file growth problem in 2005

I just had a problem similar to the one in this post on the MSDN forum
(however no resolution to it was posted).
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sho...71057&SiteID=1
I have a database on a server hosting multiple other databases and only this
one had the issue. It's currently set to a limited growth of 200 mb with a 10
mb file growth. It was at 150 mb but needed to grow over the weekend to 160
mb. The client was experiencing Primary filegroup errors on the database.
When I checked the file growth, it had been changed to 1280 percent. Of
course there was not enough space to allow THAT much growth. ;-)
Please let me know if there is a known issue with SQL 2005 and this problem
and how to correct it.
Thanks!
Hi
You may want to log this at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/
I am not sure if it would be related to the following although the results
seem to be the same:
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produc...2-729b178a7fa0
John
"mp3nomad" wrote:

> I just had a problem similar to the one in this post on the MSDN forum
> (however no resolution to it was posted).
> http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sho...71057&SiteID=1
> I have a database on a server hosting multiple other databases and only this
> one had the issue. It's currently set to a limited growth of 200 mb with a 10
> mb file growth. It was at 150 mb but needed to grow over the weekend to 160
> mb. The client was experiencing Primary filegroup errors on the database.
> When I checked the file growth, it had been changed to 1280 percent. Of
> course there was not enough space to allow THAT much growth. ;-)
> Please let me know if there is a known issue with SQL 2005 and this problem
> and how to correct it.
> Thanks!
|||I think it looks like it may be the same or extremely similar problem.
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> You may want to log this at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/
> I am not sure if it would be related to the following although the results
> seem to be the same:
> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produc...2-729b178a7fa0
>
> John
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
|||Hi
I suggest that you log your own incident report and call PSS.
John
"mp3nomad" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I think it looks like it may be the same or extremely similar problem.
> "John Bell" wrote:

File growth problem in 2005

Have a database, one filegroup with one datafile and one log file.

However, restarted the box and saw that the growth settings for the datafile was changed from 100Mb increments to 25600%. The logfile is still the same at 200Mb as required. Both have unlimited growth.

Looking at sysfiles in the database, growth is 25600 for the log and data file. In Management Studio I cannot change the setting for the data file (log file still shows 200Mb growth increments), Studio tells me "Value 25600 is not valid for Value. Value should be between Minimum and Maximum.

Any thoughts? Cant really have a database sitting with this growth rate, and cannot change the value in sysfiles either (even with sp_configure etc).

Any ideas? Thanks

Have you tried clicking on the button next to the text that describes the growth. This provides the means to change the growth settings. The button has ellipse on it ...|||Seems to be a GUI problem. Try changing the autogrow value using ALTER DATABASE instead.

--

Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP

http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp

http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/

Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/

wrote in message

news:19115900-bfb9-4dff-8042-9b7462a44781@.discussions.microsoft.com...

> Have a database, one filegroup with one datafile and one log file.

>

> However, restarted the box and saw that the growth settings for the

> datafile was changed from 100Mb increments to 25600%. The logfile is

> still the same at 200Mb as required. Both have unlimited growth.

>

> Looking at sysfiles in the database, growth is 25600 for the log and

> data file. In Management Studio I cannot change the setting for the data

> file (log file still shows 200Mb growth increments), Studio tells me

> "Value 25600 is not valid for Value. Value should be between Minimum and

> Maximum.

>

> Any thoughts? Cant really have a database sitting with this growth rate,

> and cannot change the value in sysfiles either (even with sp_configure

> etc).

>

> Any ideas? Thanks

>

>|||

yeah, it's a GUI problem preventing me to change that value (I got that error from clicking the ... button to change it).

My other worry is what changed this, the system was set to grow in increments of 100Mb, settings omething to 25600% increase (when you cant even get to that value in the GUI) means something on the server changed ther settings.

|||This seems to be a bug on the SQL engine. I've had it happen twice now. First time I assumed I had done something wrong, reset the autogrow values to a number. This morning it has happened again and the server has no disk space left. 100% sql engine bug I think.|||

Further to this see http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=127177

a) it only seems to affect databases upgraded from SQL 2000

b) it only manifests after the SQL server has been restarted

c) It has not been fixed in SP1 so here's hoping for SP2.

The only workaround I have so far is to set Max size of the file to prevent the file from growing too large, or to turn off AutoGrow

File growth problem in 2005

Have a database, one filegroup with one datafile and one log file.

However, restarted the box and saw that the growth settings for the datafile was changed from 100Mb increments to 25600%. The logfile is still the same at 200Mb as required. Both have unlimited growth.

Looking at sysfiles in the database, growth is 25600 for the log and data file. In Management Studio I cannot change the setting for the data file (log file still shows 200Mb growth increments), Studio tells me "Value 25600 is not valid for Value. Value should be between Minimum and Maximum.

Any thoughts? Cant really have a database sitting with this growth rate, and cannot change the value in sysfiles either (even with sp_configure etc).

Any ideas? Thanks

Have you tried clicking on the button next to the text that describes the growth. This provides the means to change the growth settings. The button has ellipse on it ...|||Seems to be a GUI problem. Try changing the autogrow value using ALTER DATABASE instead. -- Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/ Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/ wrote in message news:19115900-bfb9-4dff-8042-9b7462a44781@.discussions.microsoft.com...
> Have a database, one filegroup with one datafile and one log file. >
> However, restarted the box and saw that the growth settings for the
> datafile was changed from 100Mb increments to 25600%. The logfile is
> still the same at 200Mb as required. Both have unlimited growth. >
> Looking at sysfiles in the database, growth is 25600 for the log and
> data file. In Management Studio I cannot change the setting for the data
> file (log file still shows 200Mb growth increments), Studio tells me
> "Value 25600 is not valid for Value. Value should be between Minimum and
> Maximum. >
> Any thoughts? Cant really have a database sitting with this growth rate,
> and cannot change the value in sysfiles either (even with sp_configure
> etc). >
> Any ideas? Thanks >
>|||

yeah, it's a GUI problem preventing me to change that value (I got that error from clicking the ... button to change it).

My other worry is what changed this, the system was set to grow in increments of 100Mb, settings omething to 25600% increase (when you cant even get to that value in the GUI) means something on the server changed ther settings.

|||This seems to be a bug on the SQL engine. I've had it happen twice now. First time I assumed I had done something wrong, reset the autogrow values to a number. This morning it has happened again and the server has no disk space left. 100% sql engine bug I think.|||

Further to this see http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=127177

a) it only seems to affect databases upgraded from SQL 2000

b) it only manifests after the SQL server has been restarted

c) It has not been fixed in SP1 so here's hoping for SP2.

The only workaround I have so far is to set Max size of the file to prevent the file from growing too large, or to turn off AutoGrow

file growth problem in 2005

I just had a problem similar to the one in this post on the MSDN forum
(however no resolution to it was posted).
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sh...271057&SiteID=1
I have a database on a server hosting multiple other databases and only this
one had the issue. It's currently set to a limited growth of 200 mb with a 1
0
mb file growth. It was at 150 mb but needed to grow over the weekend to 160
mb. The client was experiencing Primary filegroup errors on the database.
When I checked the file growth, it had been changed to 1280 percent. Of
course there was not enough space to allow THAT much growth. ;-)
Please let me know if there is a known issue with SQL 2005 and this problem
and how to correct it.
Thanks!Hi
You may want to log this at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/
I am not sure if it would be related to the following although the results
seem to be the same:
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...62-729b178a7fa0
John
"mp3nomad" wrote:

> I just had a problem similar to the one in this post on the MSDN forum
> (however no resolution to it was posted).
> http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/Sh...271057&SiteID=1
> I have a database on a server hosting multiple other databases and only th
is
> one had the issue. It's currently set to a limited growth of 200 mb with a
10
> mb file growth. It was at 150 mb but needed to grow over the weekend to 16
0
> mb. The client was experiencing Primary filegroup errors on the database.
> When I checked the file growth, it had been changed to 1280 percent. Of
> course there was not enough space to allow THAT much growth. ;-)
> Please let me know if there is a known issue with SQL 2005 and this proble
m
> and how to correct it.
> Thanks!|||I think it looks like it may be the same or extremely similar problem.
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> You may want to log this at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/
> I am not sure if it would be related to the following although the results
> seem to be the same:
> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...62-729b178a7fa0
>
> John
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
>|||Hi
I suggest that you log your own incident report and call PSS.
John
"mp3nomad" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I think it looks like it may be the same or extremely similar problem.
> "John Bell" wrote:
>

file growth problem in 2005

I just had a problem similar to the one in this post on the MSDN forum
(however no resolution to it was posted).
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=271057&SiteID=1
I have a database on a server hosting multiple other databases and only this
one had the issue. It's currently set to a limited growth of 200 mb with a 10
mb file growth. It was at 150 mb but needed to grow over the weekend to 160
mb. The client was experiencing Primary filegroup errors on the database.
When I checked the file growth, it had been changed to 1280 percent. Of
course there was not enough space to allow THAT much growth. ;-)
Please let me know if there is a known issue with SQL 2005 and this problem
and how to correct it.
Thanks!Hi
You may want to log this at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/
I am not sure if it would be related to the following although the results
seem to be the same
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/viewfeedback.aspx?feedbackid=4369ed03-a43f-4fb5-9962-729b178a7fa0
John
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> I just had a problem similar to the one in this post on the MSDN forum
> (however no resolution to it was posted).
> http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=271057&SiteID=1
> I have a database on a server hosting multiple other databases and only this
> one had the issue. It's currently set to a limited growth of 200 mb with a 10
> mb file growth. It was at 150 mb but needed to grow over the weekend to 160
> mb. The client was experiencing Primary filegroup errors on the database.
> When I checked the file growth, it had been changed to 1280 percent. Of
> course there was not enough space to allow THAT much growth. ;-)
> Please let me know if there is a known issue with SQL 2005 and this problem
> and how to correct it.
> Thanks!|||I think it looks like it may be the same or extremely similar problem.
"John Bell" wrote:
> Hi
> You may want to log this at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/
> I am not sure if it would be related to the following although the results
> seem to be the same:
> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/viewfeedback.aspx?feedbackid=4369ed03-a43f-4fb5-9962-729b178a7fa0
>
> John
> "mp3nomad" wrote:
> > I just had a problem similar to the one in this post on the MSDN forum
> > (however no resolution to it was posted).
> >
> > http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=271057&SiteID=1
> >
> > I have a database on a server hosting multiple other databases and only this
> > one had the issue. It's currently set to a limited growth of 200 mb with a 10
> > mb file growth. It was at 150 mb but needed to grow over the weekend to 160
> > mb. The client was experiencing Primary filegroup errors on the database.
> > When I checked the file growth, it had been changed to 1280 percent. Of
> > course there was not enough space to allow THAT much growth. ;-)
> >
> > Please let me know if there is a known issue with SQL 2005 and this problem
> > and how to correct it.
> >
> > Thanks!|||Hi
I suggest that you log your own incident report and call PSS.
John
"mp3nomad" wrote:
> I think it looks like it may be the same or extremely similar problem.
> "John Bell" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > You may want to log this at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/
> >
> > I am not sure if it would be related to the following although the results
> > seem to be the same:
> > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/viewfeedback.aspx?feedbackid=4369ed03-a43f-4fb5-9962-729b178a7fa0
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> > "mp3nomad" wrote:
> >
> > > I just had a problem similar to the one in this post on the MSDN forum
> > > (however no resolution to it was posted).
> > >
> > > http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=271057&SiteID=1
> > >
> > > I have a database on a server hosting multiple other databases and only this
> > > one had the issue. It's currently set to a limited growth of 200 mb with a 10
> > > mb file growth. It was at 150 mb but needed to grow over the weekend to 160
> > > mb. The client was experiencing Primary filegroup errors on the database.
> > > When I checked the file growth, it had been changed to 1280 percent. Of
> > > course there was not enough space to allow THAT much growth. ;-)
> > >
> > > Please let me know if there is a known issue with SQL 2005 and this problem
> > > and how to correct it.
> > >
> > > Thanks!

File group space error

Hi,

Received the following error during index creation of the tables. The
data & log files are set to 'unrestricted growth' and enough space
available on the disk. Any reasons?

___________
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server (80040e14): Could not allocate
new page for database 'Ultimareports'. There are no more pages available
in filegroup PRIMARY. Space can be created by dropping objects, adding
additional files, or allowing file growth
___________

Thanks
John Jayaseelan

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!John Jayaseelan <john.jayaseelan@.caravan-club.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3fc34206$0$195$75868355@.news.frii.net>...
> Hi,
> Received the following error during index creation of the tables. The
> data & log files are set to 'unrestricted growth' and enough space
> available on the disk. Any reasons?
> ___________
> Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server (80040e14): Could not allocate
> new page for database 'Ultimareports'. There are no more pages available
> in filegroup PRIMARY. Space can be created by dropping objects, adding
> additional files, or allowing file growth
> ___________
> Thanks
> John Jayaseelan
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

It's not clear what the issue is without some more information. Do
sp_helpfile and sp_helpfilegroup return what you expect to see? How
big is the database, what is the autogrow increment set to, and what
is the filesystem? Are there any possible external factors, like disk
quotas?

Simon

file group creation .

We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegroups in
longer terms ?
How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
Thanks in advance .
Swati.
************************************************** ********************
Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...
Hi
Only put filegroups in place if you have multiple volumes, running against
different disks on your server, preferably on different controllers. 3Gb is
not big and growth is not high enough to justify it.
On Table and Index creation, you can specify where to put the object with
the "ON" option for those commands. See BOL.
Cheers
Mike
"swati zingade" wrote:

> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegroups
in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
>
> Thanks in advance .
> Swati.
>
> ************************************************** ********************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...
>
|||> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like
to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of
filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact
of creation of these filegroups in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
Here are some tips: http://www.sql-server-performance.com/filegroups.asp.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
|||Hi
Unless you have a separate disc sub-system to locate the additional
filegroup, there will probably be little performance benefit to gain by
having the extra one. Even then, it will depend on how the tables/indexes are
used as to whether multiple data files for a single filegroup or two separate
files groups will produce the most benefit.
You may want to check out the "SQL Server 2000 Performance Tuning Technical
Reference" ISBN 0-7356-1270-6
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/
John
"swati zingade" wrote:

> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegroups
in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
>
> Thanks in advance .
> Swati.
>
> ************************************************** ********************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...
>
|||Swati,
I have done extensive testing on this and have found that performance
can be DEGRADED by having multiple data files IF the data files reside
on the same volume.
You can get some performance benefit if the filegroups are placed on
separate physical disks preferably through separate disk or RAID
controllers. You will need to carefully decide what data you will be
putting in the filegroups to reap this performance gain.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
swati.zingade@.ugamsolutions.com wrote:
> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegroups
in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
>
> Thanks in advance .
> Swati.
>
> ************************************************** ********************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...

file group creation .

We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegroups in longer terms ?
How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
Thanks in advance .
Swati.
**********************************************************************
Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...Hi
Only put filegroups in place if you have multiple volumes, running against
different disks on your server, preferably on different controllers. 3Gb is
not big and growth is not high enough to justify it.
On Table and Index creation, you can specify where to put the object with
the "ON" option for those commands. See BOL.
Cheers
Mike
"swati zingade" wrote:
> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegroups in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
>
> Thanks in advance .
> Swati.
>
> **********************************************************************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...
>|||> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like
to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of
filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact
of creation of these filegroups in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
Here are some tips: http://www.sql-server-performance.com/filegroups.asp.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||Hi
Unless you have a separate disc sub-system to locate the additional
filegroup, there will probably be little performance benefit to gain by
having the extra one. Even then, it will depend on how the tables/indexes are
used as to whether multiple data files for a single filegroup or two separate
files groups will produce the most benefit.
You may want to check out the "SQL Server 2000 Performance Tuning Technical
Reference" ISBN 0-7356-1270-6
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/
John
"swati zingade" wrote:
> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegroups in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
>
> Thanks in advance .
> Swati.
>
> **********************************************************************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...
>|||Swati,
I have done extensive testing on this and have found that performance
can be DEGRADED by having multiple data files IF the data files reside
on the same volume.
You can get some performance benefit if the filegroups are placed on
separate physical disks preferably through separate disk or RAID
controllers. You will need to carefully decide what data you will be
putting in the filegroups to reap this performance gain.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
swati.zingade@.ugamsolutions.com wrote:
> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegroups in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
>
> Thanks in advance .
> Swati.
>
> **********************************************************************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...

file group creation .

We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like t
o know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegrou
ps will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of crea
tion of these filegroups in
longer terms ?
How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
Thanks in advance .
Swati.
****************************************
******************************
Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET
resources...Hi
Only put filegroups in place if you have multiple volumes, running against
different disks on your server, preferably on different controllers. 3Gb is
not big and growth is not high enough to justify it.
On Table and Index creation, you can specify where to put the object with
the "ON" option for those commands. See BOL.
Cheers
Mike
"swati zingade" wrote:

> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know
whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increa
se the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegrou
ps
in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
>
> Thanks in advance .
> Swati.
>
> ****************************************
******************************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NE
T resources...
>|||> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like
to know whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of
filegroups will increase the performance of SQL server . What is the impact
of creation of these filegroups in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
Here are some tips: http://www.sql-server-performance.com/filegroups.asp.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||Hi
Unless you have a separate disc sub-system to locate the additional
filegroup, there will probably be little performance benefit to gain by
having the extra one. Even then, it will depend on how the tables/indexes ar
e
used as to whether multiple data files for a single filegroup or two separat
e
files groups will produce the most benefit.
You may want to check out the "SQL Server 2000 Performance Tuning Technical
Reference" ISBN 0-7356-1270-6
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/
John
"swati zingade" wrote:

> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know
whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increa
se the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegrou
ps
in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
>
> Thanks in advance .
> Swati.
>
> ****************************************
******************************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NE
T resources...
>|||Swati,
I have done extensive testing on this and have found that performance
can be DEGRADED by having multiple data files IF the data files reside
on the same volume.
You can get some performance benefit if the filegroups are placed on
separate physical disks preferably through separate disk or RAID
controllers. You will need to carefully decide what data you will be
putting in the filegroups to reap this performance gain.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
swati.zingade@.ugamsolutions.com wrote:
> We have database of 3 GB . Database growth is 2% every week . I would like to know
whether I should use secondory filegroups . Will creation of filegroups will increa
se the performance of SQL server . What is the impact of creation of these filegrou
ps
in longer terms ?
> How should I map important tables and their indexes to one filegroup .
>
> Thanks in advance .
> Swati.
>
> ****************************************
******************************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resour
ces...