From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mike Broers <mbroers(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: postgres block size alignment with filesystem block size |
Date: | 2012-06-13 17:52:14 |
Message-ID: | 20120613175214.GA4418@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 12:24:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Broers <mbroers(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Hello, I am setting up a new postgres production server in a managed
> > hosting environment. I dont have much insight into the underlying disk
> > architecture but the filesystem I have been presented with has a 4k block
> > size. Postgres defaults to 8k block size; would it be beneficial to repave
> > the filesystem at an 8k block size or problematic to leave it at 4k?
>
> I doubt it's worth the trouble to change it. Most filesystems default
> to 4k or smaller block sizes, so that's what PG is accustomed to run on.
> I think it would only really be an issue if PG's block size weren't a
> multiple of the filesystem block.
I have heard about performance issues when the virtual machine block
size isn't aligned with the host OS block size.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabricio | 2012-06-14 07:33:45 | Re: (new thread) could not rename temporary statistics file "pg_stat_tmp/pgstat.tmp" to "pg_stat_tmp/pgstat.stat": No such file or directory |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-13 17:17:59 | Re: Out of memory errors on pg_dump |