Solved

Partition alignment offset and Allocation unit size in Windows 2003 Server system with SQL 2005 DB

Posted on 2009-07-01
2
1,199 Views
Last Modified: 2012-05-07
Hi,

I've a couple of Windows 2003 servers with SQL 2005 DB installed and I plan to install some new ones. They are all VMware virtual machines and they have usually 3 partitions: C: with system, D: with SQL database and E: with some installation files. I've searched in google that to get better performance of system and DB I should customize partition(s) allignment offset.

A couple of advices I could find in this article: http://www.experts-exchange.com/Storage/Misc/Q_23977512.html?sfQueryTermInfo=1+64+align+offset

So... I've made use of Dell's advice and fixed allocation unit size for partition on which SQL DB resides to 64K. Partition's alignment offset has been set to 64K as well. My questions are:

- Should I also setup the same offset for C: partition (where system resides)? What about allocation unit size for C partition?
- Does somebody have a link to webpage where partition alignment, offsets and all this stuff is described in a pretty simple way?

Regards.
0
Comment
Question by:imgadmin
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
2 Comments
 
LVL 2

Accepted Solution

by:
Sguzek earned 200 total points
ID: 24754082
"Should I also setup the same offset for C: partition (where system resides)? "

It is not neccessary however it doesn't hurt at all, and it is better to do it than not to do.  Select offset equal to cluster size or its multiply. But do not expect any fabulous performance gains due to partition aligment
.
"What about allocation unit size for C partition"

Bigger allocation unit (cluster size) - more space is wasted -especially in each place when ther is a big numbe of small files - and system partition it is such a a place where you will have a lot of small files. Even 1 byte file will take one cluster.  Moreover writting such a file requires to write 64kB of data - quite a big overhead, isn' it ?

I would rather go for standard NTFS 4kB cluster for system partition.

Regards,
Slawek
0

Featured Post

Simplifying Server Workload Migrations

This use case outlines the migration challenges that organizations face and how the Acronis AnyData Engine supports physical-to-physical (P2P), physical-to-virtual (P2V), virtual to physical (V2P), and cross-virtual (V2V) migration scenarios to address these challenges.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Suggested Solutions

This article explains how to reset the password of the sa account on a Microsoft SQL Server.  The steps in this article work in SQL 2005, 2008, 2008 R2, 2012, 2014 and 2016.
This article is an update and follow-up of my previous article:   Storage 101: common concepts in the IT enterprise storage This time, I expand on more frequently used storage concepts.
This video Micro Tutorial explains how to clone a hard drive using a commercial software product for Windows systems called Casper from Future Systems Solutions (FSS). Cloning makes an exact, complete copy of one hard disk drive (HDD) onto another d…
This video teaches viewers how to encrypt an external drive that requires a password to read and edit the drive. All tasks are done in Disk Utility. Plug in the external drive you wish to encrypt: Make sure all previous data on the drive has been …

737 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question