Some time ago, I published here comparison of SQL Server Failover Cluster Instances (FCI) and SQL Server Basic Availability (BAG) performance while having them run on top of StarWind Virtual SAN. Today, I measure SQL Server BAG performance on Storage Spaces. The next part sheds light on SQL Server FCI performance on S2D. Can I squeeze two times more TPM out of SQL Server FCI on S2D than SQL Server BAG can provide on Storage Spaces?
Can SQL Server Failover Cluster Instance run on S2D twice as fast as SQL Server Basic Availability Groups on Storage Spaces? Part 1: Studying BAG performance
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