THE SQL Server Blog Spot on the Web

Welcome to SQLblog.com - The SQL Server blog spot on the web Sign in | |
in Search

Browse by Tags

All Tags » Best Practices » Performance » Storage   (RSS)
Showing page 1 of 2 (11 total posts)
  • Performance impact: file fragmentation and SAN – Part IV

    Lies, damned lies, and statistics!   If you have read my three previous posts (1, 2, 3), you may walk away with an impression that on a drive presented from a high-end enterprise class disk array, Windows file fragmentation does not have a significant performance impact. And I’ve given you empirical data—oh yeah, statistics—to support that ...
    Posted to Linchi Shea (Weblog) by Linchi Shea on December 22, 2008
  • Finding Disk Partition Offsets Made Easy

    There were discussions on disk misalignment on this site. See my previous post on “Performance Impact of Disk Misalignment”, and Kevin Kline’s blog on “How to Improve Application and Database Performance up to 40% in One Easy Step”   But thanks to Jimmy May's PASS 2008 presentation on the I/O performance impact of disk partition ...
    Posted to Linchi Shea (Weblog) by Linchi Shea on November 24, 2008
  • Best and Worst Checkpoint Performance

    The best documentation on the I/O behavior of SQL Server checkpoints is found in SQL Server 2000 I/O Basics by Bob Dorr. In particular, you should read the following carefully: SQL Server uses the following steps to set up another page for flushing and repeats for up to 16 total pages inclusive of the first page. Do a hash lookup for the ...
    Posted to Linchi Shea (Weblog) by Linchi Shea on November 1, 2007
  • Performance Impact: the Most Optimal Insert Script can't Beat BulkCopy

    With the insert script and the test configurations in my previous posts, the best data load throughput was 24GB in ~7 minutes when the checkpoint (and/or transaction commit) batch size was set to 100,000 ~ 1,000,000. That was the best result when I was trying to get the most out of the insert script. But if we forget about tinkering the ...
    Posted to Linchi Shea (Weblog) by Linchi Shea on August 27, 2007
  • Performance Impact: Finding the Most Optimal Batch Size

    In my previous posts (1, 2, 3), I focused on the performance behavior of setting the checkpoints and transaction commit sizes to once every 16 inserts and once every 100,000 inserts. A question remains: what is the most optimal size? In other words, in the following script, what value should we give to variable @batch_size so that the script ...
    Posted to Linchi Shea (Weblog) by Linchi Shea on August 23, 2007
  • Performance Impact: Manual Checkpoints are not Necessarily Evil

    In my two previous posts on the performance impact of frequent manual checkpoints and the I/O behavior of frequent manual checkpoints, I demonstrated that frequently issuing manual checkpoints can be bad for performance and why it's bad from the storage perspective. If you were led to believe that manual checkpoints were always bad, that wasn't ...
    Posted to Linchi Shea (Weblog) by Linchi Shea on August 20, 2007
  • Performance Impact: Frequent Manual Checkpoints and Their I/O Behavior

    In my previous blog post on the performance impact of frequent manual checkpoints, I highlighted the performance peril of going overboard with manual checkpoints, and I suggested that a major contributing factor was the failure of frequent manual checkpoints to take advantage of the throughput potential of the underlying storage. But I didn't ...
    Posted to Linchi Shea (Weblog) by Linchi Shea on August 17, 2007
  • Disk Partition Alignment in the Published TPC Benchmarks

    In SQL Server related storage literature, it is almost univerally recommended that disk partitions be aligned either on the 32K or the 64K boundary. On this subject, I posted some test results a while back, regarding the performance impact of disk partition misalignment: ...
    Posted to Linchi Shea (Weblog) by Linchi Shea on July 19, 2007
  • Performance Impact of Using NTFS Compression with Read-Only Databases

    SQL Server 2005 supports placing read-only filegroups or read-only databases on NTFS compression. In other words, you can compress the database files in a read-only filegroup or a read-only database. This can be a very useful feature if saving disk storage is of high priority. But what are the performance implications of using this SQL Server ...
    Posted to Linchi Shea (Weblog) by Linchi Shea on May 4, 2007
  • Should I Use a Windows Striped Volume?

    In Windows Server 2003, you can use the Disk Management console to create a striped volume over multiple dynamic disks (well, you can also create a mirrored, a RAID-5 volume, etc). If these disks (or LUNs) are presented from a SAN, most likely you can stripe across the same storage devices--making up these LUNs--inside the SAN to present ...
    Posted to Linchi Shea (Weblog) by Linchi Shea on March 12, 2007
1 2 Next >
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems
  Privacy Statement