In my previous article, I measured SQL Server Basic Availability Groups (BAG) performance. This, as it comes from the name, addresses SQL Cluster Failover Cluster Instance (FCI) performance. I expect SQL Server FCI to exhibit two times higher performance than BAG. Before I start, I’d like to tell you one important thing about this measurement. SQL Server FCI database resides on a StarWind virtual device. Why did I choose StarWind? Because I got their NFR license some time ago and decided to give this software-defined storage solution a shot. Let’s just hope that it won’t limit SQL Server FCI performance.
Can SQL Server Failover Cluster Instance run twice as fast as SQL Server Basic Availability Groups in 2-node cluster? Part 2: Studying FCI performance
Can SQL Server Failover Cluster Instance run twice as fast as SQL Server Basic Availability Groups in 2-node cluster? Part 1: Studying BAG performance
I thought: “Hey, why not write an article about BAG performance?” Later, I realized that you need to compare this performance to something else, right? So, I decided to add SQL Server Failover Cluster Instance (FCI) performance measurements. Maybe, I’ll add some SQL Server Availability Groups (AG) measurements at the end; but, let’s see first whether SQL Server FCI can run twice as fast as SQL Server BAG. In this study, I measured BAG performance alone. Now, as we know the scope of the article, let’s move on!
Subscribe to our posts
- How is NVMe-oF doing? Part 2: Chelsio NVMe-oF Initiator + Linux SPDK NVMe-oF Target
- Re-investigating performance of SQL Server Basic Availability Groups on Storage Spaces. Why You Should Always Enable Read-Only Routing
- How is NVMe-oF doing? Part 1: Linux NVMe-oF Initiator + Linux SPDK NVMe-oF Target
- Setting up a Windows Failover Cluster for a home lab
- CAN SQL SERVER FAILOVER CLUSTER INSTANCES RUN ON S2D TWICE AS FAST AS SQL SERVER BASIC AVAILABILITY GROUPS ON STORAGE SPACES? SUMMARY