From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

"Ellen K."  wrote
in message news:cjr060pkdaa069f4li1be84ltu1qm0l8su{at}4ax.com...
> Are these four tables often joined in queries?

Eh, well how should I say this... the current system doesn't really have
queries at all, so no, not really, but they would need to be.


>  If so then putting them on different disks is a good idea.
> But you are going to need a LOT of disks then because you
> still need redundancy and also putting the transaction log on
> its own disk is probably more important.

Yeppers. I don't think I'd have everything on it's own disk, but at least
it would give me possibilities to test and search for a good balance.


> How many disks are you gonna have?

I have 6 now and an empty 6 disk case so 12 in total. 1 for the system, 1
hotswap, so 10 to use for whatever I want basically. Should be a lot of fun



> You can certainly add indexes once you move the back end to
> SQL Server.

Yes, that's true. I'm very excited about this possibility, because it would
really make a huge difference in what we can do compared to now. Our whole
operation is run one this system, and it works pretty well in all other
ways except that reporting is near inpossible, which is quite a big
problem. I would just love to be able to use proper reporting tools.


> You could also add constraints to handle the data validation
> that apparently isn't being handled in the front end, but this
> can be a double-edged sword because it means the transaction
> gets sent to the database and then if it's not acceptable an
> error message is returned, i.e. you have more network traffic.

I don't think I would do that, I'm much too scared of how the current
system would handle errors like that. It's a real weird system.


Antti Kurenniemi

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5