The 64GB limit as a maximum file size for databases was achieved in 1999 (http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/today.nsf/0/cf126cec10ccd68285256650004969a6/$FILE/Perform2.PDF). Now, five years from then, it is still the same. (http://www-12.lotus.com/ldd/doc/uafiles.nsf/docs/Designer6PR2/$File/designappdev.pdf, search for 64GB) In the forums more and more people report problems hitting this limit. Isn’t is time for IBM to increase or remove this limit?
Subject: Isn’t it time for IBM to remove the 64GB limit?
The idea is that the OS limit is the limit - ie. there isnt an IBM/Lotus imposed limit.
Ie. - if Windows is limited to 64GB when addressing a single file then windows is to blame and perhaps its time for those people (who need bigger) to change OS.
This is based on what IBM and Lotus maintain anyway and has been the case since R5.
HTH
Greg
Subject: RE: Isn’t it time for IBM to remove the 64GB limit?
just out of interest how many Notes databases get to 64GB???
Subject: RE: Isn’t it time for IBM to remove the 64GB limit?
Good point. I’d like to see some of the other posts who have complained about this issue??
I feel I’ve worked with some reasonably scaled up Notes DBs and the biggest I worked on so far was around 15GB.
I think I’d be a little bit nervous if I had an NSF approaching 64GBs, though I dont have any real basis for this anxiety.
Subject: It’s document count, not size that affects performance
I have a client with a (near) 64GB database. It performs OK on a dual P3 (1.25 GHz) server. The reason is that there are only ~100,000 documents. How did it get so big? Improperly scanned PDFs. The point is that it’s the document count that kills performance.
If you read my other posts in this thread, you will see that there IS an hard limit of 64 GB on nsf’s, and that’s a Notes/Domino limitation, not an OS limitation. It’s the same limit in R5, R6, R6.5 (from painful experience).
Subject: I think you’ll find there isn’t actually a 64Gb limit
It’s just that 64Gb is all it’s been tested up to and therefore is all it’s supported up to.
Subject: Oh yes there is!
There is a HARD limit of 64 GB, regardless of OS. I know this from very painful experience. Once reached, the database locks up, and becomes totally inaccessible from any interface. It can’t be opened, and you can’t get data out.
If you’ve ever run into the 2GB barrier with MS Outlook 2000, it’s the same deal. The only difference is, Microsoft developed a utility to let you get most of your data back if this happened. Lotus has not. This is a big problem. LOTUS ARE YOU LISTENING???
Subject: 64GB is the max on W2K and linux
We tested on Linux (Suse) and tried to create a database larger than 64 GB. At 64 GB IBM seems to block further creation of new documents.
The error message we got was:
Database (.nsf) has grown to large; use File New Replica to recreate your file with larger capacity.
In the database properties box the size was displayed as:
65.508 MB, 100% used.
Steven B. from Australia, tested it on a NT server and had the following experience:
Hi Laurens.
Once the database hit 64Gb according to the Windows NT size, it stopped
operating. We couldn’t open the database, compact it or anything. We had to
go to a backup which wasn’t quite 64Gb and archive documents into another
database and change alot in the design for it to occur. Currently we have
the database operating at 45Gb and archiving daily to maintain that size.
Linux wasn’t an option for us but might be worth a look.
Just remember that once it hits 64Gb (measure it by right mouse clicking on
it in the O/S) it becomes useless.
Thought I’d let you know.
Subject: From the Knowledge Base
Since you’re quoting from beta documentation there, here is the informaton most current in the Knowledge Base
Database size: The maximum OS file size limit – (up to 64GB)
By the way - if you really want to manage a Notes database that approaches that size, be my guest.
Subject: Isn’t it time for IBM to remove the 64GB limit?
maybe in documentation. In real life, AFAIK Notes 4 & 5 forum size is about twice 64K (not really but close)
Subject: Isn’t it time for IBM to remove the 64GB limit?
I’ve not seeen any documentation on this but I would expect the limit to be removed for db’s based on DB2 in Release 7
Subject: RE: Isn’t it time for IBM to remove the 64GB limit?
Yeah, I’d expect DB2 to handle it as well. I think the real limit for 64GB .NSF is that operating systems have their own performance limits.
Subject: RE: Isn’t it time for IBM to remove the 64GB limit?
Precisely. 64GB is the file size limit for NTFS, for instance, without the extended directory facility in WinXP and Win2K3.
Subject: Wrong - NTFS limit is 2 TB, not 64 GB
From Microsoft Resource Kit for Windows 2000 and Windos XP:
Maximum Sizes on NTFS Volumes
“In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 264 clusters. However, there are limitations to the maximum size of a volume, such as volume tables. By industry standards, volume tables are limited to 232 sectors.”
“Sector size, another limitation, is typically 512 bytes. While sector sizes might increase in the future, the current size puts a limit on a single volume of 2 terabytes (232 * 512 bytes, or 241 bytes). For now, 2 terabytes is considered the practical limit for both physical and logical volumes using NTFS.”
Subject: RE: Wrong - NTFS limit is 2 TB, not 64 GB
Read the MS documentation a little more carefully (or, rather, more deeply, since the overview is a little misleading). NTFS “classic” only supports 64GB, so if you partititioned the drive under WinNT or Win2K, that’s all you are going to get. (The limitation is the cluster size and therefore the number of locations in the Master File Table required to record the location of each file. WinXP and Win2K3 use a different version of NTFS, with a different cluster size and a differently-arranged MFT, with a secondary extended table to map the overflow when necessary.)
Subject: RE: Wrong - NTFS limit is 2 TB, not 64 GB
According to Microsoft, the maximum file size under Windows 2003 is 16 TB:
Subject: RE: Wrong - NTFS limit is 2 TB, not 64 GB
Please note that this is NOT automatic. The limit for NTFS without applying the XP/2003 extensions (essentially an extended allocation table, which is NOT in the primary table) is 64GB.