Search
StarWind is a hyperconverged (HCI) vendor with focus on Enterprise ROBO, SMB & Edge

Can SQL Server Failover Cluster Instance run twice as fast as SQL Server Basic Availability Groups in 2-node cluster? Part 3: Comparison time!

  • January 23, 2019
  • 8 min read
IT and Virtualization Consultant. Dmitriy is specializing in Microsoft technologies, with a focus on storage, networking, and IT infrastructure architecture.
IT and Virtualization Consultant. Dmitriy is specializing in Microsoft technologies, with a focus on storage, networking, and IT infrastructure architecture.

INTRODUCTION

In this article, I’d like to compare results of the previous two and find out whether SQL Failover Cluster Instance (FCI) can provide you two times higher performance than SQL Server Basic Availability Groups (BAG).

SQL SERVER FCI VS. SQL SERVER BAG

First, let’s sum up how fast SQL Server BAG and SQL Server FCI can cope with reading 1M rows from the database depending on the number of threads.

Reading 1M table
SQL FCI SQL BAG
Test run time. sec HA IMG.
MB/s
SSD (Node 3). MB/s SSD (Node2). MB/s test run time.
sec
SSD.
MB/s
threads=1 2.56 296 191 189 2.18 346
threads=2 2.55 296 193 192 2.09 376
threads=4 4.10 415 259 246 2.05 375
threads=8 9.42 526 324 323 2.24 348
threads=10 12.25 571 347 349 3.07 501
threads=12 17.69 676 397 398 4.48 499

wp-image-719

wp-image-720

Now, let’s look at how long it takes SQL FCI and SQL BAG to proceed a reading request under a varying number of threads. I got the numbers below with HammerDB at 50000 Total Transactions per User.

HammerDB (50000 Total Transactions per User)
SQL FCI
test run time, min
SQL BAG
test run time, min
Virtual User=1 3 9
Virtual User=2 3 8
Virtual User=4 5 9
Virtual User=8 8 8
Virtual User=10 9 10
Virtual User=12 10 12

Зображення, що містить текст, знімок екрана, схема, Графік Автоматично згенерований опис

DISCUSSION

As I told you before, SQL Server FCI performance tests turned out to be a surprise for me. It took SQL Server FCI 19 seconds to proceed the reading request. It is just as long as for SQL Server BAG! Moreover, while measuring with SQLQeryStress, it took even 3-4 times longer for FCI to cope with this request.

I think that such a weird SQL Server FCI behavior may be caused by StarWind virtual device. Let’s get some proof!

I decided to measure measure StarWind virtual device performance under 4k random read and 8k random read patterns with DiskSPD (version 2.0.21a). I expect performance of two single StarWind virtual devices be twice as high as performance of a single device. Here are DiskSPD launching parameters:

 

Now let’s play with the queue depth a bit! Below, find StarWind virtual device performance under 4k random read and 8k random read patterns at varying queue depth.

1xStarWind virtual device over Intel SSD DC S3500. 4k random read (DiskSPD)
threads=1 threads=2 threads=4 threads=8
IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms)
QD=1 6640 26 0.15 12944 51 0.15 24180 94 0.17 44586 174 0.18
QD=2 13044 51 0.15 24874 97 0.16 44295 173 0.18 68478 267 0.23
QD=4 25195 98 0.16 44966 176 0.18 68663 268 0.23 76189 298 0.42
QD=8 45292 177 0.18 68713 268 0.23 76163 298 0.42 76310 298 0.84
QD=16 68758 269 0.23 75838 296 0.42 76317 298 0.84 76300 298 1.68
QD=32 76028 297 0.42 76299 298 0.84 76317 298 1.68 76320 298 3.35
QD=64 76314 298 0.84 76332 298 1.68 76279 298 3.36 76318 298 6.71
QD=128 76335 298 1.68 76335 298 3.35 76313 298 6.71 76311 298 13.42

Зображення, що містить текст, ряд, Графік, схема Автоматично згенерований опис

2xStarWind virtual device over Intel SSD DC S3500. 4k random read (DiskSPD)
threads=1 threads=2 threads=4 threads=8
IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms)
QD=1 6281 25 0.16 12168 48 0.16 18970 74 0.21 35734 140 0.22
QD=2 12290 48 0.16 19287 75 0.21 35240 138 0.23 53746 210 0.30
QD=4 19029 74 0.21 35832 140 0.22 53335 208 0.30 79282 310 0.40
QD=8 35808 140 0.22 53926 211 0.30 78904 308 0.41 138150 540 0.46
QD=16 53679 210 0.30 79312 310 0.40 137785 538 0.46 151638 592 0.84
QD=32 79175 309 0.40 135433 529 0.47 151961 594 0.84 151447 592 1.69
QD=64 101850 398 0.63 151582 592 0.84 152248 595 1.68 151000 590 3.39
QD=128 103008 402 1.24 151218 591 1.69 151411 591 3.38 150991 590 6.78

Зображення, що містить текст, ряд, Графік, схема Автоматично згенерований опис

1xStarWind virtual device over Intel SSD DC S3500. 8k random read (DiskSPD)
threads=1 threads=2 threads=4 threads=8
IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms)
QD=1 5594 44 0.18 10711 84 0.19 20495 160 0.20 33412 261 0.24
QD=2 10726 84 0.19 19915 156 0.20 33277 260 0.24 43202 338 0.37
QD=4 20311 159 0.20 32639 255 0.25 43158 337 0.37 44552 348 0.72
QD=8 33359 261 0.24 42826 335 0.37 44572 348 0.72 45477 355 1.41
QD=16 43187 337 0.37 44576 348 0.72 45523 356 1.41 45683 357 2.80
QD=32 44503 348 0.72 45466 355 1.41 45573 356 2.81 45529 356 5.62
QD=64 45183 353 1.42 45474 355 2.82 45517 356 5.62 45576 356 11.23
QD=128 45625 356 2.81 45473 355 5.63 45586 356 11.23 45572 356 22.47

Зображення, що містить текст, ряд, Графік, Паралель Автоматично згенерований опис

2xStarWind virtual device over Intel SSD DC S3500. 8k random read (DiskSPD)
threads=1 threads=2 threads=4 threads=8
IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms) IOPS MB/s Latency (ms)
QD=1 5537 43 0.18 10756 84 0.19 16555 129 0.24 29741 232 0.27
QD=2 10658 83 0.19 16882 132 0.24 28975 226 0.28 47339 370 0.34
QD=4 16431 128 0.24 29717 232 0.27 47441 371 0.34 75624 591 0.42
QD=8 29206 228 0.27 48022 375 0.33 76203 595 0.42 89124 696 0.72
QD=16 47434 371 0.34 76240 596 0.42 89118 696 0.72 90905 710 1.41
QD=32 75783 592 0.42 89444 699 0.72 91153 712 1.40 90763 709 2.82
QD=64 88979 695 0.72 90781 709 1.41 90827 710 2.82 91096 712 5.62
QD=128 90938 710 1.41 90904 710 2.82 91304 713 5.61 90938 710 11.26

Зображення, що містить текст, ряд, Графік, схема Автоматично згенерований опис

CONCLUSION

Let’s sum up all the measurements that I presented today. 2 StarWind virtual devices do perform twice better than one. This means that running a StarWind virtual device over an SSD disk lets you get more of its performance. This being said, StarWind virtual disk should not limit reading from a SQL Server FCI database.

Although, if you look carefully at the measurements one more time, you may arrive at the conclusion that StarWind virtual device performance doubles only after specific queue depth value. Let me show you what I’m trying to say. You get 76163 IOPS at 4k random read pattern under threads = 4 and QD = 8. This is actually the underlying storage performance claimed by Intel. 2 StarWind virtual devices show mere 78904 IOPS under the same conditions. You see, there’s no performance doubling. Besides, you observe StarWind virtual device performance doubling for QD=32 (under the same number of threads) and higher. This may be the reason why you do not see the expected performance gain for SQL Server FCI that has the database on StarWind virtual device.

Anyway, I have achieved what I expected: SQL Server FCI has 2 times higher performance if its database resides on SSD than SQL Server BAG under the same conditions.

Hey! Found Dmitriy’s insights useful? Looking for a cost-effective, high-performance, and easy-to-use hyperconverged platform?
Taras Shved
Taras Shved StarWind HCI Appliance Product Manager
Look no further! StarWind HCI Appliance (HCA) is a plug-and-play solution that combines compute, storage, networking, and virtualization software into a single easy-to-use hyperconverged platform. It's designed to significantly trim your IT costs and save valuable time. Interested in learning more? Book your StarWind HCA demo now to see it in action!