Re: SQL Server 100MB
- From: Kevin Lawrence <spamthis@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:34:13 +0000 (UTC)
As the other poster said, good housekeeping would probably ensure
you'll never need as much as 100MB, unless you have a reason to retain
large amounts of historical data.
$10 per month sounds reasonable. I would recommend writing some test
data generation routines. Then you can test a potential host with
queries on real world sized data without having to ftp huge data files
for importing. Sometimes I wonder how the cheap hosts can make any
money, other than by sharing the box with many domains and giving zero
interactive support. Which brings me to the other point of writing
routines to archive your data, preferably to your local machine. I
think that at the low end of the market, changing hosts is a fact of
life. Better to be prepared for it.
Anyway, good luck. You seem to be a few months down the track than I
am. Your posts are throwing up some interesting areas for
consideration.
Thanks.
My site is so trivial that I can afford to spend a bit of time covering my back a bit, I haven't actually started it yet, just want to get the formalities out of the way.
What would you say was a reasonable amount to spend on a year's host+domain?
Kev
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SQL Server 100MB
- From: KMA
- Re: SQL Server 100MB
- References:
- Re: SQL Server 100MB
- From: KMA
- Re: SQL Server 100MB
- Prev by Date: IIS and ADSI question
- Next by Date: Help - Unrecognized tag prefix or device filter 'asp' and other weird errors in aspx file
- Previous by thread: Re: SQL Server 100MB
- Next by thread: Re: SQL Server 100MB
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|