| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | peter(at)taer(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk (Peter T Mount) |
| Cc: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk, kenmort(at)mort(dot)port(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] 8K block limit |
| Date: | 1999-02-17 16:57:50 |
| Message-ID: | 199902171657.LAA22942@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> I think some file systems are more optimised for 8K blocks. I may be
> thinking on the original reason for the 8k limit in the first place, but I
> remember there was discussions about this when the block size was altered.
Yes, most UFS file systems use 8k blocks/2k fragments. It allows write
of block in one i/o operation.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eric Blood | 1999-02-17 17:03:05 | unsubscribe |
| Previous Message | Peter T Mount | 1999-02-17 15:45:58 | Re: [HACKERS] 8K block limit |