GB is
being used as it is not capable of it.
Use Windows Performance Monitor (%SystemRoot%\system32\perfmon.msc /s) to
see how much "Target Server Memory" is. It should be close to 2700 when SQL
Server is configured correctly.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong ?
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>
|||Hi,
As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong ?
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>
|||Don't enable AWE unless you intend to go beyond 3GB.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoI%23Nzt4FHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
> well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
> once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
> news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB swich
with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
Does anyone hnow what can be wrong ?
I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
nothing is working
regards
Pawel Mylka
Hi
Task manager is not the correct tool to evaluate if memory over 2 GB is
being used as it is not capable of it.
Use Windows Performance Monitor (%SystemRoot%\system32\perfmon.msc /s) to
see how much "Target Server Memory" is. It should be close to 2700 when SQL
Server is configured correctly.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong ?
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>
|||Hi,
As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong ?
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>
|||Don't enable AWE unless you intend to go beyond 3GB.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoI%23Nzt4FHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
> well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
> once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
> news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
boot.ini /3GB problem
Hello,
I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB swich
with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
nothing is working
regards
Pawel MylkaHi
Task manager is not the correct tool to evaluate if memory over 2 GB is
being used as it is not capable of it.
Use Windows Performance Monitor (%SystemRoot%\system32\perfmon.msc /s) to
see how much "Target Server Memory" is. It should be close to 2700 when SQL
Server is configured correctly.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Hi,
As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Don't enable AWE unless you intend to go beyond 3GB.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoI%23Nzt4FHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
> well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
> once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
> news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB swich
with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
nothing is working
regards
Pawel MylkaHi
Task manager is not the correct tool to evaluate if memory over 2 GB is
being used as it is not capable of it.
Use Windows Performance Monitor (%SystemRoot%\system32\perfmon.msc /s) to
see how much "Target Server Memory" is. It should be close to 2700 when SQL
Server is configured correctly.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Hi,
As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Don't enable AWE unless you intend to go beyond 3GB.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoI%23Nzt4FHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
> well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
> once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
> news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)