|
|
|
re: Raid performance
Friday, August 26, 2005 at 2:09 am
Windows Server 2003 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by miffy900
(97 messages posted)
Since when you mirror a drive, and your not using RAID, only using a normal dynamic-disk
configuration, performance is degraded. This is something that happens regardless
of any factor, its just that since any file operation sent to the real disk is also
reciprocated on the clone disk. Because these operations aren't exposed through the
UI (ie, you don't see two copy dialogues when copying one file only once), the normal
copy time is increased by ~100%. This applies to read, write and delete operatiosn
as well, since the clone disk has to be kept exactly the same as the real disk in
case of disk failure. You can infer from normal file operations to see how fair SQL
Server and IIS will do in production. You could download the IIS stress tool to test
before and after effects.
You should note however, that since a disk is
mirrored, it doesnt mean that IIS or SQL will handle requests more slowly since they're
all tied into memory and not to disk. Also I don't think that the pagefile is mirrored
so performance with applications that have data in virtual memory shouldn't be too
bad.
- Written in response to:
- Raid performance (Matthew Steinblock: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 5:56 pm)
There are presently no replies to this message.
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | re: Raid performance (miffy900: Fri, Aug 26, 2005, 2:09 am) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows Server 2003 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
