| From: | David Schultz <dschultz(at)uclink(dot)Berkeley(dot)EDU> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Thomas Swan <tswan(at)idigx(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bumping block size to 16K on FreeBSD... |
| Date: | 2003-08-29 00:55:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20030829005553.GB45785@HAL9000.homeunix.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Thomas Swan wrote:
> >
> > > Has anyone looked at changing the default block size across the board
> > > and what the performance improvements/penalties might be? Hardware has
> > > changed quite a bit over the years.
> >
> > I *think* that the reason for the performance improvement on FreeBSD is
> > that our FS block size is 16k, instead of 8k ... are there any other
> > OSs that have increased theirs?
>
> Linux, is still, as far as I know, limited to the max page size of the CPU
> it's on, which for most x86 is 4k.
I don't know about the page size issue, but Linux has the
additional problem that ext2/ext3 do not support fragments or
variable block sizes within the same filesystem. Therefore, Linux
wastes an excessive amount of space for larger block sizes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-08-29 01:01:56 | Re: [cguttesen@yahoo.dk: Re: Some additional tests run on |
| Previous Message | David Schultz | 2003-08-29 00:51:12 | Re: Bumping block size to 16K on FreeBSD... |