Linchi
quote:I agree with Linchi, 100GB isn't large these days.
>--Original Message--
>Hi Guys,
> We are planning on making a dataware house in our
>company. The size is approximately 200 to 400 G. We have
>to make a recommendation for a database server. I would
>love to say "Sql Server". But frankly I'm not very
>confident at this point. How many people on this board
>have databases larger than 100 G. Is it feasible to do
>this on Sql Server ? I dont want to say Sql Server and
>have to eat my words later. Any facts are welcome from
>live installations > 100 G.
>Thanks,
>Jack
>.
>
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Linchi Shea" <linchi_shea@.NOSPAMml.com> wrote in message
news:1520a01c3c40d$c3c2ac40$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...[QUOTE]
> 100GB is not considered very large these days. No worry!
> Linchi
>|||I built a 250 GB database on SQL 7.0 back in 1999 on a 4 CPU box and it ran
very well. Now, I have another database on SQL 2000 that's roughly the same
size on an 8 CPU box. The CPU's are barely doing anything and any problems
we've had have been due to the vendor-supplied software. A 100 GB database
these days is no sweat.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:#7WAW7ExDHA.2116@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
I agree with Linchi, 100GB isn't large these days.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Linchi Shea" <linchi_shea@.NOSPAMml.com> wrote in message
news:1520a01c3c40d$c3c2ac40$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...[QUOTE]
> 100GB is not considered very large these days. No worry!
> Linchi
>
