Microsoft Windows 2000 alocation unit

Hi,
In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...in/sqlops6.mspx
)
in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
following:
<<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
result in split I/Os.>>
How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
Many thanks,
OskarIn addition to my previous post: does the bigger allocation unit size really
make sense for the disk, on which you place the tempdb database?
"Oskar" wrote:

> Hi,
> In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
> ([url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops6.mspx[/ur
l])
> in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
> following:
> <<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduce
s
> the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then mig
ht
> result in split I/Os.>>
> How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
> noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
> 64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>

Microsoft Windows 2000 alocation unit

Hi,
In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...n/sqlops6.mspx)
in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
following:
<<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
result in split I/Os.>>
How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
Many thanks,
Oskar
In addition to my previous post: does the bigger allocation unit size really
make sense for the disk, on which you place the tempdb database?
"Oskar" wrote:

> Hi,
> In <<SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide: Capacity and Storage Management>>
> (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...n/sqlops6.mspx)
> in section <<Windows NT File System (NTFS) Allocation Unit>> I read the
> following:
> <<The best practice for SQL Server is to choose 64 KB, because this reduces
> the likelihood of I/Os that span distinct NTFS allocations, which then might
> result in split I/Os.>>
> How many of you have chosen the 64K allocation unit size? Did you get any
> noticeable performance gains? How much worse is the default 4KB size than
> 64KB, when the data disk is, say, RAID10 with 128KB stripe size?
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>