Posted by David Portas on 08/06/06 22:24

Bjørn Augestad wrote:

> The best solution, IMHO, would be to have NTFS without journaling or
> NTFS with the journal on a separate disk. If that's not possible, we'll
> probably just settle for regular NTFS partitions, or maybe throw in a
> couple of RamSan-400 boxes ;-)

I'm by no means an expert on NTFS but as far as I can determine
journaling applies only to file allocation, not to data. In a
well-managed environment SQL Server's storage should generally be
pre-allocated so I don't see why journaling should need to be a
performance constraint at runtime.

Maybe I've missed something but I have actually never heard anyone
raise a concern about this before and I've found virtually no relevant
information on it. That suggests to me that it's not an issue I need to
be concerned about. My impression is the same as Erland's: other
factors must rate as far more important determinants of DBMS
performance.

--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP

Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.

SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

[Back to original message]