Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
meisalas
Starting Member
6 Posts |
 Posted - 2010-10-25 : 16:21:34
|
| I am wondering if anyone out there have had a comparison of extracting data in and out of a database wherein in one platform, the data resides on an MSA, and the other one is on the SAN. The data involved is almost exactly the same, there was just a little more data to extract out of the MSA, than with the SAN attached database server. The difference with the database server:* The one connected to the MSA is on a Windows 2003 server with SQL2005 in 32-bit.* The one connected to the SAN is on a Windows 2008 server with SQL2005 in 64-bit.Just to give an overview of the storage system:* The MSA has a data drive 8 disk subsystem configured as RAID 10. The log comprised of 4 disks configured as RAID 10 as well.* The SAN (which I don't really know much of the details other than it has 15 disk in the aggregate and is used for both Data and Log. It is using the NetApps filerview and doesn't really require having the separation of the data and the log. (I've read several debates on this about this, and it seems like a paradigm shift, i haven't made the shift yet, but i haven't seen any topic yet to invalidate it, for NetApp at least). That is another topic in itself.Okay, as for the BCP IN and OUT operations, it is showing that the BCP OUT for the MSA outperforms the operation for the SAN. I was expecting the other way around. What could be the explanation to this? Am I to conclude that the one with MSA is by far better than the one connected to the fiber channel?Below are the figures:BCP OUT Operation# of Rows: 18MillionServer(MSA) : Clocktime is 2,493,813 msAverage Rows/sec : 7,344.79Server(SAN) : Clocktime is 5,108,922 msAverage Rows/sec : 3,593.20# of Rows: 43MillionServer(MSA) : Clocktime is 8,640,938msAverage Rows/sec : 5,089.11Server(SAN) : Clocktime is 12,282,484 msAverage Rows/sec : 3,593.28For the BCP IN, they're pretty much comparable, close figures:For the average rows/sec (for the one with 18 million rows):Server(MSA) : 2809.72Server(SAN) : 2747.84For the average rows/sec (for the one with 43 million rows):Server(MSA) : 2311.38Server(SAN) : 2356.68 |
|
|
Michael Valentine Jones
Yak DBA Kernel (pronounced Colonel)
7020 Posts |
Posted - 2010-10-25 : 17:00:06
|
| What is an "MSA"?CODO ERGO SUM |
 |
|
|
meisalas
Starting Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 2010-10-25 : 19:03:44
|
| I always thought it was Multiple-storage-array (that may be incorrect). I guess this comparison, is between a Direct Attached Storage (system), and MSA is one type of it. And one is the SAN, which in our case, it's fiber-attached.I think i fall into the wrong belief that if it's fiber-attached, its faster (well, it's more expensive). |
|
|
|
Michael Valentine Jones
Yak DBA Kernel (pronounced Colonel)
7020 Posts |
Posted - 2010-10-26 : 12:23:08
|
| The link speed of the HBA, SAN switch, and SAN backplane can all impact performance. I have seen many cases where direct-attached storage outperformed SAN storage.You should really test the IO performance using the SQLIO utility to get a true picture of the performance.Google will give you many articles about using SQLIO to test perfromance.CODO ERGO SUM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BCP IN and OUT Comparison (SAN/MSA)