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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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