| Date: | Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:30:58 -0700 |
|---|
| Reply-To: | MacAddict <supermario@MAC.COM> |
|---|
| Sender: | "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> |
|---|
| From: | MacAddict <supermario@MAC.COM> |
|---|
| Organization: | http://groups.google.com |
|---|
| Subject: | Re: SGIO Option |
|---|
|
| In-Reply-To: | <1129242954.246191.303240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> |
|---|
| Content-Type: | text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
|---|
Minsup,
We tried using the SGIO option on our SAS server Farm (3 quad-cpu's
Windows 2003 servers connected to a large NAS via fiber) thinking that
it would improve performance (based on TS documents, SAS help, SAS-L
and White Papers). However, when we actually turned it on, it slowed
our benchmark program and users started complaining that their jobs
were taking much longer to complete.
After doing much testing with different SAS options, I was able to
determined that changing the BUFNO to 4 (from the default) increased
the performance overall by 16% (up to 33% on data steps).
Right now, that is the only change that we've made to the default SAS
config file and our benchmark program is running much faster.
We are also using SyncSort as our Sort host.
MacAddict
docsms@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I read an post that SGIO Option looks very promising in improving SAS
> performance. Then, what is disadvantage of this option?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Minsup
| 
