multiple data instances one machine
-
I have someone who stores a modest amount of data by file path in different directorys on a network share. The path to the network share identifies the data. They now want to store some data in a database and whould like to store the data in different database files in each of the shared network folders. My question is, is this even a remotely good idea.
Until they tell you the reason behind it I'd say: Not even a remotely good idea.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
I have someone who stores a modest amount of data by file path in different directorys on a network share. The path to the network share identifies the data. They now want to store some data in a database and whould like to store the data in different database files in each of the shared network folders. My question is, is this even a remotely good idea.
-
Thanks, I think the reason they want to do this is that it would tie into their existing scheme for backing up data.
-
Thanks, I think the reason they want to do this is that it would tie into their existing scheme for backing up data.
John Robert Wilk wrote:
existing scheme for backing up data
I would argue that creating and backing up 50 files uneccessarily is 50 times worse than backing up one file...
Why is common sense not common? Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy Please stand in front of my pistol, smile and wait for the flash - JSOP 2012
-
I have someone who stores a modest amount of data by file path in different directorys on a network share. The path to the network share identifies the data. They now want to store some data in a database and whould like to store the data in different database files in each of the shared network folders. My question is, is this even a remotely good idea.
John Robert Wilk wrote:
. They now want to store some data in a database and whould like to store the data in different database files in each of the shared network folders.
Certainly doesn't suggest a database which is performant. And what happens when one of those servers goes down? It means the database would disappear. Might be interesting to see if MS SQL Server would even let you create the DB files on a shared folder. If it won't then that would rule it out completely. If it does then I would next test what happens to the database server if the share goes away when the server is running. You know that they can create it in different directories right? Wouldn't that be sufficient? You might also mention that there are other back up strategies possible with the database rather than just doing a file copy.
-
John Robert Wilk wrote:
existing scheme for backing up data
I would argue that creating and backing up 50 files uneccessarily is 50 times worse than backing up one file...
Why is common sense not common? Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy Please stand in front of my pistol, smile and wait for the flash - JSOP 2012
Thanks guys I appreciate I'm not very confident when it comes to databases.
-
John Robert Wilk wrote:
. They now want to store some data in a database and whould like to store the data in different database files in each of the shared network folders.
Certainly doesn't suggest a database which is performant. And what happens when one of those servers goes down? It means the database would disappear. Might be interesting to see if MS SQL Server would even let you create the DB files on a shared folder. If it won't then that would rule it out completely. If it does then I would next test what happens to the database server if the share goes away when the server is running. You know that they can create it in different directories right? Wouldn't that be sufficient? You might also mention that there are other back up strategies possible with the database rather than just doing a file copy.
To be honest I think they are looking for the easiest way out on their end which would be to do nothing and continue with the current process as is.
-
Thanks guys I appreciate I'm not very confident when it comes to databases.
John Robert Wilk wrote:
I'm not very confident
When in doubt just stamp their request, "Disapproved. Resubmit in 90 days for further disapproval." :-)
Why is common sense not common? Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy Please stand in front of my pistol, smile and wait for the flash - JSOP 2012
-
To be honest I think they are looking for the easiest way out on their end which would be to do nothing and continue with the current process as is.
-
I have someone who stores a modest amount of data by file path in different directorys on a network share. The path to the network share identifies the data. They now want to store some data in a database and whould like to store the data in different database files in each of the shared network folders. My question is, is this even a remotely good idea.
John Robert Wilk wrote:
My question is, is this even a remotely good idea.
It merely proves that someone does not understand what a database-server is, and how it's being used. Whoever came with the proposal should not be doing any work outside of Microsoft Access. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]