%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-423136%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EPerformance%20impact%20of%20using%20File%20Server%20Resource%20Manager%20on%20large%20volumes%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-423136%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%0A%20%26lt%3Bmeta%20http-equiv%3D%22Content-Type%22%20content%3D%22text%2Fhtml%3B%20charset%3DUTF-8%22%20%2F%26gt%3B%3CSTRONG%3EFirst%20published%20on%20TECHNET%20on%20Dec%2013%2C%202005%20%3C%2FSTRONG%3E%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20A%20customer%20recently%20asked%20how%20performance%20is%20affected%20when%20you%20use%20File%20Server%20Resource%20Manager%20in%20R2%20on%20large%20volumes.%20Based%20on%20our%20testing%2C%20here%E2%80%99s%20what%20to%20expect%3A%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20Quotas%3A%20Internal%20benchmarks%20have%20consistently%20shown%20I%2FO%20performance%20cost%20of%20less%20than%2010%25%20for%20tracking%20quotas%20on%20a%20volume.%20The%20cost%20remains%20fairly%20flat%20with%20volume%20size%20and%20number%20of%20quotas.%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20Screening%3A%20The%20I%2FO%20performance%20impact%20is%20negligible%20for%20this%20feature.%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20Reporting%3A%20Running%20reports%20can%20negatively%20impact%20server%20performance%2C%20though%20we%20do%20not%20have%20any%20hard%20benchmark%20data.%20It%20is%20recommended%20that%20storage%20reports%20be%20scheduled%20for%20off-peak%20hours.%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20--Jill%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-TEASER%20id%3D%22lingo-teaser-423136%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EFirst%20published%20on%20TECHNET%20on%20Dec%2013%2C%202005%20A%20customer%20recently%20asked%20how%20performance%20is%20affected%20when%20you%20use%20File%20Server%20Resource%20Manager%20in%20R2%20on%20large%20volumes.%3C%2FLINGO-TEASER%3E%3CLINGO-LABS%20id%3D%22lingo-labs-423136%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3Efile%20server%20resource%20manager%20fsrm%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3C%2FLINGO-LABS%3E
Not applicable
First published on TECHNET on Dec 13, 2005


A customer recently asked how performance is affected when you use File Server Resource Manager in R2 on large volumes. Based on our testing, here’s what to expect:

Quotas: Internal benchmarks have consistently shown I/O performance cost of less than 10% for tracking quotas on a volume. The cost remains fairly flat with volume size and number of quotas.

Screening: The I/O performance impact is negligible for this feature.

Reporting: Running reports can negatively impact server performance, though we do not have any hard benchmark data. It is recommended that storage reports be scheduled for off-peak hours.

--Jill