Files and Filegroups

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/physdbstor.mspx
I've been reading the above whitepaper which i'm finding really useful, and
have a question about the recommended number of files in a filegroup...
It recommends that as a rule of thumb the number of files in a filegroup
should equal the number of cpu cores - does this still apply to partitioned
tables?
We have a partitioned table with 50 filegroups, sitting on a server with 2
dual core processors.. ..does this mean for the partitioned table it's
recommended we have 4 files in each of the 50 associated filegroups (and
effectively have 200 files)?
Thanks in advance
BenUK
If these filegroups are dedicated to the partitioned table, I'd probably not
bother with having that many files--i.e. forget about equating the number of
data files with the number of processors. Managing a large number of files
can be a headache in itself.
Linchi
"Ben UK" wrote:

> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/physdbstor.mspx
> I've been reading the above whitepaper which i'm finding really useful, and
> have a question about the recommended number of files in a filegroup...
> It recommends that as a rule of thumb the number of files in a filegroup
> should equal the number of cpu cores - does this still apply to partitioned
> tables?
> We have a partitioned table with 50 filegroups, sitting on a server with 2
> dual core processors.. ..does this mean for the partitioned table it's
> recommended we have 4 files in each of the 50 associated filegroups (and
> effectively have 200 files)?
> Thanks in advance
> BenUK
|||Cool thats what I figured [/hoped :0)]
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> If these filegroups are dedicated to the partitioned table, I'd probably not
> bother with having that many files--i.e. forget about equating the number of
> data files with the number of processors. Managing a large number of files
> can be a headache in itself.
> Linchi
> "Ben UK" wrote:
sql

Files and Filegroups

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/physdbstor.mspx
I've been reading the above whitepaper which i'm finding really useful, and
have a question about the recommended number of files in a filegroup...
It recommends that as a rule of thumb the number of files in a filegroup
should equal the number of cpu cores - does this still apply to partitioned
tables?
We have a partitioned table with 50 filegroups, sitting on a server with 2
dual core processors.. ..does this mean for the partitioned table it's
recommended we have 4 files in each of the 50 associated filegroups (and
effectively have 200 files)?
Thanks in advance
BenUKIf these filegroups are dedicated to the partitioned table, I'd probably not
bother with having that many files--i.e. forget about equating the number of
data files with the number of processors. Managing a large number of files
can be a headache in itself.
Linchi
"Ben UK" wrote:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/physdbstor.mspx
> I've been reading the above whitepaper which i'm finding really useful, and
> have a question about the recommended number of files in a filegroup...
> It recommends that as a rule of thumb the number of files in a filegroup
> should equal the number of cpu cores - does this still apply to partitioned
> tables?
> We have a partitioned table with 50 filegroups, sitting on a server with 2
> dual core processors.. ..does this mean for the partitioned table it's
> recommended we have 4 files in each of the 50 associated filegroups (and
> effectively have 200 files)?
> Thanks in advance
> BenUK|||Cool thats what I figured [/hoped :0)]
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
> If these filegroups are dedicated to the partitioned table, I'd probably not
> bother with having that many files--i.e. forget about equating the number of
> data files with the number of processors. Managing a large number of files
> can be a headache in itself.
> Linchi
> "Ben UK" wrote:
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/physdbstor.mspx
> >
> > I've been reading the above whitepaper which i'm finding really useful, and
> > have a question about the recommended number of files in a filegroup...
> >
> > It recommends that as a rule of thumb the number of files in a filegroup
> > should equal the number of cpu cores - does this still apply to partitioned
> > tables?
> >
> > We have a partitioned table with 50 filegroups, sitting on a server with 2
> > dual core processors.. ..does this mean for the partitioned table it's
> > recommended we have 4 files in each of the 50 associated filegroups (and
> > effectively have 200 files)?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > BenUK

Files and Filegroups

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...physdbstor.mspx
I've been reading the above whitepaper which i'm finding really useful, and
have a question about the recommended number of files in a filegroup...
It recommends that as a rule of thumb the number of files in a filegroup
should equal the number of cpu cores - does this still apply to partitioned
tables?
We have a partitioned table with 50 filegroups, sitting on a server with 2
dual core processors.. ..does this mean for the partitioned table it's
recommended we have 4 files in each of the 50 associated filegroups (and
effectively have 200 files)?
Thanks in advance
BenUKIf these filegroups are dedicated to the partitioned table, I'd probably not
bother with having that many files--i.e. forget about equating the number of
data files with the number of processors. Managing a large number of files
can be a headache in itself.
Linchi
"Ben UK" wrote:

> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...physdbstor.mspx
> I've been reading the above whitepaper which i'm finding really useful, an
d
> have a question about the recommended number of files in a filegroup...
> It recommends that as a rule of thumb the number of files in a filegroup
> should equal the number of cpu cores - does this still apply to partitione
d
> tables?
> We have a partitioned table with 50 filegroups, sitting on a server with 2
> dual core processors.. ..does this mean for the partitioned table it's
> recommended we have 4 files in each of the 50 associated filegroups (and
> effectively have 200 files)?
> Thanks in advance
> BenUK|||Cool thats what I figured [/hoped :0)]
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> If these filegroups are dedicated to the partitioned table, I'd probably n
ot
> bother with having that many files--i.e. forget about equating the number
of
> data files with the number of processors. Managing a large number of files
> can be a headache in itself.
> Linchi
> "Ben UK" wrote:
>

File or assembly name Interop.DTS, or one of its dependencies, was not found.

I am trying to execute a DTS via COM according to the KB article
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=321525
but I am getting the exception "File or assembly name Interop.DTS, or one of
its dependencies, was not found." which is obviously a file not found
exception. I have sql server 2000 installed locally and I can run the
package from enterprise manager. Anyone got any ideas why I am getting when
I have the correct reference in the c# .net project?
--
Cheers
Ollie Riches
http://www.phoneanalyser.net
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a programmer
helping programmers.Is the Interop.DTS.dll in your application bin folder? This should get
generated when you build your project.
You might also check out the examples at
http://sqldev.net/dts/ExecutePackage.htm
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Ollie Riches" <ollie.riches@.phoneanalser.net> wrote in message
news:OLP4UckJFHA.588@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I am trying to execute a DTS via COM according to the KB article
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=321525
> but I am getting the exception "File or assembly name Interop.DTS, or one
> of
> its dependencies, was not found." which is obviously a file not found
> exception. I have sql server 2000 installed locally and I can run the
> package from enterprise manager. Anyone got any ideas why I am getting
> when
> I have the correct reference in the c# .net project?
> --
> Cheers
> Ollie Riches
> http://www.phoneanalyser.net
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
> representative of my employer.
> I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a programmer
> helping programmers.
>|||yeap it was noob error, no dll in the bin directory :)
Ollie
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:#$jJFpkJFHA.2136@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Is the Interop.DTS.dll in your application bin folder? This should get
> generated when you build your project.
> You might also check out the examples at
> http://sqldev.net/dts/ExecutePackage.htm
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Ollie Riches" <ollie.riches@.phoneanalser.net> wrote in message
> news:OLP4UckJFHA.588@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >I am trying to execute a DTS via COM according to the KB article
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=321525
> >
> > but I am getting the exception "File or assembly name Interop.DTS, or
one
> > of
> > its dependencies, was not found." which is obviously a file not found
> > exception. I have sql server 2000 installed locally and I can run the
> > package from enterprise manager. Anyone got any ideas why I am getting
> > when
> > I have the correct reference in the c# .net project?
> >
> > --
> > Cheers
> >
> > Ollie Riches
> > http://www.phoneanalyser.net
> >
> > Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
> > representative of my employer.
> > I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer
> > helping programmers.
> >
> >
>