Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07F01179B44 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:24:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ScJ2O-0004Ay-Ou for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:24:49 +0000 Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q56GOZwM011682; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:24:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Lane To: Mike Broers cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: postgres block size alignment with filesystem block size In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Mike Broers message dated "Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:54:40 -0500" Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:24:35 -0400 Message-ID: <11681.1338999875@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201206/15 X-Sequence-Number: 39606 Mike Broers 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. regards, tom lane