Warning: Constant WP_TEMP_DIR already defined in /var/www/html/blogs/joe/wp-config.php on line 93

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/html/blogs/joe/wp-config.php:93) in /var/www/html/blogs/joe/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: Setting indirect checkpoints by database in SQL Server 2012 https://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/joe/setting-indirect-checkpoints-by-database-in-sql-server-2012/ SQL Server Performance Tuning, High Availability and Disaster Recovery Blog Fri, 29 Nov 2013 22:36:58 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Joseph Sack https://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/joe/setting-indirect-checkpoints-by-database-in-sql-server-2012/#comment-3939 Fri, 29 Nov 2013 22:36:58 +0000 /blogs/joe/post/Adjusting-target-recovery-time-by-database-in-SQL-Server-2012.aspx#comment-3939 In reply to Rob N.

Hi Rob – apologies for the (very) belated reply. Bottom line – agreed – I think it is a balancing act. You might want, for example with a large data load, reduced checkpoints so that the data load checkpoints don’t compete. But then the checkpoints that do happen could be far more pronounced (and longer in duration). So it depends on the goals. Ideally we can keep the defaults, but there may be scenarios that justify the custom checkpoint frequency.

]]>
By: Rob N https://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/joe/setting-indirect-checkpoints-by-database-in-sql-server-2012/#comment-2619 Wed, 15 May 2013 07:12:06 +0000 /blogs/joe/post/Adjusting-target-recovery-time-by-database-in-SQL-Server-2012.aspx#comment-2619 Wouldn’t the performance impact of your second run be similar if not slower because you are grouping checkpoint pages into fewer checkpoints? Would this cause more flooding pages to disk instead of a regular stream? Keeping into account that SQL does throttle during regular checkpoints. I would expect a performance improvement if you were updating the dirty pages multiple times because if a page is modified multiple times between a checkpoint it will only equate to one page being written to disk when the checkpoint arrives. As the example is doing only inserts those pages are only being modified once between the checkpoints therefore in theory it doesn’t seem there would be a performance gain.

]]>
By: Jimmy May @aspiringgeek https://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/joe/setting-indirect-checkpoints-by-database-in-sql-server-2012/#comment-666 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:03:22 +0000 /blogs/joe/post/Adjusting-target-recovery-time-by-database-in-SQL-Server-2012.aspx#comment-666 I’ve seen testing on a real workload of Indirect Checkpoints vs. the classic behavior we all know & don’t love. The results in terms of relevant I/O counters were fantastic. As far as I can tell, this looks like an unsung gem of Denali (er ah, SQL Server 2012).

]]>
By: Joe Sack https://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/joe/setting-indirect-checkpoints-by-database-in-sql-server-2012/#comment-667 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:34:44 +0000 /blogs/joe/post/Adjusting-target-recovery-time-by-database-in-SQL-Server-2012.aspx#comment-667 Cool! Looking forward to seeing your full lab results Jimmy. It won’t be unsung for long. 🙂

]]>
By: Joe Sack https://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/joe/setting-indirect-checkpoints-by-database-in-sql-server-2012/#comment-665 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:16:25 +0000 /blogs/joe/post/Adjusting-target-recovery-time-by-database-in-SQL-Server-2012.aspx#comment-665 Thanks Farhan!

]]>
By: Farhan https://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/joe/setting-indirect-checkpoints-by-database-in-sql-server-2012/#comment-664 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:56:43 +0000 /blogs/joe/post/Adjusting-target-recovery-time-by-database-in-SQL-Server-2012.aspx#comment-664 Great post Joe

]]>