to how many databases you can have on a SQL 2000
Enterprise Edition?
Our orginization has a Clustered SQL server and I have
always just put all of our databases on it. I am having
no problems with performance but was chastised for having
so many on it any way. I have 83 databases.
Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of
max amount of db.
Thanks
jjThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0190_01C35B57.E055FD40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You're allowed 32,727 database per instance of SQL Server.
-- Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"John Jarrett" <jarrej@.yahoo.com> wrote in message =news:013c01c35b78$7a919430$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
This may sound like a silly question, but is their a limit to how many databases you can have on a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition?
Our orginization has a Clustered SQL server and I have always just put all of our databases on it. I am having no problems with performance but was chastised for having so many on it any way. I have 83 databases.
Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of max amount of db.
Thanks
jj
--=_NextPart_000_0190_01C35B57.E055FD40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
You're allowed 32,727 database per =instance of SQL Server.
-- Tom
---T=homas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBASQL Server MVPColumnist, SQL =Server ProfessionalToronto, ON Canadahttp://www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql">www.pinnaclepublishing.com=/sql
"John Jarrett"
--=_NextPart_000_0190_01C35B57.E055FD40--|||> This may sound like a silly question, but is their a limit
> to how many databases you can have on a SQL 2000
> Enterprise Edition?
Yes. The limit is 32767 per server instance.
> Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of
> max amount of db.
The above is the limit stated in BOL. Other factors (such as size, number of
users / transactions) will be far more significant constraints on
performance than the number of DBs. Possibly you might want to limit the
number of DBs per server for administrative reasons or in the interests of
availability and resilience but I'm looking at 4 servers which have a total
of 188 DBs between them, so 83 doesn't seem excessive by that benchmark.
--
David Portas
--
Please reply only to the newsgroup
--|||I have a client who is currently running 700 databases on 1 server. And
while the system seems to be functioning, they are seeing latency in data
showing up. Meaning that a record that is added or updated to the database
doesent seem to show up for hours.
These databases average about 150MB each. Is there any configuration option
that would help this, or is this something that they just need to throw more
hardware at?
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:eVHkQu3WDHA.3248@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > This may sound like a silly question, but is their a limit
> > to how many databases you can have on a SQL 2000
> > Enterprise Edition?
> Yes. The limit is 32767 per server instance.
> > Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of
> > max amount of db.
> The above is the limit stated in BOL. Other factors (such as size, number
of
> users / transactions) will be far more significant constraints on
> performance than the number of DBs. Possibly you might want to limit the
> number of DBs per server for administrative reasons or in the interests of
> availability and resilience but I'm looking at 4 servers which have a
total
> of 188 DBs between them, so 83 doesn't seem excessive by that benchmark.
> --
> David Portas
> --
> Please reply only to the newsgroup
> --
>
>|||You should run performance monitor, and run various SQL, cpu, memory and
disk counters to try to determine where the bottleneck is. I was almost
about to suggest changing the affinity mask if you had more than two
processors (because I remember that from studying). When you get
performance counter measurements back, you can tell whether to throw more
memory, CPU, upgrade the disk subsystem or if it is something more
configurable software wise (adjusting system properties to favor background
processes, adjusting pagefile size and location, creating filegroups to move
database objects to other disks, etc). Good luck.
--
*************************************
Andy S.
andy_mcdba@.yahoo.com
*************************************
"Robert Barr" <RobertLBarr@.cox.net> wrote in message
news:%23jn7wEXfDHA.1712@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I have a client who is currently running 700 databases on 1 server. And
> while the system seems to be functioning, they are seeing latency in data
> showing up. Meaning that a record that is added or updated to the database
> doesent seem to show up for hours.
> These databases average about 150MB each. Is there any configuration
option
> that would help this, or is this something that they just need to throw
more
> hardware at?
>
> "David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
> news:eVHkQu3WDHA.3248@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > This may sound like a silly question, but is their a limit
> > > to how many databases you can have on a SQL 2000
> > > Enterprise Edition?
> >
> > Yes. The limit is 32767 per server instance.
> >
> > > Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of
> > > max amount of db.
> >
> > The above is the limit stated in BOL. Other factors (such as size,
number
> of
> > users / transactions) will be far more significant constraints on
> > performance than the number of DBs. Possibly you might want to limit the
> > number of DBs per server for administrative reasons or in the interests
of
> > availability and resilience but I'm looking at 4 servers which have a
> total
> > of 188 DBs between them, so 83 doesn't seem excessive by that benchmark.
> >
> > --
> > David Portas
> > --
> > Please reply only to the newsgroup
> > --
> >
> >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment