| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2003-08-28 22:36:09 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0308281635350.5256-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Windows 2k can go up to 64k block sizes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Swan | 2003-08-28 22:36:22 | Re: Bumping block size to 16K on FreeBSD... |
| Previous Message | Jim Mercer | 2003-08-28 22:32:59 | Re: Bumping block size to 16K on FreeBSD... |