X-Received: by 10.52.179.138 with SMTP id dg10mr7537759vdc.2.1392583765776; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:49:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.140.47.170 with SMTP id m39mr9855qga.19.1392583765756; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:49:25 -0800 (PST)
Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!f11no21759440qae.1!news-out.google.com!dr7ni182qab.1!nntp.google.com!f11no21759439qae.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.databases.ms-sqlserver
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:49:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <60e900e9-f109-493c-9eeb-cb6224b85a85@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=188.30.14.112; posting-account=dELd-gkAAABehNzDMBP4sfQElk2tFztP
NNTP-Posting-Host: 188.30.14.112
References: <081b52db-fd1a-4e6c-b07a-7c29a6ff0472@googlegroups.com> <60e900e9-f109-493c-9eeb-cb6224b85a85@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <fc80006a-ebea-4757-8c96-87db0f725b4e@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: How to specify SQL Server disk space, and support the recommendation?
From: rja.carnegie@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:49:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2975
X-Received-Body-CRC: 722696557
Xref: csiph.com comp.databases.ms-sqlserver:1687

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 16:49:12 UTC, bradbury9  wrote:
> El mi=E9rcoles, 12 de febrero de 2014 17:14:37 UTC+1, rja.ca...@gmail.com=
  escribi=F3:
> > We're planning migration of an enterprise reporting system=20
> > to SQL Server 2012, and my boss needs an argument to support=20
> > installing a certain amount of disc space for ongoing=20
> > operations.  Can someone point me to a credible argument=20
> > for a reasonable minimum allowance of free disk space in=20
> > addition to our actual databases?
> >=20
> > I believe that this includes not having to shrink database=20
> > files to let others grow, which we are doing now.
> >=20
> > With 1 TB of nightly crushed data, indexes and t-logs, and 0.6 TB=20
> > free, I think that we should shop for around 4 TB total space,
> > and, /yes/ we /could/ buy that size of hard disk for under=20
> > US$200 but apparently it isn't that simple.  Although, obviously,
> > it ought to be.
>=20
> When things with backups and maintenance plans go *really*=20
> wrong some free space in a separate partition could save=20
> your asses.  [war story follows]

This is true.  I did something quite similar by accident=20
to our demonstration server, on Friday.

But what I'm looking for is guidance on numbers for partition
sizes, such as a formula.

I think it will depend significantly on what you're doing=20
with data.

What we're doing is picking up most of the current year data=20
from regional servers, overnight and weekly, and loading it
into databases organised for report generation.  So there's=20
a lot of data getting moved around and processed and indexed
on the reporting server, every night.  That's the workload.