Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ABAA1539070 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:52:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Serk4-00084x-5r for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:52:29 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Serjq-000385-LE; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:52:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:52:14 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: Tom Lane Cc: Mike Broers , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: postgres block size alignment with filesystem block size Message-ID: <20120613175214.GA4418@momjian.us> References: <11681.1338999875@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <11681.1338999875@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201206/73 X-Sequence-Number: 39664 On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 12:24:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. I have heard about performance issues when the virtual machine block size isn't aligned with the host OS block size. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +