SQL Server 2008's Filestream location_问答_开发者

I have approximately 7 terabytes of various media files (pdf's, jpg's, tiff's) that currently reside on a very beefed up file server. I am looking at moving the data to SQL Server 2008 and using the Filestream attribute to help me manage the data. I want to do this because I have webpages that manage this media, and they (the webpages) are getting slower and开发者_开发问答 slower as more media is added daily to the file server.

EDIT: The webpages are slow because many of them produce reports that reflect various details of the file server and what is stored on it. Essentially, the webpages comb through thousands of folders and files to generate reports about what is contained in them. Some webpages allow users to manipulate folders and files and move them to different locations. So, in a nutshell, I'm looking for a faster manner in managing these files. It would also allow me to maintain metadata about these files within the database, thus allowing me to query the database for this info instead of combing through the file server for it.

My Problems:

1) I have done a proof of concept and verified that I can create a filestream local to the SQL Server 2008 database, and I've successfully read and wrote media to it. However, I have yet to figure out how to use an UNC as a filestream. In other words, the database is hosted on MySQLDB08, and my files are stored on TheFileServer01. I've read it's possible, but I haven't gotten there yet. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated!

2) Since I have 7 terabytes (and growing) of media, will my backups be unmanageable due to their size? Is this something that could dissuade me from using Filestream?

Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated!

You can't. Afaik filestream data is stored localy and SQL will refuse to read/write from/to an UNC.
Your full backups will contain the entire filestream data. Unmanageable? Definetly a very serious challenge.

My question would be what is the benefit you want to extract from the filestream? The usual benefits come from BLOB integration with database operations while keeping availability for Win32 file handle based operations:

Even though FILESTREAM technology has many attractive features, it may not be the optimal choice in all situations. As mentioned earlier, the size of the BLOB data and the access patterns are the most significant factors when deciding whether to store the BLOB data wholly within the database or by using FILESTREAM.

Size affects the following:

Efficiency with which the BLOB data can be accessed using either storage mechanism. As mentioned earlier, streaming access of large BLOB data is more efficient using FILESTREAM, but partial updates are (potentially much) slower.

Efficiency of backing up the combined structured and BLOB data using either storage mechanism. A backup that combines SQL Server database files and a large number of FILESTREAM files will be slower than a backup of just SQL Server database files of an equivalent total size. This is because of the extra overhead of backing up each NTFS file (one per FILESTREAM data value). This overhead becomes more noticeable when the FILESTREAM files are smaller (as the time overhead becomes a larger percentage of the total time to backup per MB of data).

From a pure performance point of view, there are many steps you can do on a file system level to improve performance. What is you current problem, why is your system throughput affected by the media size? It means you have a somewhere a choke point of contention, perhaps a directory enumeration, or some other barrier that causes you to scale the response time with the media size. Your access to the media should be O(1), maybe O(logn),b ut definetely not O(n).

I'd recommend you go over the SQL White Paper FILESTREAM Storage in SQL Server 2008, from where I found my quote about use cases.

I'm going to have to disagree with @RemusRusanu on the UNC issue. Although, @RemusRusanu makes some good points on why you would choose to use a filestream.

Anyway, You can uses UNC's for filestreams -- it wouldn't be of much use otherwise. Currently, I build a site that is using the UNC feature for servers in a web farm to read files from a SQL Filestream.

A few points on using UNC Filestreams ...

Access to UNC's is gated by SQL server. WTF? The point of the file stream is to merge the benefits of the file system (good streaming) and the benefits of SQL Server (good meta data, transactions and query~ability). How does SQL ensure the file access is transactional? You have to open the transaction and inside the transaction ask SQL Server for a file handle.
Said another way, you can't just navigate to the Filestream UNC from windows explorer.
If you're storing your binary in SQL server, then generally ~1.2MB is the break point where you should favor filestream over VarBinary. Here MS suggest 1 MB, but there is another in research paper I can't locate at the moment that suggested 1.2 is the break even point.
Enabling UNC access requires a distributed transaction, so both the SQL server and the consumer of the UNC path need distributed transactions enabled.

Following is a code snippet that shows how to retrieve a handle to a Filestream. There is one big caveat: the transaction isn't closed in this snippet. You will need to read the binary, then close the transaction. Leaving open transactions is clearly a no-no.

    public FileStream GetStream(string FilePath){
        FileStream FStream = null;

        Conn = new SqlConnection( MyConnectionStringHere );
        Conn.Open();
        txn = Conn.BeginTransaction();

        using (SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand("SELECT GET_FILESTREAM_TRANSACTION_CONTEXT()", Conn, txn)){

            Object obj = cmd.ExecuteScalar();
            TransContext = (byte[])obj;
        }

        SafeFileHandle SHandle =  NativeSqlClient.GetSqlFilestreamHandle (FilePath, NativeSqlClient.DesiredAccess.Read, TransContext);
        FStream = new FileStream(SHandle, FileAccess.Read);

        return FStream;
    }