Re: Determine Disk Block Size ?
From: Andrew J. Kelly (sqlmvpnooospam_at_shadhawk.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: Replication enhancement in Yukon"
- Previous message: Aquila Deus: "JDBC and local server access (shared memory)"
- In reply to: Anthony Thomas: "Re: Determine Disk Block Size ?"
- Next in thread: Anthony Thomas: "Re: Determine Disk Block Size ?"
- Reply: Anthony Thomas: "Re: Determine Disk Block Size ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:03:20 -0500
An I agree with your comments except for the last one:
>>>
Furthermore, more files per Filegroup will spawn
additional disk threads per request.
<<
That was true with 7.0 but is not necessarily true with SQL2000. In 2000
Sql Server can spawn multiple threads to read a single file as well. So
just having multiple files does not mean it will be more effecient or spawn
more threads than a single file.
-- Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP "Anthony Thomas" <ALThomas@kc.rr.com> wrote in message news:ep16rw1BFHA.3592@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > Not that I disagree with the RAID-10 argument, I don't; however, I do > disagree with your comments about NTFS Cluster Sizes (a.k.a., block size). > > The MS SQL Server Operations Manual makes a recommendation of using 64-KB > cluster sizes. We have done so with a dramatic total disk I/O throughput. > It makes sense. SQL Server reads and writes data in 8KB data pages, but > issues Scatter-Gather I/O requests in 4 or more Extents (8 x 8KB pages) > simultaneously. If your block sizes are on these 8KB boundaries, SQL > Server > Disk I/O requests can be more efficient. > > Your biggest disk throughput bottleneck is total number of I/O Operations > a > single spindle can handle. You're throughput will be based on type of > access, sequential versus random, and the size of each request. > Optimizing > the request sizes coupled with a fixed maximum number of I/O Ops, should > make your system as efficient as possible. > > Nevertheless, and along the same lines as the RAID arguments already > presented, this is also suggested from the Operations Manual: more smaller > disks are more efficient than fewer larger disks. This would come into > play > in the 0 part of the RAID-10 argument. Striping allows more physical > spindles to fulfill requests, each one capable of servicing a theoretical > maximum number of I/O Ops. Furthermore, more files per Filegroup will > spawn > additional disk threads per request. This coupled with number of disks > can > greatly improve throughput. > > Sincerely, > > > Anthony Thomas > > > -- > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message > news:uY2FhGsBFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > Hi > > Rather make sure that your drives are configured correctly. > Make sure your logs on RAID-10, and preferably your data on a separate > RAID-10 volume. RAID-5 hurts more than it helps. > As Geoff said, block size is not important, but getting maximum IO > throughput is. > > Regards > -------------------------------- > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP > Zurich, Switzerland > > IM: mike@epprecht.net > > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp > > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/ > > "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message > news:uhfJBgXBFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> Unless you have an overriding reason, go with the hardware manufacturer's >> recommendations. These are typically the default settings. Changing the >> NTFS block size usually has no measurable effect on system performance. >> >> -- >> Geoff N. Hiten >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> Senior Database Administrator >> Careerbuilder.com >> >> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server >> www.sqlpass.org >> >> "Joe K." <Joe K.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:B77A9710-86AA-4319-B539-6F65D91E5ECA@microsoft.com... >> > >> > I have a SQL Server 2000 Enterprise database that processes 300 >> > transactions/sec, approximately 300 users, and 250 GB in size. How can > I >> > determine the the appropriate disk block size that should be on my > system. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > >> >> > >
- Next message: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: Replication enhancement in Yukon"
- Previous message: Aquila Deus: "JDBC and local server access (shared memory)"
- In reply to: Anthony Thomas: "Re: Determine Disk Block Size ?"
- Next in thread: Anthony Thomas: "Re: Determine Disk Block Size ?"
- Reply: Anthony Thomas: "Re: Determine Disk Block Size ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|