Please start any new threads on our new site at We've got lots of great SQL Server experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.

Our new SQL Server Forums are live! Come on over! We've restricted the ability to create new threads on these forums.

SQL Server Forums
Profile | Active Topics | Members | Search | Forum FAQ
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 SQL Server 2008 Forums
 Other SQL Server 2008 Topics
 SQL Server scaling to 50TB DB
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Starting Member

1 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2014 :  09:35:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have a data intensive project for which I wrote the code recently, the data and sp live in a MS SQL 2008 ENT Ed Server. My initial estimate is that the db will grow to 50TB, then it will become fairly static in growth. The final application will perform lots of row level look ups and readings, with a smaller percentile of db write backs.

My piers are recommending that I abandon SQL Server for a NoSQL solution in order to handle the 50TB DB and its transactions. The questions I have are;

-Would SQL Server 2008 Ent. Ed. be able to handle a 50TB db?

-For physical storage my plan is to use either a SAN or DAS solution, are there any recommendations about either solution, that won't degrade performance?

-Should I consider a NoSQL solution or a Hybrid (SQL Server 2012 with the Hadoop plugin)?


Most Valuable Yak

15732 Posts

Posted - 03/20/2014 :  07:28:40  Show Profile  Visit robvolk's Homepage  Reply with Quote
SQL Server can certainly handle 50 TB. For reference here is the SQLCAT presentation on largest SQL Server deployments (PDF):

Slide #4 has a nice summary. Note that this is a few years old and I believe prior to SQL Server 2012 release.

I'd recommend a SAN for storage, I admit that my knowledge of DAS units is old, anything newer than 5 years I don't know about. I do know there are a number of large solid state devices with that capacity but I imagine they are a good deal more expensive.

Whether a pure NoSQL or hybrid solution is best for you I can't say. If it's just a question of data capacity, SQL Server could do the job on its own.
Go to Top of Page

Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge

United Kingdom
2179 Posts

Posted - 03/22/2014 :  06:02:32  Show Profile  Visit jackv's Homepage  Reply with Quote
there are plenty of different features to allow scaling and subsequent management of a very large database. Here are some techniques I've used in the past : , particuarly related to modelling environments. One big issue to consider , particuarly if the data is changing - is the maintenance of the data - dealing with large amounts may require tactical scheduling of different indexes etc.
spreading tables and indices across multiple devices can assist in performance and isolating IO

Jack Vamvas
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
SQL Server Forums © 2000-2009 SQLTeam Publishing, LLC Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.03 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000