0

We have a site collection, hr (Human Resources), with it's own content database:

Site collection URL: https://sharepoint/hr

Database name: SP2013_PROD_HR

The database has grown to 150GB and we want to create a new content database before we exceed the 200GB recommended limit. However, we still would like the URL for the new content DB and site collection to use the same base site collection url. Not sure if that is possible or recomended. I can already see the problem of two sites, one in each site collection, potentially having the same name/url.

What have others of you done in this situation? I am thinking we'll have no choice but to have separate urls and try to make them as close as possible, like:

https://sharepoint/hr1

Any thoughts?

Improve this question

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
0

200 GB is recommended limit But you can go upto 4TB. In my opnion 200GB recomended limit is not realistic, when we have file upload limit upto 10GB per file, in that case you only 20 files can file the space. We had the same policy in 2010 but now in 2016 we increase our limit to 500GB. But you have to consider following things as mentioned in MSFT article:

  • Disk sub-system performance of 0.25 IOPS per GB. 2 IOPS per GB is recommended for optimal performance.
  • You must have developed plans for high availability, disaster recovery, future capacity, and performance testing.
  • You should have proper backup system, in this scenario you should have the SQL backup & restore method.

Good thing is you have only one site collections so situation is less complex.

But other than that you have to create a new site collection with new content database. You can at least convenience your customer that they use new site collection for archive purpose that's way they will not deal new url daily. I.e. you move all old data to the new site collections and put the link on existing site collection for easy browsing.

Improve this answer
2
  • I agree about the 200G limit. Not realistic, especially in the age of video. I previously glanced at the MSFT article about disk operations. May have to look into that further. Unfortunately, we have 24 content DBs and as many site collections, I just didn't think mentioning it was relevant. Thanks.
    – steveareeno
    May 4, 2018 at 14:45
  • we have way more than 24 database and we are not stick with 200 GB limit. Again you have to check the performance of your farm before making any decision.
    – Waqas Sarwar MVP ♦
    May 4, 2018 at 14:58
1

It's not possible to have 2 contentdb's attached to a site collection, so you'll need to do something about it.

Typically, the most common strategy is to do a little old fashioned cleanup! Archive old documents that aren't being used anymore to a separate site collection (maybe use the Records Center or Document Center site template which allow unlimited contentdb-sizes), and setup a search on the HR-site for the archived documents.

Improve this answer
1
  • Sorry if it wasn't clear but we technically don't want 2 DBs attached to one site collection, we are just looking for a way to mimic the urls so they "appear" the same. I get your point about archiving though. We are trying to have them clean up their sites but everyone thinks they might need their content that no one has touched in 10 years, lol. I think they call that tech hoarding? Thanks for the response.
    – steveareeno
    May 4, 2018 at 14:15
0

A Site Collection cannot be split across multiple databases. You may want to move selected content to a new site collection with its own DB: videos, archived documents, training materials, etc.

200 GB is not a hard number. It is based on a "average" server's performance, "average" users and only using SharePoint's out of the box backup tools. (I.e. can you you backup or restore the entire DB in your nightly service window using the Central Admin or PowerShell backup options?) See: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/SharePoint/install/software-boundaries-and-limits#content-database-limits There you will see 4TB is also "supported", if you have fast disk drives and a plan for backup and restore.

Improve this answer
1
  • Restoring was one of the considerations of splitting th DBs. When we have to recover a corrupted file for instance, we have to restore a large DB to another environment (QA) to get it. Thanks.
    – steveareeno
    May 4, 2018 at 14:47

Your Answer

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

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