Data and log file naming conventions

I have several user databases across several servers.
Some of the physical data files are stored as databasename.mdf,
databasename_data.mdf...
Some of the physical log files are stored as databasename.ldf,
databasename_log.ldf...
Does any one has any naming convention suggestion on this?
Currently SQL2K. Planning to move SQL2005 when it is available.
Thanks,
HarryUse whatever convention is logical and meets your needs; the main thing
is to be consistent.
Personally, I tend to stick with the GUI default <dbname>_data.mdf &
<dbname>_log.ldf for everything I can (using default values for things,
if they're sensible & reasonable, tends to avoid the pain of having to
memorise different conventions). For secondary data files I tend to use
<dbname>n_data.ndf where n is just a simple incrementing integer (1, 2,
3...), eg. mydb_Data.mdf, mydb_Log.ldf, mydb1_Data.ndf, mydb2_Data.ndf, etc.
CREATE DATABASE <dbname>, with no extra parameters, will create the
database with <dbname>.mdf & <dbname>_log.ldf but I've always thought
that to be inconsistent (with "_log" but not "_data") so I've always
gone with the recommendation of the GUI (with the _data & _log postfixes).
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HarrySmith wrote:

>I have several user databases across several servers.
>Some of the physical data files are stored as databasename.mdf,
>databasename_data.mdf...
>Some of the physical log files are stored as databasename.ldf,
>databasename_log.ldf...
>Does any one has any naming convention suggestion on this?
>Currently SQL2K. Planning to move SQL2005 when it is available.
>Thanks,
>Harry
>
>

Data and log file naming conventions

I have several user databases across several servers.
Some of the physical data files are stored as databasename.mdf,
databasename_data.mdf...
Some of the physical log files are stored as databasename.ldf,
databasename_log.ldf...
Does any one has any naming convention suggestion on this?
Currently SQL2K. Planning to move SQL2005 when it is available.
Thanks,
Harry
Use whatever convention is logical and meets your needs; the main thing
is to be consistent.
Personally, I tend to stick with the GUI default <dbname>_data.mdf &
<dbname>_log.ldf for everything I can (using default values for things,
if they're sensible & reasonable, tends to avoid the pain of having to
memorise different conventions). For secondary data files I tend to use
<dbname>n_data.ndf where n is just a simple incrementing integer (1, 2,
3...), eg. mydb_Data.mdf, mydb_Log.ldf, mydb1_Data.ndf, mydb2_Data.ndf, etc.
CREATE DATABASE <dbname>, with no extra parameters, will create the
database with <dbname>.mdf & <dbname>_log.ldf but I've always thought
that to be inconsistent (with "_log" but not "_data") so I've always
gone with the recommendation of the GUI (with the _data & _log postfixes).
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HarrySmith wrote:

>I have several user databases across several servers.
>Some of the physical data files are stored as databasename.mdf,
>databasename_data.mdf...
>Some of the physical log files are stored as databasename.ldf,
>databasename_log.ldf...
>Does any one has any naming convention suggestion on this?
>Currently SQL2K. Planning to move SQL2005 when it is available.
>Thanks,
>Harry
>
>

Data and log file naming conventions

I have several user databases across several servers.
Some of the physical data files are stored as databasename.mdf,
databasename_data.mdf...
Some of the physical log files are stored as databasename.ldf,
databasename_log.ldf...
Does any one has any naming convention suggestion on this?
Currently SQL2K. Planning to move SQL2005 when it is available.
Thanks,
HarryThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--020803060805070804090702
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Use whatever convention is logical and meets your needs; the main thing
is to be consistent.
Personally, I tend to stick with the GUI default <dbname>_data.mdf &
<dbname>_log.ldf for everything I can (using default values for things,
if they're sensible & reasonable, tends to avoid the pain of having to
memorise different conventions). For secondary data files I tend to use
<dbname>n_data.ndf where n is just a simple incrementing integer (1, 2,
3...), eg. mydb_Data.mdf, mydb_Log.ldf, mydb1_Data.ndf, mydb2_Data.ndf, etc.
CREATE DATABASE <dbname>, with no extra parameters, will create the
database with <dbname>.mdf & <dbname>_log.ldf but I've always thought
that to be inconsistent (with "_log" but not "_data") so I've always
gone with the recommendation of the GUI (with the _data & _log postfixes).
--
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HarrySmith wrote:
>I have several user databases across several servers.
>Some of the physical data files are stored as databasename.mdf,
>databasename_data.mdf...
>Some of the physical log files are stored as databasename.ldf,
>databasename_log.ldf...
>Does any one has any naming convention suggestion on this?
>Currently SQL2K. Planning to move SQL2005 when it is available.
>Thanks,
>Harry
>
>
--020803060805070804090702
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>Use whatever convention is logical and meets your needs; the main
thing is to be consistent.<br>
<br>
Personally, I tend to stick with the GUI default
<dbname>_data.mdf & <dbname>_log.ldf for everything I
can (using default values for things, if they're sensible &
reasonable, tends to avoid the pain of having to memorise different
conventions). For secondary data files I tend to use
<dbname>n_data.ndf where n is just a simple incrementing integer
(1, 2, 3...), eg. mydb_Data.mdf, mydb_Log.ldf, mydb1_Data.ndf,
mydb2_Data.ndf, etc.<br>
<br>
CREATE DATABASE <dbname>, with no extra parameters, will create
the database with <dbname>.mdf & <dbname>_log.ldf but
I've always thought that to be inconsistent (with "_log" but not
"_data") so I've always gone with the recommendation of the GUI (with
the _data & _log postfixes).<br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font></span> <b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2">blog:</font><font face="Tahoma" size="2"> <a
href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
HarrySmith wrote:
<blockquote cite="midONj5bFAtFHA.3604@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have several user databases across several servers.
Some of the physical data files are stored as databasename.mdf,
databasename_data.mdf...
Some of the physical log files are stored as databasename.ldf,
databasename_log.ldf...
Does any one has any naming convention suggestion on this?
Currently SQL2K. Planning to move SQL2005 when it is available.
Thanks,
Harry
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--020803060805070804090702--