Databases > 100 G

100GB is not considered very large these days. No worry!
Linchi

quote:

---

>--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
>.
>

---

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
>|||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
>

Databases > 100 G

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,
JackWhilst there is more effort required in the design,architecture and
administration of a 500Gb database as compared to a 500MB database, SQL
Server is more than capable of scaling to these database sizes. You might be
interested in having a look at
Rosetta Genomics 10-Terabyte Human Genome Database
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...000/rosetta.asp
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Scalability Project
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../wintercorp.asp
RDBMS Performance Tuning Guide for Data Warehousing
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...part5/c2061.asp
SQL Server Megaservers: Scalability, Availability, Manageability
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...plan/SSMSAM.asp
(you might also get more responses by posting this in .server or
.datawarehouse)
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Jack A" <jacka8@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:0b3101c3c3f5$45e86d90$a501280a@.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> 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

---