We want to use SharePoint for document and workflow management, for now we have about 200 GB document, pictures, videos on file server that is used by user in there daily works and must be accessible in future work environment(SP), should we consider this files in initial size and autogrowth of DB configuration? what about logs? please recommend an initial size and autogrowth for this size and usage

Edit: after reviewing our requirement and RBS's Benefits and costs we choose to deploy RBS, but the FileStream-provider is not equipped enough and 3rd parties make deployment and backup process more complex, so we consider to don't include our Multimedia files in SharePoint environment, so for now we have 10 GB document , and in average 150 new document per mount for size of 500 MB, so what is the recommend value of initial size and autogrowth size for DB and Log DB ?

2 Answers 2


200 GB is the maximum size recommended for each content database. since you already have 200GB of files, I would recommend enabling Remote Blob Storage(RBS). Enabling RBS will reduce the load on SQL server and also keep the BLOB files outside the SQL database. which mean all the uploaded files are externalised. Check the following URL if you want more information : http://blogs.msdn.com/b/opal/archive/2010/03/24/faq-sharepoint-2010-remote-blob-storage-rbs.aspx

  • as i found, in this approch i must use a RBS for storing pictures and videos, and DB will connect RBS for metadata and management, so we can handle our document (about 10 GB now) with SQL server itself? after all would 10 GB as a initial size, and 1 GB for auto growth enough? what about logs ?
    – Bheid
    Aug 5, 2015 at 5:54
  • I disagree to Sathiya's recommendation. Just because you have more than 200GB of content, you do not have to implement RBS. See my previous post here: sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/146720/….
    – MHeld
    Aug 6, 2015 at 8:58
  • @MHeld Thanks for explaining other approach,but i think with considering benefits and limitation of RBS and our properties, we should choose RBS with local provider
    – Bheid
    Aug 9, 2015 at 6:18
  • @Mheld i have gone through some Technet articles and other forums, it seems having RBS configured in the farm has more pros rather that cons. I have enabled RBS in the site collections which i manage and its all seems to be performing very well. I dont see the point of having too many site collection just for the sake of not using the BLOB.
    – Sathiya
    Aug 10, 2015 at 9:05

If you have a lot of content, you should split that to several SiteCollections. You can then move those SiteCollections to more than one ContentDatabase. So you are able to keep those databases under the recommended limit of 200GB.

If you think about your initial sizes and autogrowth, you should think about the growth of your content. You already mentioned that your today's content is 10GB in size and you will be at 200GB in future (when??). I would say: Initial Size 50GB and Autogrowth 10GB - heavily depending on WHEN you will reach 200GB. Another thing to consider: If you split your content across several Content-DBs, your values might be lower.

How large should your logs be? That depends on two things:

  • Whats the planned recovery model of your databases (FULL or SIMPLE)?

  • How many content will be inserted to the Database between two backups?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.