I've got a feeling I must have missed something here.We've currently in the process of migrating a largeish amount of data into a new system. We've got a lot of historical data which we must keep, but cannot be changed, and current information which can be for a given period. So the dB's partitioned by time period.The cunning plan was to set non-current (for want of a better term) partitions read only, with only current read-write (and possibly a little performance boost while accessing the old info). Then I tested my consistency check routine. And, yes - for those of you in the know, it did indeed go <THUD>. Apparently, DBCC CHECK ... does not run on a database with any partition(s) readonly.But, hooray, you can snapshot a database and check that. All 2 Tb of it, why thank you for that, not helpful.But maybe I can change the status, CHECK then change back on the readonly filegroups. Nope, to do that I have to grab exclusive access - chucking all the users out of our 24-7-365 highly sensitive system. Then do it again when I'm finished, or leave them locked out while I check 2Tb of data. The politics of that (and, frankly the reality for those on the front line), I wouldn't be able to get as far as making the suggestion, not happening.Am I missing a trick, or if you have partitioning you have to choose EITHER having readonly partitions OR being able to run integrity checks? I must be missing something, surely, because that's just ridiculous. Anyone care to make me feel foolish by pointing out an obvious solution?
↧