SQL partition 64k block size NTFS
by qrange from LinuxQuestions.org on (#6EF7V)
a bit offtopic, sorry.
I know NTFS is'nt used that much on Linux, but presumably same goes for any filesystem that allows larger blocks...
Anyway, it seems that Internet suggests that (SQL) databases should be on (NTFS) partitions with 64Kb cluster size instead of the usual 4Kb.
Then Amazon did some research to see if same applies to SSD storage:
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/moderni...or-sql-server/
The conclusion was that it doesnt matter. But they only tested 16Kb vs 64Kb (as their system uses 16Kb).
So, is there any point in using blocks larger than 4Kb with SQL on SSD ?
I know NTFS is'nt used that much on Linux, but presumably same goes for any filesystem that allows larger blocks...
Anyway, it seems that Internet suggests that (SQL) databases should be on (NTFS) partitions with 64Kb cluster size instead of the usual 4Kb.
Then Amazon did some research to see if same applies to SSD storage:
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/moderni...or-sql-server/
The conclusion was that it doesnt matter. But they only tested 16Kb vs 64Kb (as their system uses 16Kb).
So, is there any point in using blocks larger than 4Kb with SQL on SSD ?