>>Just because a database is huge doesn't necessarily mean that it is more heavily used.
Point taken. I should have added, assuming a consistent per user frequency of access and access behaviour. Larger databases still use more hardware in a way... starting with more hard disk surface area. :o) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions "but certainly the larger you allow the database to grow, the greater those chances are" On what do you base this assertion? I maintain that corruption is more due to faulty hardware and frequency of access than size of the database. That is, a huge database that is never used has a low probability of corruption. Just because a database is huge doesn't necessarily mean that it is more heavily used. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Lefkovics Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Impromptu Poll Does a bigger house take more energy and effort to clean? If you eat at the buffet are you more likely to get backed up and more difficult to restore versus a French restaurant? The chances of corruption exist regardless of database size, but certainly the larger you allow the database to grow, the greater those chances are. But you also need to consider the backup and restore windows, and quality of hardware. There is someone on this list with a 16GB mailbox. That in itself if corrupted! _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
