<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" target="_blank"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" alt="i" width="468" height="60"/></a>
Log in
::
Register
::
Not logged in
Home
Tags
Articles
Editorials
Stairways
Forums
Scripts
Videos
Blogs
QotD
Books
Ask SSC
SQL Jobs
Training
Authors
About us
Contact us
Newsletters
Write for us
<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" target="_top"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" alt="i" width="120" height="300"/></a>
Recent Posts
Recent Posts
Popular Topics
Popular Topics
Home
Search
Members
Calendar
Who's On
Home
»
SQL Server 2012
»
SQL 2012 - General
»
SSD Performance & index fragmentation
SSD Performance & index fragmentation
Rate Topic
Display Mode
Topic Options
Author
Message
Balance
Balance
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 1:12 PM
SSC-Addicted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 5:45 AM
Points: 462,
Visits: 643
I'm not quite sure where is the best place to post this question but here goes.
My understanding is that if I were to install Windows onto an SSD drive then I would no longer want to defrag the hard disk - I was wondering if I were to start using flash storage arrays of one sort or another (I don't have a variety in mind, just a question out of interest) would index fragmentation still be an issue and need dealing with - presumably it would become an issue eventually but the rewriting activity would need to be minimised?
Does anyone know of any studies into this sort of thing with SQL Server & SSDs?
Thanks
Post #1420730
opc.three
opc.three
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 2:49 PM
SSCertifiable
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:55 PM
Points: 6,720,
Visits: 11,759
Brent Ozar and Paul Randal both have posted research and findings on the topic. Google or Bing are your friend there. I just pulled back a bunch of relevant results.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
--Plato
Believe you can and you're halfway there.
--Theodore Roosevelt
Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler
--Albert Einstein
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
--Albert Einstein
1 apple is not exactly 1/8 of 8 apples. Because there are no absolutely identical apples.
--Giordy
Post #1420780
GilaMonster
GilaMonster
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 2:50 PM
SSC-Dedicated
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:30 AM
Points: 37,725,
Visits: 29,982
Fragmentation, probably not. Low page density (a side effect of fragmentation), hell yes. Having half of your expensive SSD going to waste because of low page density isn't the greatest of ideas.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild
: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass
Post #1420783
Balance
Balance
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 3:26 PM
SSC-Addicted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 5:45 AM
Points: 462,
Visits: 643
Thanks
Post #1420806
TheSQLGuru
TheSQLGuru
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 3:27 PM
Hall of Fame
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:54 PM
Points: 3,578,
Visits: 5,120
GilaMonster (2/15/2013)
Fragmentation, probably not. Low page density (a side effect of fragmentation), hell yes. Having half of your expensive SSD going to waste because of low page density isn't the greatest of ideas.
I agree. I think Jonathan Kehayias did a blog post about that (and also about sequential IO actually being faster on SSDs too, just like on rotating media).
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru at GMail
Post #1420807
Nadrek
Nadrek
Posted Monday, February 25, 2013 2:23 PM
Say Hey Kid
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:28 PM
Points: 675,
Visits: 2,031
Yes, SSD's (and SSD's in RAID configurations) are indeed still faster for sequential access than they are for random access (significantly, in the case of writes, slightly in the case of reads). Spinning disks are significantly faster in sequential access for both writes and reads.
Note that I've provided some SSD performance results in the
RAID and Its impact on your SQL performance
thread.
Testing techniques and how to load the output into SQL Server comes from the
FusionIO
thread.
Post #1423776
« Prev Topic
|
Next Topic »
Permissions
You
cannot
post new topics.
You
cannot
post topic replies.
You
cannot
post new polls.
You
cannot
post replies to polls.
You
cannot
edit your own topics.
You
cannot
delete your own topics.
You
cannot
edit other topics.
You
cannot
delete other topics.
You
cannot
edit your own posts.
You
cannot
edit other posts.
You
cannot
delete your own posts.
You
cannot
delete other posts.
You
cannot
post events.
You
cannot
edit your own events.
You
cannot
edit other events.
You
cannot
delete your own events.
You
cannot
delete other events.
You
cannot
send private messages.
You
cannot
send emails.
You
may
read topics.
You
cannot
rate topics.
You
cannot
vote within polls.
You
cannot
upload attachments.
You
may
download attachments.
You
cannot
post HTML code.
You
cannot
edit HTML code.
You
cannot
post IFCode.
You
cannot
post JavaScript.
You
cannot
post EmotIcons.
You
cannot
post or upload images.
Copyright © 2002-2013 Simple Talk Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy.
Terms of Use.
Report Abuse.
