|
|
Posted by bjorn.augestad@gmail.com on 08/05/06 05:57
Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> bjorn.augestad@gmail.com (bjorn.augestad@gmail.com) writes:
> > We're planning to migrate our db to new and more disk drives, faster
> > RAID levels and more dedicated disk usage(e.g. placing the translog on
> > dedicated disks). The db server runs on Win2003.
> >
> > Right now we're thinking about what file system to use on the new
> > drives. We opt for performance, but expect reliability as well.(Goes
> > without saying, IMHO ;-))
> >
> >>From what I can tell, NTFS is a journaling file system, at least it
> > does some journaling. I'd prefer to have no journaling and sacrifice
> > boot time for performance, and was wondering if it either is possible
> > to turn journaling off in NTFS or at least move the journal to a
> > separate disk. Is it doable, has anyone done this and are there any
> > benefits? Any downside?
> >
> > Are there any commonly recommended tweaks to NTFS when the server and
> > disk is dedicated to SQL Server? Stuff like
> > NTFSDisableLastAccessUpdate.
> >
> > How about alternatives to to NTFS? Is FAT32 viable or do we need to
> > look at Veritas or others?
>
> No, FAT32 is not a very good alternative. There are several features in
> SQL Server that are not available with FAT32. I got this list from one
> of the SQL Server developers:
>
> 1. Database snapshots - require support for sparse files which is available
> only under NTFS
> 2. DBCC snapshot usage - requires support for alternate streams which is
> available only under NTFS
> 3. Mount points under cluster
> 4. Data file compression which uses NTFS compression
> 5. Encryption of database files is supported only under NTFS
> 6. Differential backup, restore of full-text catalog files is supported only
> under NTFS
>
> He says the list may not be complete. He also added "I believe that recovery
> mechanisms are more robust under NTFS and protects against system failures.
> I think the user is worrying too much about NTFS when there are other
> obvious performance bottlenecks."
I get your point(s) :-) So FAT32 is out, not a big surprise.
Once upon a time I was playing around with file systems(JFS, XFS and
others), Oracle and AIX as well as OSF/1. I spent a considerable time
measuring performance for different configurations and journaling file
systems *with* the journal on the same disk as the db data(or translog)
was awfully slow compared to other configurations. I assumed that is
was due to disk head movements back and forth between the journal and
the file.
So even if the file system isn't the performance bottleneck right now,
I'd prefer to configure all the new disk drives optimally from day one.
I read the NTFS spec and browsed through all the options, but couldn't
find anything about tuning the journal. I'll have to reread it, I
guess...
Thanks,
Bjørn
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|