<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://sqlblog.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>Database Physical Storage Design</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/archive/2007/11/19/database-physical-storage-design.aspx</link><description>In June 2006, Microsoft published a SQL Server technical paper on Physical Database Storage Design . This paper was updated in February 2007. The paper is generally well written, and the recommendations are reasonable. However, the following two specific</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)</generator><item><title>re: Database Physical Storage Design</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/archive/2007/11/19/database-physical-storage-design.aspx#3414</link><pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:17:56 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:3414</guid><dc:creator>James Luetkehoelter</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Great points on both accounts! Especially the one about locally attached storage - the business drivers usually determine whether locally attached storage is used.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>