FileStream whitepaper needed

There are still a bunch of questions and recommendations needed about the new Filestream datatype. I guess it is transactionnally consistent (not like Oracle's BFile), but what are the impacts on the transactional log? What are the recommended ways to use it? etc.

If we envision db with a few terabytes (and more), are we out of our minds or is it really in reach? (without NASA technology and Military budget).

thanks.

PS: this is still not beyond relational. Only marketing people can label it as such. There is nothing in relational therory againsts Filestreams or XML. On the contrary, (MS)SQL is becoming more relational with these technologies. Applauds!!

Hi Lakusha,

Documentation for Filestream will be available in Books Online in the CTP release in which this feature is included.

Regards,

Gail

|||

What's the expected timeframe for the next CTP release (SQL Server 2008 and Books Online)?

|||

Hi Anders,

A release date for the next CTP has not been set yet.

FileStream whitepaper needed

There are still a bunch of questions and recommendations needed about the new Filestream datatype. I guess it is transactionnally consistent (not like Oracle's BFile), but what are the impacts on the transactional log? What are the recommended ways to use it? etc.

If we envision db with a few terabytes (and more), are we out of our minds or is it really in reach? (without NASA technology and Military budget).

thanks.

PS: this is still not beyond relational. Only marketing people can label it as such. There is nothing in relational therory againsts Filestreams or XML. On the contrary, (MS)SQL is becoming more relational with these technologies. Applauds!!

Hi Lakusha,

Documentation for Filestream will be available in Books Online in the CTP release in which this feature is included.

Regards,

Gail

|||

What's the expected timeframe for the next CTP release (SQL Server 2008 and Books Online)?

|||

Hi Anders,

A release date for the next CTP has not been set yet.

FileStream whitepaper needed

There are still a bunch of questions and recommendations needed about the new Filestream datatype. I guess it is transactionnally consistent (not like Oracle's BFile), but what are the impacts on the transactional log? What are the recommended ways to use it? etc.

If we envision db with a few terabytes (and more), are we out of our minds or is it really in reach? (without NASA technology and Military budget).

thanks.

PS: this is still not beyond relational. Only marketing people can label it as such. There is nothing in relational therory againsts Filestreams or XML. On the contrary, (MS)SQL is becoming more relational with these technologies. Applauds!!

Hi Lakusha,

Documentation for Filestream will be available in Books Online in the CTP release in which this feature is included.

Regards,

Gail

|||

What's the expected timeframe for the next CTP release (SQL Server 2008 and Books Online)?

|||

Hi Anders,

A release date for the next CTP has not been set yet.

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
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:
>