SQL Server 100MB

[Kevin Lawrence]

Hi

Anyone know how much 100MB is in SQL Server 2000?

Is it a lot?

Thanks
Kev

[Juan T. Llibre]

You can store an awful lot of data in a 100MB SQL Server database.

How much data you can store would also depend on
whether good database maintenance practices are used.

Regular log truncation does wonders in keeping your db files small, for example.
It should be done at least once a week.

Running "DBCC SHRINKDATABASE" and "DBCC SHRINKFILE" helps.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com
==================================
"Kevin Lawrence" <sp******@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3a*************************@news.rmplc.co.uk. ..

Hi

Anyone know how much 100MB is in SQL Server 2000?

Is it a lot?

Thanks
Kev

[KMA]

I'm afraid you might get some flippant answers to that question. I guess
your question might be "does SQL server 2000 incur much storage overhead?"
After all 100MB is 100MB. For storing text, it's oodles of space. For
images, not so much. Or one episode of the Simpsons.

Since you haven't chosen a host yet (and you fear 100mb might not be enough)
ensure that your host charges a reasonable fee for upgrading.
"Kevin Lawrence" <sp******@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3a*************************@news.rmplc.co.uk. ..

Hi

Anyone know how much 100MB is in SQL Server 2000?

Is it a lot?

Thanks
Kev

[Kevin Lawrence]

> I'm afraid you might get some flippant answers to that question. I

guess your question might be "does SQL server 2000 incur much storage
overhead?" After all 100MB is 100MB. For storing text, it's oodles of
space. For images, not so much. Or one episode of the Simpsons.
A few tables containing mainly string data, no images and no videos.
Since you haven't chosen a host yet (and you fear 100mb might not be
enough) ensure that your host charges a reasonable fee for upgrading.

I'm looking at one that is $10 a month for 100MB then for each additional
25MB required it is an extra $5 a month....

Kev

[KMA]

As the other poster said, good housekeeping would probably ensure you'll
never need as much as 100MB, unless you have a reason to retain large
amounts of historical data.

$10 per month sounds reasonable. I would recommend writing some test data
generation routines. Then you can test a potential host with queries on real
world sized data without having to ftp huge data files for importing.
Sometimes I wonder how the cheap hosts can make any money, other than by
sharing the box with many domains and giving zero interactive support. Which
brings me to the other point of writing routines to archive your data,
preferably to your local machine. I think that at the low end of the market,
changing hosts is a fact of life. Better to be prepared for it.

Anyway, good luck. You seem to be a few months down the track than I am.
Your posts are throwing up some interesting areas for consideration.

"Kevin Lawrence" <sp******@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3a*************************@news.rmplc.co.uk. ..

I'm afraid you might get some flippant answers to that question. I
guess your question might be "does SQL server 2000 incur much storage
overhead?" After all 100MB is 100MB. For storing text, it's oodles of
space. For images, not so much. Or one episode of the Simpsons.

A few tables containing mainly string data, no images and no videos.

Since you haven't chosen a host yet (and you fear 100mb might not be
enough) ensure that your host charges a reasonable fee for upgrading.

I'm looking at one that is $10 a month for 100MB then for each additional
25MB required it is an extra $5 a month....

Kev

[Kevin Lawrence]

> As the other poster said, good housekeeping would probably ensure

you'll never need as much as 100MB, unless you have a reason to retain
large amounts of historical data.

$10 per month sounds reasonable. I would recommend writing some test
data generation routines. Then you can test a potential host with
queries on real world sized data without having to ftp huge data files
for importing. Sometimes I wonder how the cheap hosts can make any
money, other than by sharing the box with many domains and giving zero
interactive support. Which brings me to the other point of writing
routines to archive your data, preferably to your local machine. I
think that at the low end of the market, changing hosts is a fact of
life. Better to be prepared for it.

Anyway, good luck. You seem to be a few months down the track than I
am. Your posts are throwing up some interesting areas for
consideration.

Thanks.

My site is so trivial that I can afford to spend a bit of time covering my
back a bit, I haven't actually started it yet, just want to get the formalities
out of the way.

What would you say was a reasonable amount to spend on a year's host+domain?

Kev

[KMA]

"Kevin Lawrence" <sp******@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3a*************************@news.rmplc.co.uk. ..

As the other poster said, good housekeeping would probably ensure
you'll never need as much as 100MB, unless you have a reason to retain
large amounts of historical data.

$10 per month sounds reasonable. I would recommend writing some test
data generation routines. Then you can test a potential host with
queries on real world sized data without having to ftp huge data files
for importing. Sometimes I wonder how the cheap hosts can make any
money, other than by sharing the box with many domains and giving zero
interactive support. Which brings me to the other point of writing
routines to archive your data, preferably to your local machine. I
think that at the low end of the market, changing hosts is a fact of
life. Better to be prepared for it.

Anyway, good luck. You seem to be a few months down the track than I
am. Your posts are throwing up some interesting areas for
consideration.
Thanks.

My site is so trivial that I can afford to spend a bit of time covering my
back a bit, I haven't actually started it yet, just want to get the
formalities out of the way.

What would you say was a reasonable amount to spend on a year's
host+domain?

Well, domain charges depend on who the registrar is for the domain you want,
and by and large its fixed. I pay about 25 quid a year plus a one off 20
quid registration.

Hosting is very much more different. Narrowing down for ASP.NET you can get
from as little as $1 per month to up to 100. Even shared hosting seems to
have an enormous price range. For my purposes, I have designed my site so
that I archive site related data back to my PC, and obviously I have a copy
of the app too. I changed host last month because the original host made
some configuration change that rendered Session events inactive. I got
involved in a protracted remote debugging attempt with them but in the end
they weren't able to solve the problem. Looking back it was a no hoper from
the start. The host has a wide spectrum of technologies on offer from Perl,
Ruby, ASP(.NET) etc etc. They can't be experts in all of them.

Switching was remarkable painless, and the site was only in a "mixed server"
state for about 3 days. Some mail might have got lost, but for me it wasn't
crucial. And yet, my original choice scored high on my normal "ask some
technical questions before you buy", and they responded quickly. So I
concluded the only option is to give a host a go and see how it pans out. I
wouldn't start with more than 10$ a month though. I'd look for a host that
offers a scalable range of hosting packages. Most appreciate that they have
to proove themselves.

FWIW I now pay 1$ per month. The site seems to work as designed and response
is good, except with the host provided site administration tool which runs a
bit slow. I guess they give it a lower priority than the aspnet worker
thread, which makes sense.



Kev

[Kevin Lawrence]

> "Kevin Lawrence" <sp******@spam.com> wrote in message

news:3a*************************@news.rmplc.co.uk. ..

As the other poster said, good housekeeping would probably ensure
you'll never need as much as 100MB, unless you have a reason to
retain large amounts of historical data.

$10 per month sounds reasonable. I would recommend writing some test
data generation routines. Then you can test a potential host with
queries on real world sized data without having to ftp huge data
files for importing. Sometimes I wonder how the cheap hosts can make
any money, other than by sharing the box with many domains and
giving zero interactive support. Which brings me to the other point
of writing routines to archive your data, preferably to your local
machine. I think that at the low end of the market, changing hosts
is a fact of life. Better to be prepared for it.

Anyway, good luck. You seem to be a few months down the track than I
am. Your posts are throwing up some interesting areas for
consideration.

Thanks.

My site is so trivial that I can afford to spend a bit of time
covering my back a bit, I haven't actually started it yet, just want
to get the formalities out of the way.

What would you say was a reasonable amount to spend on a year's
host+domain?

Well, domain charges depend on who the registrar is for the domain you
want, and by and large its fixed. I pay about 25 quid a year plus a
one off 20 quid registration.

Hosting is very much more different. Narrowing down for ASP.NET you
can get from as little as $1 per month to up to 100. Even shared
hosting seems to have an enormous price range. For my purposes, I have
designed my site so that I archive site related data back to my PC,
and obviously I have a copy of the app too. I changed host last month
because the original host made some configuration change that rendered
Session events inactive. I got involved in a protracted remote
debugging attempt with them but in the end they weren't able to solve
the problem. Looking back it was a no hoper from the start. The host
has a wide spectrum of technologies on offer from Perl, Ruby,
ASP(.NET) etc etc. They can't be experts in all of them.

Switching was remarkable painless, and the site was only in a "mixed
server" state for about 3 days. Some mail might have got lost, but for
me it wasn't crucial. And yet, my original choice scored high on my
normal "ask some technical questions before you buy", and they
responded quickly. So I concluded the only option is to give a host a
go and see how it pans out. I wouldn't start with more than 10$ a
month though. I'd look for a host that offers a scalable range of
hosting packages. Most appreciate that they have to proove themselves.

FWIW I now pay 1$ per month. The site seems to work as designed and
response is good, except with the host provided site administration
tool which runs a bit slow. I guess they give it a lower priority than
the aspnet worker thread, which makes sense.

Blimey - do you mind if I ask which host that is?

Kev

[Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) - MVP]

You can calculate the space requirements rather easily by calculating out the
data types. Your worst case is 8kb per row in a single table, as a SQL 2000
table row cannot be any larger.

To best calculate size, figure the size for each row:

userID int = 4 bytes
lastName varchar(50) = 100 bytes
if nvarchar size * 4 instead (200 bytes)
etc.

You then have to calculate indexes. I do not have the reqs here, but there
are sites with examples (would try a google).

To give you targets.

The Northwind Sample for SQL 2000 contains 12 tables and is about 2 MB in
size. Stats:

91 Customers
9 employees
830 orders w/ 3 detail lines per order

Not very huge. Contrast this to AdventureWorks (new sample).

The AdventureWorks sample database for SQL 2005 is 167 MB. The database
contains 70 tables. Stats:

290 employees
~20,000 users
~20,000 addresses
4,000 orders with ~ 2-3 detail lines per
~73,000 work orders
~113,000 transactions
~32,000 Sales orders

Pretty large amount of data, when you consider it, although it is a bit
bigger than your target space.

Short answer: It is likely 100 MB is plenty of space.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************
"Kevin Lawrence" wrote:

Hi

Anyone know how much 100MB is in SQL Server 2000?

Is it a lot?

Thanks
Kev

[Kevin Lawrence]

Excellent, thanks.

Yes, 100MB does see quite large.

Kev

You can calculate the space requirements rather easily by calculating
out the data types. Your worst case is 8kb per row in a single table,
as a SQL 2000 table row cannot be any larger.

To best calculate size, figure the size for each row:

userID int = 4 bytes
lastName varchar(50) = 100 bytes
if nvarchar size * 4 instead (200 bytes)
etc.
You then have to calculate indexes. I do not have the reqs here, but
there are sites with examples (would try a google).

To give you targets.

The Northwind Sample for SQL 2000 contains 12 tables and is about 2 MB
in size. Stats:

91 Customers
9 employees
830 orders w/ 3 detail lines per order
Not very huge. Contrast this to AdventureWorks (new sample).

The AdventureWorks sample database for SQL 2005 is 167 MB. The
database contains 70 tables. Stats:

290 employees
~20,000 users
~20,000 addresses
4,000 orders with ~ 2-3 detail lines per
~73,000 work orders
~113,000 transactions
~32,000 Sales orders
Pretty large amount of data, when you consider it, although it is a
bit bigger than your target space.

Short answer: It is likely 100 MB is plenty of space.

***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************
"Kevin Lawrence" wrote:

Hi

Anyone know how much 100MB is in SQL Server 2000?

Is it a lot?

Thanks
Kev

[KMA]

There're called simplehost.ch, and I pay 1CHF per month (0.82$)

They've got a number of packages, with functionality being commensurate with
cost. I only chose them because I know where they are so I can go round and
throw rotten eggs at them if I get any hassle. I'm sure there are other
similar providers nearer yourself. And they speak German, of course.

Choosing a host is an evenings work in my book. I know a site that allows
you to narrow the search based upon certian criteria (only gives swiss hosts
I'm afraid). You still have to go through a read the small print. Make a
list of "must haves" and send this to potential hosts.

If it helps, thing I must have are:

Unlimited email adresses.
Catch all email.
Direct ftp access.
asp.net v1.1 and 2.0 available
Cron tasks (scheduler)
directory security.

Nice to have but didn't get (but are included in 10CHF deal)
anonymous ftp
multiple sub domains
"Kevin Lawrence" <sp******@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3a*************************@news.rmplc.co.uk. ..

"Kevin Lawrence" <sp******@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3a*************************@news.rmplc.co.uk. ..

As the other poster said, good housekeeping would probably ensure
you'll never need as much as 100MB, unless you have a reason to
retain large amounts of historical data.

$10 per month sounds reasonable. I would recommend writing some test
data generation routines. Then you can test a potential host with
queries on real world sized data without having to ftp huge data
files for importing. Sometimes I wonder how the cheap hosts can make
any money, other than by sharing the box with many domains and
giving zero interactive support. Which brings me to the other point
of writing routines to archive your data, preferably to your local
machine. I think that at the low end of the market, changing hosts
is a fact of life. Better to be prepared for it.

Anyway, good luck. You seem to be a few months down the track than I
am. Your posts are throwing up some interesting areas for
consideration.

Thanks.

My site is so trivial that I can afford to spend a bit of time
covering my back a bit, I haven't actually started it yet, just want
to get the formalities out of the way.

What would you say was a reasonable amount to spend on a year's
host+domain?

Well, domain charges depend on who the registrar is for the domain you
want, and by and large its fixed. I pay about 25 quid a year plus a
one off 20 quid registration.

Hosting is very much more different. Narrowing down for ASP.NET you
can get from as little as $1 per month to up to 100. Even shared
hosting seems to have an enormous price range. For my purposes, I have
designed my site so that I archive site related data back to my PC,
and obviously I have a copy of the app too. I changed host last month
because the original host made some configuration change that rendered
Session events inactive. I got involved in a protracted remote
debugging attempt with them but in the end they weren't able to solve
the problem. Looking back it was a no hoper from the start. The host
has a wide spectrum of technologies on offer from Perl, Ruby,
ASP(.NET) etc etc. They can't be experts in all of them.

Switching was remarkable painless, and the site was only in a "mixed
server" state for about 3 days. Some mail might have got lost, but for
me it wasn't crucial. And yet, my original choice scored high on my
normal "ask some technical questions before you buy", and they
responded quickly. So I concluded the only option is to give a host a
go and see how it pans out. I wouldn't start with more than 10$ a
month though. I'd look for a host that offers a scalable range of
hosting packages. Most appreciate that they have to proove themselves.

FWIW I now pay 1$ per month. The site seems to work as designed and
response is good, except with the host provided site administration
tool which runs a bit slow. I guess they give it a lower priority than
the aspnet worker thread, which makes sense.

Blimey - do you mind if I ask which host that is?

Kev