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 ...
>
Showing posts with label increasing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label increasing. Show all posts
Thursday, February 16, 2012
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 ...
>|||I think you are talking about NTFS Allocation Unit Size (correct me if I
am wrong).
If this is the case then the answer is yes.
Pro's: If you increase it to 8K, a complete page is read in one action.
Con's: If you are using the drive also for other programs, you be reaing
to much in an action, and lose a lot of disk space if you write al lot
of small files.
Hassan wrote:
> It appears the the default block size is 4K. Is it worth increasing the si
ze
> ? 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/pr...in/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 siz
e
>? 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 ...
>
? 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 ...
>|||I think you are talking about NTFS Allocation Unit Size (correct me if I
am wrong).
If this is the case then the answer is yes.
Pro's: If you increase it to 8K, a complete page is read in one action.
Con's: If you are using the drive also for other programs, you be reaing
to much in an action, and lose a lot of disk space if you write al lot
of small files.
Hassan wrote:
> It appears the the default block size is 4K. Is it worth increasing the si
ze
> ? 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/pr...in/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 siz
e
>? 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 ...
>
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 ...
>|||I think you are talking about NTFS Allocation Unit Size (correct me if I
am wrong).
If this is the case then the answer is yes.
Pro's: If you increase it to 8K, a complete page is read in one action.
Con's: If you are using the drive also for other programs, you be reaing
to much in an action, and lose a lot of disk space if you write al lot
of small files.
Hassan wrote:
> 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...
>> It appears the the default block size is 4K. Is it worth increasing the
>> size ? Pros and cons ...
>|||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 ...
>
? 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 ...
>|||I think you are talking about NTFS Allocation Unit Size (correct me if I
am wrong).
If this is the case then the answer is yes.
Pro's: If you increase it to 8K, a complete page is read in one action.
Con's: If you are using the drive also for other programs, you be reaing
to much in an action, and lose a lot of disk space if you write al lot
of small files.
Hassan wrote:
> 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...
>> It appears the the default block size is 4K. Is it worth increasing the
>> size ? Pros and cons ...
>|||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 ...
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)