June 7, 2010 at 4:50 am
sqlguy-549681 (6/6/2010)do you think this is can cause a problem in the performance and need more attention .
I have 2 Volumes one for Data Files and the other for Logs RAID 0,1
I hope your data/log volumes are separated from the OS/swapfile partition?
June 7, 2010 at 7:23 am
I have Perfomaed a peromance monitor countor to log (Avg. Disk sec/Write,Avg. Disk sec/Read) for 8 hours and I used PAL tool to analysis the Trace and here are the result.
red alerts for 1 min (responsivness ver slow-more that 25ms) and the rest of Alerts are yellow , So do you think that is important to start working on this issue ????
June 7, 2010 at 8:15 am
They are not the best numbers I have seen, but as always "it depends".
You must compare them to number of reads/writes per second. Since it seems like your system has enough memory I expect reads per second to be low, then I don't suspect the wait per read to slow you down at the moment. Getting a few more disks wouldn't hurt. Moving the most critical and I/O intensive databases to separate volumes should help on I/O performance.
How is memory consumption now (the query I have you)? As you have experienced, adding more memory usually has the most effect on reducing I/O activity. The more data pages SQL Server can find in memory the better it is.
Remember that my advice is not "the truth". I have just given you my opinions based on the limited information I have received. You need to gather performance and usage data over time to actually get a good picture of is the #1 bottleneck in a system. Also, many performance problems can be solved without adding more memory or disk. I have fixed slow systems with "simple" query tuning (missing indexes, poorly written queries etc). I suggest you also do a trace on queries that performs a high number of reads and writes and see if there are ways to improve them
Viewing 3 posts - 31 through 32 (of 32 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply