Image Server Database

I am a semi-experienced DBA, but have some questions regarding the
storage of images inside of SQL Server (which I have never done before).
I am researching to pros and cons of storing images inside of SQL
Server verses a file server and DB combination (storing the file paths
in SQL). There is a push from my management to store all the images
within a very large database, but something is telling me that it's not
the best way to do it. Unfortunately, I don't have any concrete
experience/evidence to push in one direction verses another.
We are talking about the storage/cataloging of around 4 million images.
Our current image server is file-based and is around 1 tera in size.
The idea of moving all this into a large SQL Server database raises
allot of concern for me.
I guess I would just like some feed-back from others that may have
experience using SQL Server to house a large amount of images. I would
also like to hear if anyone may have pros/cons to one concept verses
another. Any help would be greatly appreciated.http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2149
--
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
--
"Justin Furch" <jlf@.anon.com> wrote in message
news:%23iW9Zu0wEHA.1512@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I am a semi-experienced DBA, but have some questions regarding the
> storage of images inside of SQL Server (which I have never done before).
> I am researching to pros and cons of storing images inside of SQL
> Server verses a file server and DB combination (storing the file paths
> in SQL). There is a push from my management to store all the images
> within a very large database, but something is telling me that it's not
> the best way to do it. Unfortunately, I don't have any concrete
> experience/evidence to push in one direction verses another.
> We are talking about the storage/cataloging of around 4 million images.
> Our current image server is file-based and is around 1 tera in size.
> The idea of moving all this into a large SQL Server database raises
> allot of concern for me.
> I guess I would just like some feed-back from others that may have
> experience using SQL Server to house a large amount of images. I would
> also like to hear if anyone may have pros/cons to one concept verses
> another. Any help would be greatly appreciated.|||Hello Justin,
We used to have lot of Contracts that needed to be scanned in the insurance
application
and we used FileNET imaging server.
Gopi
"Justin Furch" <jlf@.anon.com> wrote in message
news:%23iW9Zu0wEHA.1512@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I am a semi-experienced DBA, but have some questions regarding the storage
>of images inside of SQL Server (which I have never done before). I am
>researching to pros and cons of storing images inside of SQL Server verses
>a file server and DB combination (storing the file paths in SQL). There is
>a push from my management to store all the images within a very large
>database, but something is telling me that it's not the best way to do it.
>Unfortunately, I don't have any concrete experience/evidence to push in one
>direction verses another.
> We are talking about the storage/cataloging of around 4 million images.
> Our current image server is file-based and is around 1 tera in size. The
> idea of moving all this into a large SQL Server database raises allot of
> concern for me.
> I guess I would just like some feed-back from others that may have
> experience using SQL Server to house a large amount of images. I would
> also like to hear if anyone may have pros/cons to one concept verses
> another. Any help would be greatly appreciated.