From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SAN/NAS options
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:51:03 -0500
Message-ID: <20051216225103.GE2883@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051216221801.GT53809@pervasive.com>
References: <Pine.OSX.4.61.0512140155590.282@office-dhcp-18.bway.net>
<439FC9B8.8020709@paradise.net.nz>
<20051216221801.GT53809@pervasive.com>
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 04:18:01PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>Even if you're doing a lot of random IO? I would think that random IO
>would perform better if you use smaller (8K) blocks, since there's less
>data being read in and then just thrown away that way.
The overhead of reading an 8k block instead of a 32k block is too small
to measure on modern hardware. The seek is what dominates; leaving the
read head on a little longer and then transmitting a little more over a
200 megabyte channel is statistical fuzz.
Mike Stone
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: SAN/NAS options
In-Reply-To: <20051216225103.GE2883@mathom.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox