none
creating a site accross multiple site collections RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi All,

    I am faced with a sharepoint site collection that has grown to 100gb in size. It's within a content DB that has no other site collection. I am aware of the Microsoft recommendation which suggest such DBs not to get bigger than 200gb. I am also aware of that Microsoft recommends this because of backups and performance.

    The options I have seen so far is to split the site or create a document archive scenario. My questions are as follows;

    1. Are there any other options
    2. In reverence to the split of the site options may I know how managed navigation aspect would be done such that its seamless to the user. Also, with moving document libraries with metadata ,how do I reconcile the move.
    3. In reference to the archiving solution may I have details as to how this is done.

    Thanks,

    Dominic

    Wednesday, January 4, 2017 4:49 PM

All replies

  • 1) There are really no other options.

    2) Splitting the site collection into two site collections would result in two site collections with independent navigation.  There is no way to do navigation across site collections out of the box.

    3) Archiving solution simply means to use some method of backing up and deleting old content to remove it from the site collection.  There is no specific built in method to do this other than Information Management Policies.  You can read about them here:

    https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Create-and-apply-information-management-policies-EB501FE9-2EF6-4150-945A-65A6451EE9E9?ui=en-US&rs=en-US&ad=US&fromAR=1


    Paul Stork SharePoint Server MVP
    Principal Architect: Blue Chip Consulting Group
    Blog: http://dontpapanic.com/blog
    Twitter: Follow @pstork
    Please remember to mark your question as "answered" if this solves your problem.


    Wednesday, January 4, 2017 5:50 PM
  • Hi Paul,

    Thanks for the feedback. If what you are saying is the case then I'm inclined to think that there are extreme challenges with having SharePoint as a business solution. If the limitation of a content database is 200GB based on the backup and performance clause and one has tried to minimize such limitations by creating only one site collection per content database and has now reached over 100gb, how does Microsoft expect one to be able to scale a SharePoint environment to meet the needs of an organization?

    Thanks,

    Dominic

    Thursday, January 5, 2017 12:47 PM
  • Two things.  First, the 200GB rule of thumb continues to grow on with each version. So it isn't necissarily the limitation that you think it is.  Second, you don't need to put everything in a SharePoint business environment in one site collection.  In fact I would suggest that doing so is a bad idea.  Most organizations I deal with have many site collections, often hundreds.  Designing your system to appropriately segment collaboration and content is one of the core tasks in implementing SharePoint.  If that is done effectively then the 200GB limit (really more of a recommendation than a limit) then scaling the system isn't really an issue.

    Paul Stork SharePoint Server MVP
    Principal Architect: Blue Chip Consulting Group
    Blog: http://dontpapanic.com/blog
    Twitter: Follow @pstork
    Please remember to mark your question as "answered" if this solves your problem.

    Thursday, January 5, 2017 1:09 PM
  • Hi Paul,

    Thanks for the quick response. Yes 200GB continues to grow with versions and is more advisory from Microsoft as opposed to a set rule. On the other hand the bigger an SQL DB the more difficult it is to manage. secondly, I don't exactly have everything in one site collection. The organisation I work for is into the construction business so I have created site collections by departments and by projects that the company has taken on. My issue here is that some projects are now projected to last for close to over 5 years meaning data is going to be generated for a longer period than anticipated. This means that my setting single site collections and content DBs by project will not hold well as a solution.

    With this in mind I'm looking for a solution that will accommodate this change. A thought is to split a site representing a project across multiple site collections but I thought it would be best I research second opinions first.

    Thanks,

    Dominic

    Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:37 PM
  • Not my preferred option, but something else to be considered in that type of situation would be to look at getting the document BLOBs out of the database storage by using Remote Blob Storage (RBS).

    Paul Stork SharePoint Server MVP
    Principal Architect: Blue Chip Consulting Group
    Blog: http://dontpapanic.com/blog
    Twitter: Follow @pstork
    Please remember to mark your question as "answered" if this solves your problem.

    Thursday, January 5, 2017 3:30 PM
  • Have you done an analysis on the content?

    • How much is now in the recycle bins? Do you have a policy/plan to manage the 2nd tier / site collection level recycle bin?
    • Are you using versioning? Do you have a policy/plan to clean out unneeded versions?
    • Are there some categories of content, videos, AutoCAD drawings, etc., that could be moved to another site collection?

     


    Mike Smith TechTrainingNotes.blogspot.com
    Books: SharePoint 2007 2010 Customization for the Site Owner, SharePoint 2010 Security for the Site Owner

    Thursday, January 5, 2017 4:46 PM
  • Hi Paul,

    Thanks again for the feedback. I am also looking into this but my worry is that this may not be sufficient as a solution. I have beeen made to understand that RBS helps in managing unstructured data which SQL doesn't like. Though this would help in managing the size, my issue is the fact that the size of the blob still constitutes part of the size of the content database which mean I still have to keep a close eye on the size against not running into backup and performance issues. Or have I read wrongly that blobs constitute part of the size of content databases?

    Thursday, January 5, 2017 4:48 PM
  • Actually no.  One of the reasons for going to RBS is that it gets the BLOB outside the storage size of the content database.  Unless you go with a third party implementation it doesn't get it off the SQL server, but its definately outside the SQL .mdf file and does not count when calculating the 200GB size of the database.  It does however complicate things like backups because you have to backup and restore more than just the SQL .mdf and .ldf files.  You have to backup and restore the BLOBs as well.

    Having said that it is designed specifically for cases like yours where you need to get the BLOBs outside the limits of SQL storage.  For example, a few years ago MS switched from using the internal SQL database for standalone installs to SQL Express.  At the time SQL express had an upper limit on database files of something like 10GB while the internal DB had no such limitation.  RBS was one of the strategies for upgrading those single server installs if you didn't want to go to a full licensed version of SQL.


    Paul Stork SharePoint Server MVP
    Principal Architect: Blue Chip Consulting Group
    Blog: http://dontpapanic.com/blog
    Twitter: Follow @pstork
    Please remember to mark your question as "answered" if this solves your problem.

    Thursday, January 5, 2017 6:26 PM
  • Hi Paul,

    Thanks a lot for clarifying if RBS constitute part of the SQL DB limits. It now makes perfect sense .It now gives me the ability to expand the SharePoint environment I manage with less worry about space. I will give it a couple of tests to actually confirm how it works.

    Thanks a lot for all you help.

    Dominic

    Friday, January 6, 2017 1:51 PM
  • Hi Paul,

    Just thought I would give an update on this. I a test environment I enable RBS on a content DB that contains a site collection. As of just before RBS was set up, the site collection was 46GB(I really mean, the site content DB hosting the site collection). Having enabled RBS and not specified the RBS migrate option, I have added 50gb worth of data to the site collection that has RBS enabled. The end result is that the size of my content db is now a bit over 90GB.This means that the size of the Blob also constitute the size of the content database. With this being true, it drastically reduces the benefits of RBS. Worse still, it's  complicated to setup and restore of data.  

    Dominic

    Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:22 PM