| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Sean Chittenden" <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, "Bill Moran" <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The results of my PostgreSQL/filesystem performance tests |
| Date: | 2003-08-29 01:59:50 |
| Message-ID: | 082e01c36dd1$3bf1f150$2800a8c0@mars |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> I'm likely going to make this the default for PostgreSQL on FreeBSD
> starting with 7.4 (just posted something to -hackers about this)f. If
> you'd like to do this in your testing, just apply the following patch.
>
> Right now PostgreSQL defaults to 8K blocks, but FreeBSD uses 16K
> blocks which means that currently, reading two blocks of data in PG is
> two read calls to the OS, one reads 16K of data off disk and returns
> the 1st page, the 2nd call pulls the 2nd block from the FS cache. In
> making things 16K, it avoids the need for the 2nd system call which is
> where the performance difference is coming from, afaikt. -sc
Are you _sure_ this won't cause any atomicity problems? Can FreeBSD write
16k as an atomic unit?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2003-08-29 02:00:21 | Re: opinion on RAID choice |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-08-29 01:40:18 | Re: The results of my PostgreSQL/filesystem performance |