July 22, 2009 at 6:29 am
Hello Everyone
What wiil be the best File Allocation Unit Size for storing sql server files?
Vivek
Vivek Shukla - MCTS SQL Server 2008
July 22, 2009 at 6:37 am
If you block size allocation for the drives, 64K for data files, 8K for log files, block aligned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
July 22, 2009 at 6:52 am
Please excuse me if i may sound ignorant here but when you say "if you block size allocation drives" - do we actually have an option there? If so then is it better to do so or not?
And i take it that sql server reads/write data to datafile in 64k and to log file in 8k.
Many thanks.
Vivek
Vivek Shukla - MCTS SQL Server 2008
July 22, 2009 at 7:11 am
vivek (7/22/2009)
Please excuse me if i may sound ignorant here but when you say "if you block size allocation drives" - do we actually have an option there? If so then is it better to do so or not?
Apologies, I totally missed out a word, I meant to say 'If you mean block size allocation for the drives '
And i take it that sql server reads/write data to datafile in 64k and to log file in 8k.
yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
July 22, 2009 at 8:12 am
Obviously, i won't be able to cahnge existing file allocation unit size. As when i check the existing file allocation unit size it shows following.
Version : 3.1
Number Sectors : 0x0000000022ec3977
Total Clusters : 0x00000000045d872e
Free Clusters : 0x00000000043ff35c
Total Reserved : 0x0000000000000000
Bytes Per Sector : 512
Bytes Per Cluster : 4096
Bytes Per FileRecord Segment : 1024
Clusters Per FileRecord Segment : 0
Mft Valid Data Length : 0x000000000173c000
Mft Start Lcn : 0x00000000000c0000
Mft2 Start Lcn : 0x00000000022ec397
Mft Zone Start : 0x00000000000c16e0
Mft Zone End : 0x000000000097b100
Do you think it will make huge performance difference if i increase this to 64K?
Thanks a lot for your help.
Vivek
Vivek Shukla - MCTS SQL Server 2008
July 22, 2009 at 8:52 am
I would not say huge but it is the MS recommendation and would help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
July 27, 2009 at 2:14 am
Thanks george.
Vivek Shukla - MCTS SQL Server 2008
July 28, 2009 at 8:30 am
Probably more important than cluster size is sector alignment of the partition itself. Review all the stuff here for details: http://blogs.msdn.com/jimmymay/archive/2008/10/14/disk-partition-alignment-for-sql-server-slide-deck.aspx
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
August 19, 2009 at 3:27 am
Should this make significant perf improvement?
Vivek
Vivek Shukla - MCTS SQL Server 2008
August 19, 2009 at 3:30 am
Hi George
george sibbald (7/22/2009)
If you block size allocation for the drives, 64K for data files, 8K for log files, block aligned.
Would it be better to have 8k for tempdb files or i should have them on 64K?
Vivek
Vivek Shukla - MCTS SQL Server 2008
August 19, 2009 at 7:34 am
1) failure to do disk partition alignment can rob an IO subsystem of double-digit percentage throughput capability. In the worst case (pure 64K random IO) you can gain 100% throughput by aligning because unaligned you are doing 2 IOs for every request.
2) My recollection is 64K cluster size is best practice for tlog partitions and data partitions.
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
August 19, 2009 at 10:47 am
Thanks a lot for your help.
Vivek
Vivek Shukla - MCTS SQL Server 2008
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply
This website stores cookies on your computer.
These cookies are used to improve your website experience and provide more personalized services to you, both on this website and through other media.
To find out more about the cookies we use, see our Privacy Policy