<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Files, BLOBs, NTFS and SQL Server 2008 - Age old database dilemma solved!</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/dataplatforminsider/archive/2008/04/14/sql-server-2008-makes-it-easy-to-manage-blobs-and-files.aspx</link><description>One of the most exciting new features in SQL Server 2008 is the ability to store files and BLOBs directly in the file system, while maintaining transactional consistency with a SQL Server 2008 database. SQL Server 2008’s new FILESTREAM attribute for VARBINARY</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title>re: Files, BLOBs, NTFS and SQL Server 2008 - Age old database dilemma solved!</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/dataplatforminsider/archive/2008/04/14/sql-server-2008-makes-it-easy-to-manage-blobs-and-files.aspx#3567474</link><pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:58:10 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3567474</guid><dc:creator>Eduardo Ponzoni</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Old (it&amp;#39;s now 2013), but such a great article! &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I didn&amp;#39;t notice that feature, and within my last job, I used a similar approach which consists of saving the file path to the DB and file in file system. But the problem is that our backup and restore procedures became harder to maintain, but perhaps using that feature you suggested on this post, many of those issues would be sorted out.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Great job mate!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thank you for sharing that with us!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PS.: About the previous comments, I would say that it&amp;#39;s my belief that companies would go for SQL Server Express only for testing purposes. for real production environment, they should use the full version.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3567474" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Files, BLOBs, NTFS and SQL Server 2008 - Age old database dilemma solved!</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/dataplatforminsider/archive/2008/04/14/sql-server-2008-makes-it-easy-to-manage-blobs-and-files.aspx#3528625</link><pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:07:06 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3528625</guid><dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Shashwat, SQL 2008 R2 Express max DB size is not 1GB...its 10GB.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That being said, i&amp;#39;m sure this article is referring to those who have full SQL, not express. In full SQL your database size is only limited by the hard drive space on the SQL server where the DB files are stored.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3528625" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Files, BLOBs, NTFS and SQL Server 2008 - Age old database dilemma solved!</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/dataplatforminsider/archive/2008/04/14/sql-server-2008-makes-it-easy-to-manage-blobs-and-files.aspx#3458775</link><pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:12:34 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3458775</guid><dc:creator>Shashwat Tripathi</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;We should not store large files in database, specially for SQL 2008 R2 Express edition. Maximum database size is 1GB here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3458775" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>