Database size > 250 Gig

We all know and hear that Sql 2000 is an enterprise
database now. However, stories ( rumors if you may ) still
make the rounds that people with any database in excess of
50G gives lots of problems. I've been asked to recommend a
database server in my organization for a database that
will start at 300G and is expected to reach 500G. I would
like for it to be MS Sql Server. However, I would really
like to know how many people on this board actually use
database's that large and whether Sql Server is really the
platform of choice for those VLDB's. We all love Sql
Server but Lets be honest here.I have working databases with over 1TB of data. I also have databases with
300GB throughput per month. A properly designed and maintained system can
handle that kind of data load with SQL Server. It won't run 'out of the
box' with little or no planning and maintenance, but it can handle it with a
competent DBA running the show.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"Jack A" <jacka8@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:019101c3c323$88ba2c80$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> We all know and hear that Sql 2000 is an enterprise
> database now. However, stories ( rumors if you may ) still
> make the rounds that people with any database in excess of
> 50G gives lots of problems. I've been asked to recommend a
> database server in my organization for a database that
> will start at 300G and is expected to reach 500G. I would
> like for it to be MS Sql Server. However, I would really
> like to know how many people on this board actually use
> database's that large and whether Sql Server is really the
> platform of choice for those VLDB's. We all love Sql
> Server but Lets be honest here.|||> We all know and hear that Sql 2000 is an enterprise
> database now. However, stories ( rumors if you may ) still
> make the rounds that people with any database in excess of
> 50G gives lots of problems.
I think it may be the case that "large" databases require a little more
knowledge to manage in general, rather than specifically with SQL Server.
We are running SQL Server 2000 on both Windows Server 2000 and Windows
Server 2003, and we have multiple databases in the 600 GB -> 1.5 TB range.
SQL Server itself has not given any extra hassles that we wouldn't expect to
see with any RDBMS (e.g. issues not relating specifically to database
technology, such as data transfer keeping up over a dodgy network
connection).
> We all love Sql Server but Lets be honest here.
SQL Server is more than capable of handling VLDB. Space management can be
an issue, as well as network connectivity to a SAN, and the length of time
required to perform reliable backups. But this would be no different if I
were using Oracle, DB2, etc. Do you have a "perfect" RDBMS in mind, that
isn't vulnerable to any of the issues associated with large data stores?
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/|||> were using Oracle, DB2, etc. Do you have a "perfect" RDBMS in mind, that
> isn't vulnerable to any of the issues associated with large data stores?
Heh, and as Geoff pointed out, that wouldn't require a DBA on staff to plan
and manage...
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/|||In general, SQL Server doesn't have any issue with
managing >200GB databases.
In addition to others' comments, there are some specific
DBMS issues you may want to know. In particular, if your
database is used very heavily 24x7 with very large tables,
you may run into the nasty problem of not being able to re-
org your indexes online. You could try DBCC INDEXDEFRAG
for some relief. It may or may not be an effective
solution for a particular situation.
Again, this may not be a concern for you.
Linchi
>--Original Message--
>We all know and hear that Sql 2000 is an enterprise
>database now. However, stories ( rumors if you may )
still
>make the rounds that people with any database in excess
of
>50G gives lots of problems. I've been asked to recommend
a
>database server in my organization for a database that
>will start at 300G and is expected to reach 500G. I would
>like for it to be MS Sql Server. However, I would really
>like to know how many people on this board actually use
>database's that large and whether Sql Server is really
the
>platform of choice for those VLDB's. We all love Sql
>Server but Lets be honest here.
>.
>|||Thanks a ton. Will keep you guys posted of how things go.
>--Original Message--
>> were using Oracle, DB2, etc. Do you have a "perfect"
RDBMS in mind, that
>> isn't vulnerable to any of the issues associated with
large data stores?
>Heh, and as Geoff pointed out, that wouldn't require a
DBA on staff to plan
>and manage...
>--
>Aaron Bertrand
>SQL Server MVP
>http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
>.
>