Database size in SQL Server 2012

Question

Database size in SQL Server 2012

forsqlserver

SSCoach

Points: 18902
More actions
June 19, 2012 at 10:11 pm

#271507

Comments posted to this topic are about the item Database size in SQL Server 2012
Thanks
June 20, 2012 at 2:13 am

This was removed by the editor as SPAM

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 40 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

tommyh SSCertifiable Points: 6302 More actions · Answer 1

If one wants be really picky "Depends on File System" is actually the right answer.

You can install 2012 on FAT32 and that have a limit to 4GB/file. The 524,272TB limit is based on 32,767 * 16TB files. Since FAT32 cant hold a 16TB file the maximum limit on a FAT32 system would be 131068GB. (4GB-1B*32767)

PS Not the answer i chose... i justed picked an answer at random since my own answer would be "More then i will ever need, so who cares" 😀

/T

Koen Verbeeck SSC Guru Points: 259085 More actions · Answer 2

tommyh (6/19/2012)
If one wants be really picky "Depends on File System" is actually the right answer.
You can install 2012 on FAT32 and that have a limit to 4GB/file. The 524,272TB limit is based on 32,767 * 16TB files. Since FAT32 cant hold a 16TB file the maximum limit on a FAT32 system would be 131068GB. (4GB-1B*32767)
PS Not the answer i chose... i justed picked an answer at random since my own answer would be "More then i will ever need, so who cares" 😀
/T

Agree with Tommy here.

Need an answer? No, you need a question
My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP

Igor Micev SSC-Dedicated Points: 33109 More actions · Answer 3

tommyh (6/19/2012)
If one wants be really picky "Depends on File System" is actually the right answer.
You can install 2012 on FAT32 and that have a limit to 4GB/file. The 524,272TB limit is based on 32,767 * 16TB files. Since FAT32 cant hold a 16TB file the maximum limit on a FAT32 system would be 131068GB. (4GB-1B*32767)
PS Not the answer i chose... i justed picked an answer at random since my own answer would be "More then i will ever need, so who cares" 😀
/T

I agree with your remarks, but I think the word 'maximum' eliminates all doubts. If there is a 128bit machine, then the maximum possible address space would be 2^64 * 524,272TB which SQL Server 2012 does not support it right now, so 524,272TB is the-no-doubt answer.

Regards

IgorMi

Igor Micev,My blog: www.igormicev.com

forsqlserver SSCoach Points: 18902 More actions · Answer 4

forsqlserver

SSCoach

Points: 18902

June 20, 2012 at 12:17 am

#1503231

Thanks for answering..

Thanks

Carlo Romagnano SSC-Insane Points: 22599 More actions · Answer 5

tommyh (6/19/2012)
If one wants be really picky "Depends on File System" is actually the right answer.
You can install 2012 on FAT32
/T

Is FAT32 still alive?

FAT32 is deprecated because of non transactionl writes as storage of database files.

Michael G Ten Centuries Points: 1323 More actions · Answer 6

Would that be 511 PB or 524 PB?

Googling...

1 PB = 1000000000000000B = 10005 B = 1015 B = 1 million gigabytes = 1 thousand terabytes

So if the correct answer is 524 000 odd TB it's the equivalent of 511 PB.

Michael Gilchrist
Database Specialist
There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those that don't. 😀

Koen Verbeeck SSC Guru Points: 259085 More actions · Answer 7

Michael G (6/20/2012)
Would that be 511 PB or 524 PB?
Googling...
1 PB = 1000000000000000B = 10005 B = 1015 B = 1 million gigabytes = 1 thousand terabytes
So if the correct answer is 524 000 odd TB it's the equivalent of 511 PB.

524,272 TB = 524,272 * 1000000000000 bytes = 524.272 Petabytes

The scale of kilo - mega - giga - terra - peta is always a multiplication of 1000.

So it goes like 10^0, 10^3, 10^6, 10^9 and so on.

kibi - mebi - gibi - tebi - pebi is a multiplication of 1024 or 2^10.

That goes like 2^0, 2^10, 2^20 and so on.

Need an answer? No, you need a question
My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP

tommyh SSCertifiable Points: 6302 More actions · Answer 8

Carlo Romagnano (6/20/2012)
tommyh (6/19/2012)
If one wants be really picky "Depends on File System" is actually the right answer.
You can install 2012 on FAT32
/T
Is FAT32 still alive?
FAT32 is deprecated because of non transactionl writes as storage of database files.

Is FAT32 alive? Well thats a matter of perspective. You can still format disks with it (atleast in Win2008R2). So its possible. And since its possible the answer lands in the "Depends" category.

And the requirements for SQL2012 doesnt mention deprecated just that it isnt recommended.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506.aspx

But no sane person would willingly install SQL on a computer with FAT32 (atleast not today). Personally i wouldnt use FAT32 for anything today.

/T

Nakul Vachhrajani SSChampion Points: 10283 More actions · Answer 9

Nice question, however, I must admit, the first answer that came to me was "Depends upon the file system."

Thanks & Regards,
Nakul Vachhrajani.
http://nakulvachhrajani.com

Follow me on
Twitter: @sqltwins

call.copse SSCoach Points: 17960 More actions · Answer 10

I'm not sure if I agree with those saying that 'Depends on file system' is correct. Of course file systems have hard limits, so do hard drives and SANs but these factors do not stop you having a larger database. If the documentation said that under a particular file system the database can only be so big and listed numbers less than the file system limits then there may be a case.

Hugo Kornelis SSC Guru Points: 64780 More actions · Answer 11

tommyh (6/19/2012)
If one wants be really picky "Depends on File System" is actually the right answer.
You can install 2012 on FAT32 and that have a limit to 4GB/file. The 524,272TB limit is based on 32,767 * 16TB files. Since FAT32 cant hold a 16TB file the maximum limit on a FAT32 system would be 131068GB. (4GB-1B*32767)

Yeah, by that logic it also depends on the size of the installed disk. On my laptop, the maximum size is 348 GB (unless I clean out some old files first).

But that does not make it the maximum database size. I can attach more and bigger disks and go beyond 348 GB. And so can the poor soul who currently is using FAT32 - they only need to attach a new file system and move the database files to that file system, and then they can grow the files to 16 TB each.

EDIT: Got distracted while composing my reply, and then I didn't see that call.copse had already posted a similar comment.

Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server/Data Platform MVP (2006-2016)
Visit my SQL Server blog: https://sqlserverfast.com/blog/
SQL Server Execution Plan Reference: https://sqlserverfast.com/epr/

paul.knibbs SSCoach Points: 15320 More actions · Answer 12

Koen Verbeeck (6/20/2012)
kibi - mebi - gibi - tebi - pebi is a multiplication of 1024 or 2^10.
That goes like 2^0, 2^10, 2^20 and so on.

And those are the numbers the SQL data limits are based on--when it says 16 petabytes for a single file, it means that in the binary meaning. Let's face it, nobody outside of hard disk manufacturers insists on using all this kibibyte nonsense; a kilobyte has always been 1024 bytes as far as I'm concerned.

Koen Verbeeck SSC Guru Points: 259085 More actions · Answer 13

paul.knibbs (6/20/2012)
a kilobyte has always been 1024 bytes as far as I'm concerned.

For me, a kilobyte is still 1000 bytes. kilo = 1000

Need an answer? No, you need a question
My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP