On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 16:49:12 UTC, bradbury9  wrote:   
   > El miércoles, 12 de febrero de 2014 17:14:37 UTC+1, rja.ca...@gmail.com    
   escribió:   
   > > We're planning migration of an enterprise reporting system    
   > > to SQL Server 2012, and my boss needs an argument to support    
   > > installing a certain amount of disc space for ongoing    
   > > operations.  Can someone point me to a credible argument    
   > > for a reasonable minimum allowance of free disk space in    
   > > addition to our actual databases?   
   > >    
   > > I believe that this includes not having to shrink database    
   > > files to let others grow, which we are doing now.   
   > >    
   > > With 1 TB of nightly crushed data, indexes and t-logs, and 0.6 TB    
   > > free, I think that we should shop for around 4 TB total space,   
   > > and, /yes/ we /could/ buy that size of hard disk for under    
   > > US$200 but apparently it isn't that simple.  Although, obviously,   
   > > it ought to be.   
   >    
   > When things with backups and maintenance plans go *really*    
   > wrong some free space in a separate partition could save    
   > your asses.  [war story follows]   
      
   This is true.  I did something quite similar by accident    
   to our demonstration server, on Friday.   
      
   But what I'm looking for is guidance on numbers for partition   
   sizes, such as a formula.   
      
   I think it will depend significantly on what you're doing    
   with data.   
      
   What we're doing is picking up most of the current year data    
   from regional servers, overnight and weekly, and loading it   
   into databases organised for report generation.  So there's    
   a lot of data getting moved around and processed and indexed   
   on the reporting server, every night.  That's the workload.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)