Ever see something like this in your SQL Errorlog?
SQL Server has encountered 1 occurrence(s) of I/O requests taking longer than 15 seconds to complete on file [T:\MSSQL\DATA\tempdb.mdf] in database [tempdb] (2). The OS file handle is 0x00000838. The offset of the latest long I/O is: 0x000000ebdc0000
You may hear this referred to as a stalled IO. I see questions on this warning message quite a bit, mostly about what’s wrong with SQL Server and why is SQL taking so long to read or write to the disk. Let me explain why this isn’t a SQL Server problem.
SQL Server does data file reads and writes almost exclusively as asynchronous IO, using the win32 APIs ReadFile, WriteFile, ReadFileScatter and WriteFileGather. Each of these APIs behave in a fairly similar manner – the caller sends in a handle to the file, some memory location to read or write, the size of the block and a structure that tells the kernel how to handle the IO. In SQL Server’s case the how to handle the IO is Asynchronously, please. The call returns immediately so that the thread issuing the IO can get out of the way and make life happy for some other user who’d also like their query to return.
The catch here is that ordinarily the time between the Asynchronous call to read or write and the completion of the read or write should be on the order of 10ms. Of course the longer it takes for an IO to return the more noticeable a performance impact there is to end users.
Prior to SQL Server 2000 SP4 the only way you would be able to tell if your IOs were taking longer than expected would be to use System Monitor and watch the PhysicalDisk\Avg Disk sec./read, write and transfer counter. This is a relatively acceptable method when the cause of your IO bottleneck is the latency of the physical disk, you might be surprised to find out that’s not the only thing that might slow down an IO!
Once a user mode application issues an IO request it’s the equivalent of putting a package in the mail, there’s nothing to do but wait. While you may not have anything to do once you��ve dropped the package the parcel carriers job has just begun, what with all the processing and labeling and transit – you get the idea. Likewise for the kernel. Once an IO transitions over to kernel mode it’s transformed into something called and IRP (interrupt request packet) and begins a trek down levels of filter drivers, virus scanners and device drivers before it finally makes its way home to a physical device.
Windows exposes methods for device and software manufactures to be notified of, and participate in, IOs. Filter drivers are one method of doing this, and it allows for great functionality of verifying you aren’t writing a file with a virus pattern, or backing up a file as it’s being written. The problem here is that the filter driver can hold up an IO for an extended period of time, and this time isn’t reflected in the Sysmon counter.
So what are you to do? You’ve put your specially crafted package in the mail, but the intended recipient still hasn’t got it.
The approach taken in SQL Server is to make note of the time the IO started, the offset of the IO within the file then check back a short time later to make sure all IOs have completed. If an IO is still outstanding and 15 seconds have elapsed then the warning is printed to the errorlog to alert the system administrator that something’s amiss.
When you see this message the first action should still be to have a look at the physical disk counters in sysmon to ensure that the disks are servicing IOs in a reasonable period of time. If those appear to fine then start looking at what filter drivers might be installed on your system, and if there are any known issues with them, or disable them if you don’t need them.
Would be very interesting to know what action take when these problem arise if you have a SAN, what are the best practice and what is the aceptable response time, thats because help files (windows help)that talk about diagnostic performance problems have values very lows and today we use SAN and storage system with cache systems especialy designed to improve the answer of systems and you dont have any more that take a base line, if you don´t, it is veri dificoult to know what is the best answer in the system.
Exactly what type of back end storage may play a role in the steps you take to resolve the problem, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a problem. The message logged by SQL Server indicates that an I/O was outstanding for more than 15 seconds. This is purely a response time measurement that has nothing to do with the type of hardware or baselines. 15 seconds per I/O is unacceptable no matter how you slice it, and the diagnosis problems remain the same.
I am curious about the fact that I have seen this error most frequently in relation to tempdb as opposed to user DBs (and from searches for this error, it appears that others see it in tempdb most often as well). As such, I have two questions:
1. If SPID x were to perform a SELECT INTO [#MyTempTable] with a long-running query that returned 10 million rows and then -- while SPID x was still running that statement -- SPID y performed a sort operation that required writing to tempdb -- is it correct to say that the locking of tempdb should occur at the SQL server level and that (provided the hardware is functioning properly), SPID y should never receive the error message discussed above because it will not attempt to call any of the native Win32 API functions until SPID x completes its operation? Or would SPID y remain unblocked because its operation would use a different table than SPID x -- therefore calling its Win32 read/write operation on a file that SPID x is currently using for an enormous I/O operation?
2. Has anyone on this board looked at the frequency of this error message before/after splitting the tempdb data file into (1 x number of processors) smaller files and running SQL with the -T1118 flag (as discussed in http://support.microsoft.com/kb/328551)? My understainding is that in my example case, SPID x and SPID y would then use different physical files and not have any potential for I/O contention.
PingBack from http://softwareinformation.247blogging.info/sql-server-storage-engine-why-are-those-ios-taking-so-long/
PingBack from http://www.keyongtech.com/2237047-i-o-requests-taking-longer
PingBack from http://thestoragebench.info/story.php?id=10072
Not enough information to solve the problem. Just philosophizing. Post is a fail.