Re: SAN/NAS options

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SAN/NAS options
Date: 2005-12-16 22:51:03
Message-ID: 20051216225103.GE2883@mathom.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 04:18:01PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>Even if you're doing a lot of random IO? I would think that random IO
>would perform better if you use smaller (8K) blocks, since there's less
>data being read in and then just thrown away that way.

The overhead of reading an 8k block instead of a 32k block is too small
to measure on modern hardware. The seek is what dominates; leaving the
read head on a little longer and then transmitting a little more over a
200 megabyte channel is statistical fuzz.

Mike Stone

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-12-17 00:25:25 Re: SAN/NAS options
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2005-12-16 22:49:55 Re: SAN/NAS options