On 10/11/06, Jamie McCrindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
in the test, yes it is.
OK - I just wondered that maybe the journal was on a slower/heavily used disk and SQLServer was using a faster one :0
would the journal and sqlserver be queing behind each other for io?
The ideal scenario for using the journal is for it to use a dedicated disk and be the only writer, so the disk head doesn't need to do seeks, it can just keep writing to the end of a file etc. Am wondering if you're hitting a slightly different issue though - of the RAM / gc impact of using the journal causing pauses versus the much simpler write to JDBC BTW it'd be interesting to see the performance if you tried kaha instead of JDBC, just to get an idea of relative speed -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
