Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.databases.ms-sqlserver > #1682 > unrolled thread

How to specify SQL Server disk space, and support the recommendation?

Back to article view | Back to comp.databases.ms-sqlserver

Contents

  How to specify SQL Server disk space, and support the recommendation? rja.carnegie@gmail.com - 2014-02-12 08:14 -0800
    Re: How to specify SQL Server disk space, and support the recommendation? bradbury9 <ray.bradbury9@gmail.com> - 2014-02-12 08:49 -0800
      Re: How to specify SQL Server disk space, and support the recommendation? rja.carnegie@gmail.com - 2014-02-16 12:49 -0800

#1682 — How to specify SQL Server disk space, and support the recommendation?

We're planning migration of an enterprise reporting system 
to SQL Server 2012, and my boss needs an argument to support 
installing a certain amount of disc space for ongoing 
operations.  Can someone point me to a credible argument 
for a reasonable minimum allowance of free disk space in 
addition to our actual databases?

I believe that this includes not having to shrink database 
files to let others grow, which we are doing now.

With 1 TB of nightly crushed data, indexes and t-logs, and 0.6 TB 
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 
US$200 but apparently it isn't that simple.  Although, obviously,
it ought to be.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1683

El miércoles, 12 de febrero de 2014 17:14:37 UTC+1, rja.ca...@gmail.com  escribió:
> We're planning migration of an enterprise reporting system 
> 
> to SQL Server 2012, and my boss needs an argument to support 
> 
> installing a certain amount of disc space for ongoing 
> 
> operations.  Can someone point me to a credible argument 
> 
> for a reasonable minimum allowance of free disk space in 
> 
> addition to our actual databases?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that this includes not having to shrink database 
> 
> files to let others grow, which we are doing now.
> 
> 
> 
> With 1 TB of nightly crushed data, indexes and t-logs, and 0.6 TB 
> 
> 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 
> 
> US$200 but apparently it isn't that simple.  Although, obviously,
> 
> it ought to be.

When things with backups and maintenance plans go *really* wrong some free space in a separate partition could save your asses.

Will not mention names, but in my previous job a bad and non-supervised manteninance plan made database transaction log grow in such a way that:
- Server had no free disk space.
- Transaction log got corrupted.
- Had no recent backup to restore from.
- Had no free space and could not attach any device to the server to get it.

Long history short:
- Spent 6 hours until recovered main production database. 3 enterprises from our group had to stop working until fixed.
- If we had some free space we could have backup the database and made it shrink (after setting it up right).

After that incident I would have cheched the backup policy and maintanance plans, but I just could give some advice and no actions were taken.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1687

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

This is true.  I did something quite similar by accident 
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 
with data.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.databases.ms-sqlserver

csiph-web