<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SQL Server 2008 1.1 Petabyte database</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.microsoftconfidential.com/2008/11/07/sql-server-2008-11-petabyte-database/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.microsoftconfidential.com/2008/11/07/sql-server-2008-11-petabyte-database/</link>
	<description>News, views and reviews on Microsoft</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:38:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Fryer</title>
		<link>http://www.microsoftconfidential.com/2008/11/07/sql-server-2008-11-petabyte-database/comment-page-1/#comment-82</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Fryer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:19:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.microsoftconfidential.com/2008/11/07/sql-server-2008-11-petabyte-database/#comment-82</guid>
		<description>Guys, 
Filestream in SQL Swerver 2008 means that these files could be part of the database (for backup and transactions) but remain as physicakl files (for streaming for example).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Guys,<br />
Filestream in SQL Swerver 2008 means that these files could be part of the database (for backup and transactions) but remain as physicakl files (for streaming for example).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brad</title>
		<link>http://www.microsoftconfidential.com/2008/11/07/sql-server-2008-11-petabyte-database/comment-page-1/#comment-80</link>
		<dc:creator>brad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:15:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.microsoftconfidential.com/2008/11/07/sql-server-2008-11-petabyte-database/#comment-80</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s very possible that image data could be directly stored in the SQL database -- would make sense, architecturally. I&#039;ve seen it done before.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s very possible that image data could be directly stored in the SQL database &#8212; would make sense, architecturally. I&#8217;ve seen it done before.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dacree</title>
		<link>http://www.microsoftconfidential.com/2008/11/07/sql-server-2008-11-petabyte-database/comment-page-1/#comment-79</link>
		<dc:creator>dacree</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.microsoftconfidential.com/2008/11/07/sql-server-2008-11-petabyte-database/#comment-79</guid>
		<description>Surely you don&#039;t think this SQL database will be in the petabyte range. The image data may very well reach a petabyte or more, but the SQL database itself should be quite small.
SQL tables will not be storing images but rather image related data.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely you don&#8217;t think this SQL database will be in the petabyte range. The image data may very well reach a petabyte or more, but the SQL database itself should be quite small.<br />
SQL tables will not be storing images but rather image related data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

