Database or Server?

I am creating a site where users can create blogs and upload photos etc...I
just realized that my hosting account with GoDaddy has a 100 MB limit on the
SQL Server database...due to that I decided to store all photos on the serve
r
and just store the file path in the database...is that a good idea?
Also, what should I do with my blog entries? Should I store them as Text in
the database or should I create them as files on the server similar to the
photos?
Does anybody know if there are any hosting plans with a higher database
limit (for .NET 2.0 and SQL Server 2000/2005)? Or do I need to get a
dedicated server for that?>I am creating a site where users can create blogs and upload photos etc...I
> just realized that my hosting account with GoDaddy has a 100 MB limit on
> the
> SQL Server database...due to that I decided to store all photos on the
> server
> and just store the file path in the database...is that a good idea?
YES! Disk space for files is cheaper and much more efficient, with the only
real cost being losing the ability to backup all the files in the same
"transaction" so to speak as backing up the data.

> Also, what should I do with my blog entries? Should I store them as Text
> in
> the database or should I create them as files on the server similar to the
> photos?
Well, for 100 MB, let's say the average blog entry is 5K, that's 200
entries. So, do you expect to have 100 users with one blog entry each per
day? If so, you're out of space after 2 days. And that's without taking
away from the space required by the entries for photos, comments, member
information etc.

> Does anybody know if there are any hosting plans with a higher database
> limit (for .NET 2.0 and SQL Server 2000/2005)? Or do I need to get a
> dedicated server for that?
If you're sharing a SQL Server database server with other clients, there is
always going to be a threshold. It sounds like you need a more
comprehensive solution.|||Hi Swami,
I'd go with photos on the server and blog entries in the database. I don't
know about hosting plans.
"Swami" wrote:

> I am creating a site where users can create blogs and upload photos etc...
I
> just realized that my hosting account with GoDaddy has a 100 MB limit on t
he
> SQL Server database...due to that I decided to store all photos on the ser
ver
> and just store the file path in the database...is that a good idea?
> Also, what should I do with my blog entries? Should I store them as Text
in
> the database or should I create them as files on the server similar to the
> photos?
> Does anybody know if there are any hosting plans with a higher database
> limit (for .NET 2.0 and SQL Server 2000/2005)? Or do I need to get a
> dedicated server for that?
>|||> Well, for 100 MB, let's say the average blog entry is 5K, that's 200
> entries.
Is this right?
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

> YES! Disk space for files is cheaper and much more efficient, with the on
ly
> real cost being losing the ability to backup all the files in the same
> "transaction" so to speak as backing up the data.
>
> Well, for 100 MB, let's say the average blog entry is 5K, that's 200
> entries. So, do you expect to have 100 users with one blog entry each per
> day? If so, you're out of space after 2 days. And that's without taking
> away from the space required by the entries for photos, comments, member
> information etc.
>
> If you're sharing a SQL Server database server with other clients, there i
s
> always going to be a threshold. It sounds like you need a more
> comprehensive solution.
>
>|||Thanks! What types of comprehensive solutions are available? I am pretty
new to the hosting world, and I am not sure what my options are...
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

> YES! Disk space for files is cheaper and much more efficient, with the on
ly
> real cost being losing the ability to backup all the files in the same
> "transaction" so to speak as backing up the data.
>
> Well, for 100 MB, let's say the average blog entry is 5K, that's 200
> entries. So, do you expect to have 100 users with one blog entry each per
> day? If so, you're out of space after 2 days. And that's without taking
> away from the space required by the entries for photos, comments, member
> information etc.
>
> If you're sharing a SQL Server database server with other clients, there i
s
> always going to be a threshold. It sounds like you need a more
> comprehensive solution.
>
>|||>> Well, for 100 MB, let's say the average blog entry is 5K, that's 200
> Is this right?
You're right, my decimal places were off, I did 1 MB instead of 10 MB. My
point remains intact (you get a longer lead time to find a bigger area for
your data).|||On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:53:01 -0700, Ryan Randall
<RyanRandall@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Is this right?
No, but what are a few decimal places among friends? Just shift it
over two places, 20000 entries by that rough calculation.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT|||200 * 5K = 1000K = 1MB
so you would have space for 200,000 blog entries of 5K each.
On a completely unrelated note:
In 1870 Dr. E. von Wolf published a study on spinach and misplaced the
decimal point regarding the iron content. As a result he reported that the
content was 10 times higher than it actually is. Thw mistake was not found
and corrected until 1937.
"Ryan Randall" <RyanRandall@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8768F602-CEEB-444E-84B8-003696D88874@.microsoft.com...
> Is this right?
>
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>
etc...I
on
only
Text
the
per
taking
database
is|||And there I go, misplacing my own decimal point. How ironic is that?
Should be 20,000, not 200,000.
"Jim Underwood" <james.underwoodATfallonclinic.com> wrote in message
news:%23pvbTqIaGHA.3736@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 200 * 5K = 1000K = 1MB
> so you would have space for 200,000 blog entries of 5K each.
> On a completely unrelated note:
> In 1870 Dr. E. von Wolf published a study on spinach and misplaced the
> decimal point regarding the iron content. As a result he reported that
the
> content was 10 times higher than it actually is. Thw mistake was not
found
> and corrected until 1937.
> "Ryan Randall" <RyanRandall@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8768F602-CEEB-444E-84B8-003696D88874@.microsoft.com...
> etc...I
limit
> on
the
the
> only
> Text
to
> the
> per
> taking
member
> database
there
> is
>|||Yes. And surely you can see that either number is not all that scalable; if
the OP is building a blog site that has any chance of being even remotely
successful, they will quickly be sing more space.

> And there I go, misplacing my own decimal point. How ironic is that?
> Should be 20,000, not 200,000.