I just wanted to ask if it is safe to design a file table that in future will hold about 5-15 million of 0.5-10mb max files?
Will NTFS handle it?
I had a problem once on old Windows Server 2008 R2 that when I had a folder with more than 2.5 million files, then creating a new file inside that folder took about 30 seconds.... getting file list took about 5 minutes. Is that a NTFS problem?
Can it be a problem for this? Or file stream/file tables will create subfolders itself to handle so many files etc?
Or disabling 8.3 naming convention is enough and it will work fine then?
Thanks and regards
Will NTFS handle it?
Yes. Just do not open file explorer. THAT - the program, not the operating system - can not handle that as well. Command line or server that do not try to load all files into a list work well.
In my experience, in short, yes, NTFS can handle it, but avoid exploring FILESTREAM directories (explorer can’t handle this volume of files, it’ll crash). Some white papers recommend the use of FileStream when file size is 256KB or larger, but the performance its evident in files larger than 1MB.
Here are some tricks recommended for best practices:
Disabling the indexing service (disable indexing on the NTFS volumes
where FILESTREAM data is stored.)
Multiple datafiles for FileStreamfilegroup in separate volumes.
Configuring correct NTFS cluster size (64KB recommended)
Configuring antivirus (cant delete some file of FILESTREAM or your DB will be corrupted).
Disabling the Last AccessTime attribute.
Regular disk defragmentation.
Disabling short file names (8dot3)
Keep FILESTREAM data containers on a separate disk volume (mdf, ndf
and log).
Right now, we're doing some tests to migrate our FileUpload database (8TB and growing with 25MM of records) from varbinary(max) to use FileTable. Our approach is to split a very large database in a database per year.
I would like know if you are currently working on this in production environment and know your experience.
You can find more info in a free ebook: Art of FileStream
Related
What is the standard way to store uploaded files on server? In database as binary or on hard disk with path stored in database?
Microsoft did a research in this topic: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/to-blob-or-not-to-blob-large-object-storage-in-a-database-or-a-filesystem/
Storing very small files will get you the best performance in the database. Storing larger files give you the best performance on your hard drive. I researched this for a company where I work for. The file system performance will be better than the database when the file size is 512 kB or larger. The performance of the database will drop rapidly after this point.
Storing files in the database will give you the advantage that you can keep everything in sync. You can configure that a file BLOB will be removed when the file record is removed. However, storing large files will give you very bad performance and creating backups could take very long.
In my project (similar to mediafire and rapidshare), clients can upload files to the server. I am using DB2 database and IBM WAS web server and JSP as server side scripting. I am creating my own encryption algorithm, as it is the main aim of the project.
I need suggestion whether files themselves should be stored in the database or if only the location of the files should be stored. Which approach is best?
There are Pros and Cons for storing BLOBs in the database.
Advantages
DBMS support for BLOBs is very good nowadays
JDBC driver support for BLOBs is very good
access to the "documents" can happen inside a transaction. No need to worry about manual cleanup or "housekeeping". If the row is deleted, so is the BLOB data
Don't have to worry about filesystem limits. Filesystems are typically not very good at storing million of files in a single directory. You will have to distribute your files across several directories.
Everything is backed up together. If you take a database backup you have everything, no need to worry about an additional filesystem backup (but see below)
Easily accessible through SQL (no FTP or other tools necessary). That access is already there and under control.
Same access controls as for the rest of the data. No need to set up OS user groups to limit access to the BLOB files.
Disadvantages
Not accessible from the OS directly (problem if you need to manipulate the files using commandline tools)
Cannot be served by e.g. a webserver directly (that could be performance problem)
Database backup (and restore) is more complicated (because of size). Incremental backups are usually more efficient in the filesystem
DBMS cache considerations
Not suited for high-write scenarios
You need to judge for yourself which advantage and which disadvantage is more important for you.
I don't share the wide-spread assumption that storing BLOBs in a database is always a bad idea. It depends - as with many other decisions.
It's general knowledge that storing files in the database -especially big ones- it's generally a bad idea. There are brilliant explanations in these questions:
Storing a file in a database as opposed to the file system?
Storing Images in DB - Yea or Nay?
And I'd like to highlight some points myself:
Storing files in your DBMS will make your data very big, and big databases are a maintaining hell (specially backups)
Portability becomes an issue, as every DBMS vendor makes its own implementation of BLOB files
There's a performance lost related to SELECT sentences to BLOB fields, compared to disk access
Well my Opinion would be to store the relevant information like path, name, description, etc... in the database and keep the file evtl. encrypted on the filesystem, it would be cheaper to scale your system adding a webserver than adding a database one as webspace is cheap comparing with databases, all you will need then is to add an IP column to your database or server name so you can address teh new webserver.
One of our teams is going to be developing an application to store records in a SQL2008 database and each of these records will have an associated PDF file. There is currently about 340GB of files, with most (70%) being about 100K, but some are several Megabytes in size. Data is mostly inserted and read, but the files are updated on occasion. We are debating between the following options:
Store the files as BLOBs in the database.
Store the files outside the database and store the paths in the database.
Use SQL2008's Filestream feature to store the files.
We have read the Micrsoft best practices regarding filestream data, but since the files vary in size, we are not sure which path to choose. We are leaning toward option 3 (filestream), but have some questions:
Which architecture would you choose given the amount of data and file sizes noted above?
Data access will be done using SQL authentication, not Windows authentication, and the web server will likely not be able to access the files using Windows API. Would this make filstream perform worse than the other two options?
Since the SQL backups include the filestream data, this would lead to very large database backups. How do others handle backing up databases with a large amount of filestream data?
OK, here we go. Option 2 is a really bad idea - you end up with untestable integrity constraints and backups that are not guaranteed to be consistent per definition because you can not take point in time backups. Not a problem in MOST scenarios, it turns into one the moment you have a more complicated (point in time) recovery.
Options 1 and 3 are pretty equal, albeit with some implications.
Filestream can use a lot more disc space. Basically, every version has a guid, if you make updates the old files stay around until the next backup.
OTOH the files do not count as db size (express edition - not against the 10gb limit should you use it) and access is further down possible using a file share. This is added flexibility.
In database has the most limited options regarding access (no way for the web server to just open the file after getting the path from the sql - it has to funnel the complete file through the sql protocol layer) but has advantages in regards of having less files (numbers). Putting the blobs into a separate table and that one a separate set of spindles may be strategically a good idea.
Regarding your questions:
1: I would go with in database storage. Try out both - filestream and not. As you use the same API anyway, this is a simple change in the table definition.
2: Yes, worse than direct file access, but it would be more protected than direct file access. Otherwise I do not think filestream and blob make a significant difference.
3: where do you have a huge backup here? Sorry to ask, but your 340gb is not exactly a large database. And you need to back it up ANYWAY. Better do it in one consistent state, which is what you achieve with db storage. Plus integrity (no one accidentally deleting unused documents without cleaning up the database). The DB is not significantly larger than doing that split, and it is a simple one place backup.
At the end, the question is db integrity and ease of backing things up. Win for SQL Server unless you get large - and this means 360 terabyte of data.
Store the files outside the database and store the paths in the database.
because it takes too much space to store files in the database.
I would definitely recommend (3) - this is the sort of scenario that this feature is specifically built to handle, and it is handled very well in my opinion.
This white paper has lots of useful information - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc949109(SQL.100).aspx - and from a security point of view mentions that...
There are two security requirements for using the FILESTREAM feature. Firstly, SQL Server must be configured for integrated security. Secondly, if remote access will be used, then the SMB port (445) must be enabled through any firewall systems.
With regard to Backups, see the accepted answer to this question - SQL Server FILESTREAM limitation
I've used a Index/Content method that you haven't listed but it might help. You have a table of files that are stored as a blob of binary code with a unique id or row number. The next SQL table will provide the index, the name of the file, the path to it, keywords, file type, file size, check sum... what ever you need. This is the best I have have seen to store files for working with thousands of uploaded documents. The index is required to view the file as it would just be binary text to the user if they have no idea what the file type is. We store the data in 2 separate databases to allow the index on one server and the file store on multiple servers for easy expansion. At that point the index table/database contains the name or key to the server the file is on. If the user has access to read that particular index table, then they have access to the file.
This scenario is easy: the FILESTREAM recomendation said that is best when the files are (on average) larger than 1MB, wich is not your case, for smaller objects, storing varbinary(max) BLOBs in the database often provides better streaming performance.
Since you will be accesing the files directly from SQL Server and not from filesystem then you should store it using BLOBs.
Read When to Use FILESTREAM: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb933993%28v=sql.105%29.aspx
Have you looked at RBS (Remote Blob Storage) solution? If you use the Filestream RBS provider, it will internally keep your blobs as Filestream files or varbinary(max) values, depending on what gets better performances based on the blob size.
Remote BLOB Store Provider Library Implementation Specification
SQL Remote Blob Storage Team Blog
Yesterday I asked the question on how I should save my files.
After some research I've desided to go with storing the files "in" the database.
I've checked the difference between storing the files using filestream and storing the files in the database itself.
Each has it's advantages and disadvantages. To help me with my research this site helped me out a lot:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/database/SqlFileStream.aspx
So basically it says that saving the files using filestream is better if the files are bigger than 1mb.
But I've discovered another problem with filestreaming. If you delete a record in the database the file still exists on the filesystem.
Therefore I need you guys opinion.
What to use? Filestream or saving the files in the database using VARBINARY?
Grtz,
M.
The data on the filesystem will (should) be removed soon after you delete the data from the database, though this is done in a separate system background thread, so it may remain on the filesystem until basically the garbage collector runs again. However, all results accessed through any of the filestream APIs (i.e. tsql or streaming) will be guaranteed to not access anything that has been removed, whether or not the filesystem data still resides on disk (ACID is ensured with filestream).
Use Filestreams.
Databases are designed to store relational data, file systems are designed to store files.
I heard often from Microsoft employees that storing large blobs in an SQL Server 2000/2005 (cant remember) is not a good idea.
Also consider Backup: A Databasefile is ONE file (EDIT: If you configure it so). If you're using Filestreams you can backup individual files.
Is SQL Server 2008 a good option to use as an image store for an e-commerce website? It would be used to store product images of various sizes and angles. A web server would output those images, reading the table by a clustered ID. The total image size would be around 10 GB, but will need to scale. I see a lot of benefits over using the file system, but I am worried that SQL server, not having an O(1) lookup, is not the best solution, given that the site has a lot of traffic. Would that even be a bottle-neck? What are some thoughts, or perhaps other options?
10 Gb is not quite a huge amount of data, so you can probably use the database to store it and have no big issues, but of course it's best performance wise to use the filesystem, and safety-management wise it's better to use the DB (backups and consistency).
Happily, Sql Server 2008 allows you to have your cake and eat it too, with:
The FILESTREAM Attribute
In SQL Server 2008, you can apply the FILESTREAM attribute to a varbinary column, and SQL Server then stores the data for that column on the local NTFS file system. Storing the data on the file system brings two key benefits:
Performance matches the streaming performance of the file system.
BLOB size is limited only by the file system volume size.
However, the column can be managed just like any other BLOB column in SQL Server, so administrators can use the manageability and security capabilities of SQL Server to integrate BLOB data management with the rest of the data in the relational database—without needing to manage the file system data separately.
Defining the data as a FILESTREAM column in SQL Server also ensures data-level consistency between the relational data in the database and the unstructured data that is physically stored on the file system. A FILESTREAM column behaves exactly the same as a BLOB column, which means full integration of maintenance operations such as backup and restore, complete integration with the SQL Server security model, and full-transaction support.
Application developers can work with FILESTREAM data through one of two programming models; they can use Transact-SQL to access and manipulate the data just like standard BLOB columns, or they can use the Win32 streaming APIs with Transact-SQL transactional semantics to ensure consistency, which means that they can use standard Win32 read/write calls to FILESTREAM BLOBs as they would if interacting with files on the file system.
In SQL Server 2008, FILESTREAM columns can only store data on local disk volumes, and some features such as transparent encryption and table-valued parameters are not supported for FILESTREAM columns. Additionally, you cannot use tables that contain FILESTREAM columns in database snapshots or database mirroring sessions, although log shipping is supported.
Check out this white paper from MS Research (http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?msr_tr_id=MSR-TR-2006-45)
They detail exactly what you're looking for. The short version is that any file size over 1 MB starts to degrade performance compared to saving the data on the file system.
I doubt that O(log n) for lookups would be a problem. You say you have 10GB of images. Assuming an average image size of say 50KB, that's 200,000 images. Doing an indexed lookup in a table for 200K rows is not a problem. It would be small compared to the time needed to actually read the image from disk and transfer it through your app and to the client.
It's still worth considering the usual pros and cons of storing images in a database versus storing paths in the database to files on the filesystem. For example:
Images in the database obey transaction isolation, automatically delete when the row is deleted, etc.
Database with 10GB of images is of course larger than a database storing only pathnames to image files. Backup speed and other factors are relevant.
You need to set MIME headers on the response when you serve an image from a database, through an application.
The images on a filesystem are more easily cached by the web server (e.g. Apache mod_mmap), or could be served by leaner web server like lighttpd. This is actually a pretty big benefit.
For something like an e-commerce web site, I would be moe likely to go with storing the image in a blob store on the database. While you don't want to engage in premature optimization, just the benefit of having my images be easily organized alongside my data, as well as very portable, is one automatic benefit for something like ecommerce.
If the images are indexed then lookup won't be a big problem. I'm not sure but I don't think the lookup for file system is O(1), more like O(n) (I don't think the files are indexed by the file system).
What worries me in this setup is the size of the database, but if managed correctly that won't be a big problem, and a big advantage is that you have only one thing to backup (the database) and not worry about files on disk.
Normally a good solution is to store the images themselves on the filesystem, and the metadata (file name, dimensions, last updated time, anything else you need) in the database.
Having said that, there's no "correct" solution to this.