0

Our IT department is firm on storing photos and videos in a file server citing issues with SQL server handling this type of content. This is creating issues for users as uploading and referring to the files from SharePoint is cumbersome.

I just read that SharePoint uses the FILESTREAM column type in SQL to store such files which saves the file to a file system and refers to the path of the file from the SQL column. Apparently, this addresses performance concerns.

Are there still issues associated with storing video content in SharePoint?

Thanks.

  • 1
    Do not use RBS if you're not using SQL Express. It isn't designed for SQL Standard/Enterprise scenarios. Not only are there more restrictions in your content database size (hard cap of 200GB), it won't offer performance improvements. Video content can be stored in SQL just fine given the performance of your SQL Server is sufficient. – Trevor Seward Jun 3 at 14:14
  • @TrevorSeward... the content database size is 200GB. Won't RBS store the files on the file system, so although 200GB remains the limit, you won't hit it as quickly? – Martin Muldoon Jun 3 at 14:21
  • 1
    No, the database size is a combination of MDF + FILESTREAM. It also complicates backup/restore. docs.microsoft.com/en-us/SharePoint/install/… - same applies to 2016, 2019. "If you are using Remote BLOB Storage (RBS), the total volume of remote BLOB storage and metadata in the content database must not exceed the 200GB limit.". – Trevor Seward Jun 3 at 14:31
  • Makes perfect sense. Thanks! – Martin Muldoon Jun 3 at 14:31
1

I'm not sure about "issues" with video-content in SharePoint.

However, you can use RBS (Remote BLOB Storage) with FILESTREAM in a SharePoint Server farm. It has to be configured, though.

There is some documentation available:

  • So this is very clear now. The last question I have is besides the storage issues of having large videos in SharePoint, are there any issues associated with performance? Do videos stream equally well from a SQL database vs File System? Are there any performance issues at all? Thanks. – Martin Muldoon Jun 3 at 16:07
  • Comparing sql-binary-stream-perfomance to file-system would greatly depend on the sizing of sql-farm compared to san-farm. I'd guess that sql would be generally slower but I have no hard evidence. Maybe @trevor-seward has some hard facts... – Nils Jun 4 at 6:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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