4K block size vs something higher

It appears the the default block size is 4K. Is it worth increasing the size
? Pros and cons ...
Hassan
Blocks are in Oracle , did you mean Pages? It is 8096 KB
"Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23Zzy3ALAHHA.204@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It appears the the default block size is 4K. Is it worth increasing the
> size ? Pros and cons ...
>
|||You can find some information on this in the Operations
Guide - check the Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation
Unit section:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx
-Sue
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:58:43 -0800, "Hassan"
<Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote:

>It appears the the default block size is 4K. Is it worth increasing the size
>? Pros and cons ...
>
|||Im talking about block size on hard disks that the OS uses to write data to.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:uyyzhFLAHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hassan
> Blocks are in Oracle , did you mean Pages? It is 8096 KB
>
> "Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Zzy3ALAHHA.204@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||Hi Hassan,
Guidance is that you match the allocation size with the stripe size of the
array/lun you are using.
In reality I've yet to see a benchmark that its actually made a difference
on!
I tend to make it 64KB on drives that only SQL data is stored on (or larger
files); essentially if you have a lot of little couple of KB files then each
file will take up a minimum of 64KB so if you have 10's of thousands of
files then you'll waste a massive amount of space.
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson - technical commentary from a SQL
Server Consultant
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23Zzy3ALAHHA.204@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It appears the the default block size is 4K. Is it worth increasing the
> size ? Pros and cons ...
>