Timeline for SQL Server Database File Groups on a SAN: Relevant or Not?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2014 at 12:31 | answer | added | Philippe | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 23, 2014 at 0:23 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackDBAs/status/514208507772432386 | ||
| Sep 22, 2014 at 21:53 | comment | added | dbafromthecold | But don't forget the other benefits of filegroups. For example - piecemeal backups/restores. | |
| Sep 22, 2014 at 21:51 | comment | added | dbafromthecold | First question I would ask your SAN admin is:- Would IO be negatively affected by having one large file striped across the disks (in whatever RAID configuration set) or would IO be improved by striping multiple smaller files? | |
| Sep 22, 2014 at 21:36 | comment | added | DMill | Using SANs and RAID arrays for the database disk subsystem diminishes the need for filegroups. SAN and RAID systems typically have many disks mapped to a single data drive. This inherently allows for concurrent disk access without requiring the creation of a filegroup with multiple data files. | |
| Sep 22, 2014 at 21:26 | comment | added | dbafromthecold | Can you post the link to the blurb that said filegroups on SANs were irrelevant please? | |
| Sep 22, 2014 at 21:04 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 22, 2014 at 21:44 | |||||
| Sep 22, 2014 at 20:59 | history | asked | DMill | CC BY-SA 3.0 |