![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
We have a sharepoint environment and we create our sites in one SQL database (2005), there are many sites in one SQL DB. When the DB gets over 30GB in size we create a new DB and create new sites in that. My question is would it be better to split the sites out into multiple databases i.e. one database per site or is it better to stick with what we are doing today and group them? any issues with creating a potentially high number of SQL DBs each 2 - 5 GB in size? I guess additional resources will get used on the SQL servers by creating many databases but what is generally best practice as far as SQL is concerned. |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
AJ (andyjone... (AT) hotmail (DOT) co.uk) writes: We have a sharepoint environment and we create our sites in one SQL database (2005), there are many sites in one SQL DB. When the DB gets over 30GB in size we create a new DB and create new sites in that. My question is would it be better to split the sites out into multiple databases i.e. one database per site or is it better to stick with what we are doing today and group them? any issues with creating a potentially high number of SQL DBs each 2 - 5 GB in size? I guess additional resources will get used on the SQL servers by creating many databases but what is generally best practice as far as SQL is concerned. Best practice is to create as many databases the application requires. Here you apparently have an application, Sharepoint, which permits you to have several instances of the same application. This is good as it gives you some flexibility. Whether it is actually good to group many sites in the same database, I don't know. It means that if one database goes belly-up, you lose several sites. Then again, more databases means more admin with backups and so one. Yet, then again, if you have 60 sites, and you group them five by five, you still have 12 database which still require some organisation in the admin part, so the difference is not that big. As for SQL Server, each open database does consume some memory, so if you have several thousands of databases that are used infrequently, it may be worth to consisder the autoclose option, particularly if you have 32-bit SQL Server. I would ask you to ask the question in a forum devoted to Sharepoint, since knowledge about that application is required for a really good answer. -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq... (AT) sommarskog (DOT) se Links for SQL Server Books Online: SQL 2008:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/cc514207.aspx SQL 2005:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb895970.aspx SQL 2000:http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |