Post reply

files on RAW device

  • September 10, 2008 at 4:49 am

    #131182

    Hi,

    I am a new person for ms sql. Can you please put some light on my doubts?

    SQL Server support datafiles and transaction logs on raw disk?

    If you have any articles or documentation links regarding that please provide me.

    Thanks in advance

    Regards

    Boban Jayan

  • September 10, 2008 at 7:32 am

    #869619

    No. SQL does not support files on raw disk. NTFS file system is best.

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

    We walk in the dark places no others will enter
    We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

  • June 21, 2011 at 3:09 am

    #1341688

    Err - SQL Server does supports raw partitions.

  • June 21, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    #1342016

    Documentation?

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

    We walk in the dark places no others will enter
    We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

  • June 22, 2011 at 3:51 am

    #1342288

    NTFS vs. FAT vs. Raw Partitions

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc966414.aspx

    SQL Server 2000 Raw Partitions

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa933078(v=sql.80).aspx

  • June 22, 2011 at 4:23 am

    #1342295

    Great catch , now the question is does it apply to newer version of SQL 😀

    Jayanth Kurup[/url]

  • June 22, 2011 at 4:38 am

    #1342301

    It still works for 2008 R2.

  • June 22, 2011 at 5:48 am

    #1342319

    Interesting.

    My guess is that it's an optimisation for the TPC benchmarks, not something for normal use.

    Edit: Just checked with ex-MS developer. Several downsides, not something that you should consider using without serious considerations, design and thought.

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

    We walk in the dark places no others will enter
    We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

  • June 22, 2011 at 9:06 am

    #1342471

    Both Ms and Oracle provide it and most of the users are not aware.

    For the performance I've never seen a shaking change and sure there are downsides and maintenance hicks. Like how many DBA's would dare expanding the current partition on prod or convering the disk type. Requires due thoughts before one thinks about doing it. Its easier on the later ones than Win 2003.

  • July 20, 2012 at 12:42 am

    #1515310

    GilaMonster (6/22/2011)

    Edit: Just checked with ex-MS developer. Several downsides, not something that you should consider using without serious considerations, design and thought.

    Hi - this is kind of a late check, but can you brief on the downsides other than those mentioned below

    •Logical partition must be configured as a single database file, because there is no file system on the raw partition.

    •Standard file-system operations such as copy, move, and delete cannot be used with raw partitions.

    •Database files located on raw partitions cannot be backed up using the Windows NT Backup.

    •Database files on raw partitions cannot be automatically expanded. Either initially create the database at its full size, or manually expand the database files. not sure if expanding the partition in Win 2k8 & those on @k3 differ on this?

    •File-system services such as bad block replacement are not available with raw partitions.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply