Subject: Re: 8Kb or 4Kb ext4 filesystem page size
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
References: 
 <CAOEJH=DaKncHO9tCeRq1v_K1H9pEgNdxdMfKhLYNk5zwdSOKLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
Message-ID: <4faf4818-1249-3f0c-e105-b649bab24b45@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 10:12:36 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.3.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOEJH=DaKncHO9tCeRq1v_K1H9pEgNdxdMfKhLYNk5zwdSOKLA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 29/5/19 9:10 μ.μ., Alexandre hadjinlian guerra wrote:
> Hi
>
> Given that postgres uses 8Kb pages, im wondering why i couldnt see any tests at all which would format ext4 partition to 8Kb pages. Im about to do some tests, but any knowledge about such lack of 
> tests on the internet makes me wonder if im looking poorly or just lack of testing. besides, i do ask if the following link remain true given XFS and EXT4 evolution since 2015
> https://blog.pgaddict.com/posts/postgresql-performance-on-ext4-and-xfs
This is just my personal opinion, and might be the case only with us, but anytime I had severe problems with any of our postgresql clusters this was with XFS. I know that XFS has been highly praised 
and recommended as a pgsql fs, just hasn't been the case with us.
Having said that, in the era of could based or vm-based postgresql installation, the question of choice of FS is becoming less and less relevant. Just make sure to secure your data, and that you don't 
over tune your fs at the expense of data safety.
>
> Thanks


-- 
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt