Yes, that is mostly true. :o) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:11 AM Subject: RE: Impromptu Poll
> Even so, the root cause is usually faulty hardware, not the size of the > database per se. > > 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: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 1:12 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Impromptu Poll > > > >>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 > > _________________________________________________________________ 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]
