Search Results

Search found 12 results on 1 pages for 'sqlio'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• SQL IO and SAN troubles

  - by James

  We are running two servers with identical software setup but different hardware. The first one is a VM on VMWare on a normal tower server with dual core xeons, 16 GB RAM and a 7200 RPM drive. The second one is a VM on XenServer on a powerful brand new rack server, with 4 core xeons and shared storage. We are running Dynamics AX 2012 and SQL Server 2008 R2. When I insert 15 000 records into a table on the slow tower server (as a test), it does so in 13 seconds. On the fast server it takes 33 seconds. I re-ran these tests several times with the same results. I have a feeling it is some sort of IO bottleneck, so I ran SQLIO on both. Here are the results for the slow tower server: C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>test.bat C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kW -t8 -s120 -o8 -frandom -b8 -BH -LS C:\Tes tFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 14318180 counts per second 8 threads writing for 120 secs to file C:\TestFile.dat using 8KB random IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) using current size: 5120 MB for file: C:\TestFile.dat initialization done CUMULATIVE DATA: throughput metrics: IOs/sec: 226.97 MBs/sec: 1.77 latency metrics: Min_Latency(ms): 0 Avg_Latency(ms): 281 Max_Latency(ms): 467 histogram: ms: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24+ %: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kR -t8 -s120 -o8 -frandom -b8 -BH -LS C:\Tes tFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 14318180 counts per second 8 threads reading for 120 secs from file C:\TestFile.dat using 8KB random IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) using current size: 5120 MB for file: C:\TestFile.dat initialization done CUMULATIVE DATA: throughput metrics: IOs/sec: 91.34 MBs/sec: 0.71 latency metrics: Min_Latency(ms): 14 Avg_Latency(ms): 699 Max_Latency(ms): 1124 histogram: ms: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24+ %: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kW -t8 -s120 -o8 -fsequential -b64 -BH -LS C :\TestFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 14318180 counts per second 8 threads writing for 120 secs to file C:\TestFile.dat using 64KB sequential IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) using current size: 5120 MB for file: C:\TestFile.dat initialization done CUMULATIVE DATA: throughput metrics: IOs/sec: 1094.50 MBs/sec: 68.40 latency metrics: Min_Latency(ms): 0 Avg_Latency(ms): 58 Max_Latency(ms): 467 histogram: ms: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24+ %: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kR -t8 -s120 -o8 -fsequential -b64 -BH -LS C :\TestFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 14318180 counts per second 8 threads reading for 120 secs from file C:\TestFile.dat using 64KB sequential IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) using current size: 5120 MB for file: C:\TestFile.dat initialization done CUMULATIVE DATA: throughput metrics: IOs/sec: 1155.31 MBs/sec: 72.20 latency metrics: Min_Latency(ms): 17 Avg_Latency(ms): 55 Max_Latency(ms): 205 histogram: ms: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24+ %: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Here are the results of the fast rack server: C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>test.bat C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kW -t8 -s120 -o8 -frandom -b8 -BH -LS E:\Tes tFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 62500000 counts per second 8 threads writing for 120 secs to file E:\TestFile.dat using 8KB random IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) open_file: CreateFile (E:\TestFile.dat for write): The system cannot find the pa th specified. exiting C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kR -t8 -s120 -o8 -frandom -b8 -BH -LS E:\Tes tFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 62500000 counts per second 8 threads reading for 120 secs from file E:\TestFile.dat using 8KB random IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) open_file: CreateFile (E:\TestFile.dat for read): The system cannot find the pat h specified. exiting C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kW -t8 -s120 -o8 -fsequential -b64 -BH -LS E :\TestFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 62500000 counts per second 8 threads writing for 120 secs to file E:\TestFile.dat using 64KB sequential IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) open_file: CreateFile (E:\TestFile.dat for write): The system cannot find the pa th specified. exiting C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kR -t8 -s120 -o8 -fsequential -b64 -BH -LS E :\TestFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 62500000 counts per second 8 threads reading for 120 secs from file E:\TestFile.dat using 64KB sequential IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) open_file: CreateFile (E:\TestFile.dat for read): The system cannot find the pat h specified. exiting C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>test.bat C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kW -t8 -s120 -o8 -frandom -b8 -BH -LS c:\Tes tFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 62500000 counts per second 8 threads writing for 120 secs to file c:\TestFile.dat using 8KB random IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) using current size: 5120 MB for file: c:\TestFile.dat initialization done CUMULATIVE DATA: throughput metrics: IOs/sec: 2575.77 MBs/sec: 20.12 latency metrics: Min_Latency(ms): 1 Avg_Latency(ms): 24 Max_Latency(ms): 655 histogram: ms: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24+ %: 0 0 0 5 8 9 9 9 8 5 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kR -t8 -s120 -o8 -frandom -b8 -BH -LS c:\Tes tFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 62500000 counts per second 8 threads reading for 120 secs from file c:\TestFile.dat using 8KB random IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) using current size: 5120 MB for file: c:\TestFile.dat initialization done CUMULATIVE DATA: throughput metrics: IOs/sec: 1141.39 MBs/sec: 8.91 latency metrics: Min_Latency(ms): 1 Avg_Latency(ms): 55 Max_Latency(ms): 652 histogram: ms: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24+ %: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 91 C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kW -t8 -s120 -o8 -fsequential -b64 -BH -LS c :\TestFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 62500000 counts per second 8 threads writing for 120 secs to file c:\TestFile.dat using 64KB sequential IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) using current size: 5120 MB for file: c:\TestFile.dat initialization done CUMULATIVE DATA: throughput metrics: IOs/sec: 341.37 MBs/sec: 21.33 latency metrics: Min_Latency(ms): 5 Avg_Latency(ms): 186 Max_Latency(ms): 120037 histogram: ms: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24+ %: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 C:\Program Files (x86)\SQLIO>sqlio -kR -t8 -s120 -o8 -fsequential -b64 -BH -LS c :\TestFile.dat sqlio v1.5.SG using system counter for latency timings, 62500000 counts per second 8 threads reading for 120 secs from file c:\TestFile.dat using 64KB sequential IOs enabling multiple I/Os per thread with 8 outstanding buffering set to use hardware disk cache (but not file cache) using current size: 5120 MB for file: c:\TestFile.dat initialization done CUMULATIVE DATA: throughput metrics: IOs/sec: 1024.07 MBs/sec: 64.00 latency metrics: Min_Latency(ms): 5 Avg_Latency(ms): 61 Max_Latency(ms): 81632 histogram: ms: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24+ %: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Three of the four tests are, to my mind, within reasonable parameters for the rack server. However, the 64 write test is incredibly slow on the rack server. (68 mb/sec on the slow tower vs 21 mb/s on the rack). The read speed for 64k also seems slow. Is this enough to say there is some sort of bottleneck with the shared storage? I need to know if I can take this evidence and say we need to launch an investigation into this. Any help is appreciated.

  Read the article

• SQLIO Writes

  - by Grant Fritchey

  SQLIO is a fantastic utility for testing the abilities of the disks in your system. It has a very unfortunate name though, since it's not really a SQL Server testing utility at all. It really is a disk utility. They ought to call it DiskIO because they'd get more people using I think. Anyway, branding is not the point of this blog post. Writes are the point of this blog post. SQLIO works by slamming your disk. It performs as mean reads as it can or it performs as many writes as it can depending on how you've configured your tests. There are much smarter people than me who will get into all the various types of tests you should run. I'd suggest reading a bit of what Jonathan Kehayias (blog|twitter) has to say or wade into Denny Cherry's (blog|twitter) work. They're going to do a better job than I can describing all the benefits and mechanisms around using this excellent piece of software. My concerns are very focused. I needed to set up a series of tests to see how well our product SQL Storage Compress worked. I wanted to know the effects it would have on a system, the disk for sure, but also memory and CPU. How to stress the system? SQLIO of course. But when I set it up and ran it, following the documentation that comes with it, I was seeing better than 99% compression on the files. Don't get me wrong. Our product is magnificent, wonderful, all things great and beautiful, gets you coffee in the morning and is made mostly from bacon. But 99% compression. No, it's not that good. So what's up? Well, it's the configuration. The default mechanism is to load up a file, something large that will overwhelm your disk cache. You're instructed to load the file with a character 0x0. I never got a computer science degree. I went to film school. Because of this, I didn't memorize ASCII tables so when I saw this, I thought it was zero's or something. Nope. It's NULL. That's right, you're making a very large file, but you're filling it with NULL values. That's actually ok when all you're testing is the disk sub-system. But, when you want to test a compression and decompression, that can be an issue. I got around this fairly quickly. Instead of generating a file filled with NULL values, I just copied a database file for my tests. And to test it with SQL Storage Compress, I used a database file that had already been run through compression (about 40% compression on that file if you're interested). Now the reads were taken care of. I am seeing very realistic performance from decompressing the information for reads through SQLIO. But what about writes? Well, the issue is, what does SQLIO write? I don't have access to the code. But I do have access to the results. I did two different tests, just to be sure of what I was seeing. First test, use the .DAT file as described in the documentation. I opened the .DAT file after I was done with SQLIO, using WordPad. Guess what? It's a giant file full of air. SQLIO writes NULL values. What does that do to compression? I did the test again on a copy of an uncompressed database file. Then I ran the original and the SQLIO modified copy through ZIP to see what happened. I got better than 99% compression out of the SQLIO modified file (original file of 624,896kb went to 275,871kb compressed, after SQLIO it went to 608kb compressed). So, what does SQLIO write? It writes air. If you're trying to test it with compression or maybe some other type of file storage mechanism like dedupe, you need to know this because your tests really won't be valid. Should I find some other mechanism for testing? Yeah, if all I'm interested in is establishing performance to my own satisfaction, yes. But, I want to be able to compare my results with other people's results and we all need to be using the same tool in order for that to happen. SQLIO is the common mechanism that most people I know use to establish disk performance behavior. It'd be better if we could get SQLIO to do writes in some other fashion. Oh, and before I go, I get to brag a bit. Measuring IOPS, SQL Storage Compress outperforms my disk alone by about 30%.

  Read the article

• Parsing SQLIO Output to Excel Charts using Regex in PowerShell

  - by Jonathan Kehayias

  Today Joe Webb ( Blog | Twitter ) blogged about The Power of Regex in Powershell, and in his post he shows how to parse the SQL Server Error Log for events of interest.  At the end of his blog post Joe asked about other places where Regular Expressions have been useful in PowerShell so I thought I’d blog my script for parsing SQLIO output using Regex in PowerShell, to populate an Excel worksheet and build charts based on the results automatically. If you’ve never used SQLIO, Brent Ozar ( Blog...(read more)

  Read the article

• Parsing SQLIO Output to Excel Charts using Regex in PowerShell

  - by Jonathan Kehayias

  Today Joe Webb ( Blog | Twitter ) blogged about The Power of Regex in Powershell, and in his post he shows how to parse the SQL Server Error Log for events of interest. At the end of his blog post Joe asked about other places where Regular Expressions have been useful in PowerShell so I thought I’d blog my script for parsing SQLIO output using Regex in PowerShell, to populate an Excel worksheet and build charts based on the results automatically. If you’ve never used SQLIO, Brent Ozar ( Blog | Twitter...(read more)

  Read the article

• Does SQLIO lie when run from a Hyper-V guest on a VHD?

  - by ScottStonehouse

  SQLIO seems like a useful tool. I thought it would be interesting to try to measure the speed difference between a physical disk and a VHD. So I ran SQLIO on the Hyper-V host on the physical drive. Results seemed reasonable. Then I ran it from the guest to test the vhd (on the same physical disk). I expected it to be a bit slower. But instead it was way faster - like 0ms average latency. So I'm trying to learn something here. It seems like hyper-v is fooling SQLIO somehow but I don't understand it well enough to figure it out. It's a dynamic vhd, no snapshots or anything, and the vhd is the only file on the disk. The physical disk is actually a two SAS drive RAID 1.

  Read the article

• SQLIO help decipher output

  - by SQL Learner

  When load testing on a SQL Server Box, using following (testfile is 25 GB) sqlio -kW -t8 -s360 -o8 -frandom -b8 -BH -LS g:\testfile.dat > result.txt sqlio -kW -t8 -s360 -o8 -frandom -b64 -BH -LS g:\testfile.dat >> result.txt sqlio -kW -t8 -s360 -o8 -frandom -b128 -BH -LS g:\testfile.dat >> result.txt sqlio -kW -t8 -s360 -o8 -frandom -b256 -BH -LS g:\testfile.dat >> result.txt Can anyone help me decipher output.. I do not understand latency min and average....? What does this number means IOs/sec: 10968.80 MBs/sec: 685.55 latency metrics: Min_Latency(ms): 1 Avg_Latency(ms): 5 Max_Latency(ms): 21

  Read the article

• Regular expression help parsing SQLIO output

  - by jaspernygaard

  Hi I've been working on a regular expression to parse the output of a series of SQLIO runs. I've gotten pretty far, but not quite there yet. I'm seeking a 100% regex solution and no pre-manipulation of the input. Could anyone assist with a little guidance with the following regular expression: .*v(?<SQLIOVersion>\d\.\d).*\n.*\n(?<threads>\d*)\s.*for\s(?<Seconds>\d+).*\n.*using\s(?<clustersize>[0-9]*)KB.*\n.*\n.*size:\s(?<currentfilesize>\d+).*\n.*\n.*\n.*\n.*\s(?<IOs>\d*\.\d*).*\n.*\s(?<MBs>\d*\.\d*).*\n.*\n.*\s(?<MinLatency_ms>\d+).*\n.*\s(?<AvgLatency_ms>\d+).*\n.*\s(?<MaxLatency_ms>\d+).*\n.*\n.*\n\%\:..(?<ms>\d*\s+)* Here's a snippet of the output - note the headers, which change during the SQLIO batch run: File

  Read the article

• Explain difference in SQLIO numbers for RAID 0 versus RAID 5 over 6 disks

  - by markn

  When using the SQLIO benchmark tool on a 4-core Dell server with 6 15k 450GB (fast) drives, RAID 0, we found the max throughput was 2MB per second. But when configured as RAID 5, we get 30 MB per second. It seems that the RAID controller, Dell Perc 5i integrated controller, is maxing out the throughput per disk. With RAID 5, I expect to get a bump due to stripping, but not a 15x difference. Like good programmers, we suspect the hardware , but we could be missing something. This is predominately write traffic.

  Read the article

• Expected IOPS for log writing on PS6000X SAN?

  - by dssz

  Customer is experiencing poor Sybase ASE 15 performance on a PS6000X SAN with 16 X 450GB 10K in RAID-50. The server is a Dell R710 running 2003 server R2 64bit in ESX 4.0.0,256968 I've used sqlio to benchmark the sequential write performance of 4KB blocks on the drive. sqlio -kW -t1 -s600 -dE -o1 -fsequential -b4 -BH -LS sqliotestfile.dat Result is 1900 IOPS. However, when Sybase is running a sustained workload of small inserts SAN HQ shows a consistent 590 IOPS (and 100% 4K write activity). It also shows that the write latency increases to 1.2ms from <1ms. Monitoring and tests in Sybase demonstrate the performance problem is IO related and in particular there is a lot of wait time writing to the log. The SAN indicates that write caching is enabled. What IOPS should the SAN be capable of for 4k sequential write activity? Also, with write caching enabled, shouldn't the controller be batching up the 4K writes into something more efficient? Also, any tips on Sybase on ESX would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• RAID Array performance on an HP Proliant ML350 G5 Smart Array E200i

  - by Nate Pinchot

  We have a client who is complaining about performance of an application which utilizes an MS SQL database. They do not believe the performance issues are the fault of the application itself. The Smart Array E200i RAID controller has 128MB cache and we have the cache set to 75% read/25% write. The disk array set to enable write caching. Recently we ran a disk performance test using SQLIO based on this guide. We used a 10 GB file for the test found that the average sequential read rate was ~60 MB/sec (megabytes/sec) and the average random read rate was ~30 MB/sec. Are these numbers on par for what the server should be performing? Better than on par? Horrible? Amazing?

  Read the article

• SQL Server 2005 SE SP3 on Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 premature query disconnections

  - by southernpost

  New Dell PowerEdge R910, 4x8 Intel X7560, 192GB RAM, hardware NUMA, local RAID, Broadcom NetExtreme II multiport NIC, unteamed, TCP Offload disabled, RSS disabled, NetDMA disabled, Hyperthreading disabled. SQL Server 2005 SE x64 SP3 on Windows Server 2008 R2 EE x64. No other apps on server. Max Mem = 180GB, Max DOP = 4. Existing Windows Server 2003 R2 EE x64 app server connecting to Dell via firewall using SQL Authenticated logins. Symptoms: Intermittent errors at the app server: A transport-level error has occurred when sending the request to the server. (provider: TCP Provider, error: 0 - An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host.) Findings: Running queries from SSMS located on another machine within the same domain as the SQL Server run without error. SQLIO showed good performance. Windows and SQL logs show no related messages. Microsoft reveiwed PssDiag trace and stated that "We are not seeing timeouts from SQL Side. The queries bring run against the database are timing out within 9secs. This is a database connectivity error." "we can also see from the AttnSeq column that we are also not seeing any Attentions from the SQL Side.". Dell has confirmed that we are using the latest Broadcom drivers.

  Read the article

• Disk performance below expectations

  - by paulH

  this is a follow-up to a previous question that I asked (Two servers with inconsistent disk speed). I have a PowerEdge R510 server with a PERC H700 integrated RAID controller (call this Server B) that was built using eight disks with 3Gb/s bandwidth that I was comparing with an almost identical server (call this Server A) that was built using four disks with 6Gb/s bandwidth. Server A had much better I/O rates than Server B. Once I discovered the difference with the disks, I had Server A rebuilt with faster 6Gbps disks. Unfortunately this resulted in no increase in the performance of the disks. Expecting that there must be some other configuration difference between the servers, we took the 6Gbps disks out of Server A and put them in Server B. This also resulted in no increase in the performance of the disks. We now have two identical servers built, with the exception that one is built with six 6Gbps disks and the other with eight 3Gbps disks, and the I/O rates of the disks is pretty much identical. This suggests that there is some bottleneck other than the disks, but I cannot understand how Server B originally had better I/O that has subsequently been 'lost'. Comparative I/O information below, as measured by SQLIO. The same parameters were used for each test. It's not the actual numbers that are significant but rather the variations between systems. In each case D: is a 2 disk RAID 1 volume, and E: is a 4 disk RAID 10 volume (apart from the original Server A, where E: was a 2 disk RAID 0 volume). Server A (original setup with 6Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 63 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 170 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 68 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 320 MB/s Server B (original setup with 3Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 52 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 88 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 112 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 130 MB/s Server A (new setup with 3Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 55 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 85 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 67 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 180 MB/s Server B (new setup with 6Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 61 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 95 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 69 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 180 MB/s Can anybody suggest any ideas what is going on here? The drives in use are as follows: Dell Seagate F617N ST3300657SS 300GB 15K RPM SAS Dell Hitachi HUS156030VLS600 300GB 3.5 inch 15000rpm 6GB SAS Hitachi Hus153030vls300 300GB Server SAS Dell ST3146855SS Seagate 3.5 inch 146GB 15K SAS

  Read the article

1