DBCC CheckDB and CheckAlloc

I've recently joined an organization which has no practice of regularly
running DBCC's with the explanation provided that since SQL Server is now
file based and many improvements have been made to the file system, that fil
e
corruption/database corruption including allocation issues are no longer a
threat. That DBCC's are a holdover from Sybases use of raw partitions for
storing it's databases.
Anyone care to comment on that?
I can think of hardware issues that might cause problems that this would
catch.
Any recommendations or whitepapers or links supporting use of DBCC's would
be appreciated.
Running sql 2000 Enterprise on Win Srvr 2003 Enterprise.
thanksI recall recommendations from MS and others when the new architecture (7.0)
was released with such
statements. They are absolutely right that improvements were huge.
But as you know, other things can also happen, so we definitely want to run
DBCC CHECKDB and
CHECKCATALOG (CHECKCATALOG is included in CHECKDB in 2005). No need for CHEC
KALLOG if you run
CHECKDB, though. CHECKALLOG is included in CHECKDB as of 7.0.
I'm sure there are good articles. I'd search Google and KB. I've might even
listed some here:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/msarticles.asp. Don't forget Books Online (
make sure you have most
recent version). Perhaps other will jump in with specific links.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Tom Frost" <TomFrost@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AF1B2648-0D01-44EE-B761-E024A21F443D@.microsoft.com...
> I've recently joined an organization which has no practice of regularly
> running DBCC's with the explanation provided that since SQL Server is now
> file based and many improvements have been made to the file system, that f
ile
> corruption/database corruption including allocation issues are no longer a
> threat. That DBCC's are a holdover from Sybases use of raw partitions for
> storing it's databases.
> Anyone care to comment on that?
> I can think of hardware issues that might cause problems that this would
> catch.
> Any recommendations or whitepapers or links supporting use of DBCC's would
> be appreciated.
> Running sql 2000 Enterprise on Win Srvr 2003 Enterprise.
> thanks