SQL Server 2005 - 300 Databases?

Associate
Joined
19 Feb 2005
Posts
1,233
Location
Docklands, London
I'd assume this is more relevant in here than in the software section.

We have a situation where it's become nessecary to create around 300 databases within a single instance of SQL2005 standard. All of them will be mirrored and witnessed. Load on each database will be low, with a few inserts a minute; our application initially queries for a large amount of data but it is held with cache afterwards, this query would only happen outside of operational hours over the weekend.

The servers themselves are E5405's with 4GB each (disks are 2x300GB 10k SAS if it matters) and aren't running anything else.

Has anybody had any good/bad experiences with loading boxes up in this way?
 
It depends on the load, but you should really consider smaller disks, but more of them, then separate your logs, databases and temp databases on to different sets of disks.
 
It depends on the load, but you should really consider smaller disks, but more of them, then separate your logs, databases and temp databases on to different sets of disks.

Agree with this your disk array isn't anything like ideal for SQL performance, I'd suck it and see but be prepared for the fact you may need to spend a few quid.

Must be an interesting piece of software to work like that?
 
Back
Top Bottom