Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Bumping block size to 16K on FreeBSD...

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>
Cc: David Schultz <dschultz(at)uclink(dot)Berkeley(dot)EDU>,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 07:38:05
Message-ID: 3F4F02DD.50905@paradise.net.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I am not 100% sure that 16K blocksize is the best size, for instance :

Using FreebSD 5.1 - I got the best read and write performance using a 
blocksize of 32K with 4K fragments - [ reading and writing 8K blocks, 
ufs1 and ufs2 fs ].

I dont have the results in front of me, but I think I tried fs 
blocksizes from 4K upwards....

I am also not convinced that using 16K in Pg will be better than 8K (you 
would expect sequential performance to improve, but maybe at the expense 
of random ....)

regards

Mark


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2003-08-29 08:18:24
Subject: Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-08-29 07:30:06
Subject: Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group