Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:15:50 -0600
From:      "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>
To:        Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>
Cc:        freebsd-database@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Arne Woerner <arne_woerner@yahoo.com>
Subject:   Re: Horrible PostgreSQL performance with NFS
Message-ID:  <20060119011550.GN17896@decibel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060119011115.GA18415@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
References:  <787bbe1c0601140457y6de99891n86b49a728eedac94@mail.gmail.com> <20060114144202.6199.qmail@web30315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060119005847.GK17896@decibel.org> <20060119011115.GA18415@odin.ac.hmc.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:11:15PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:58:47PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:42:02AM -0800, Arne Woerner wrote:
> > > Did you do those "dd" tests with small block sizes (like 1byte:
> > > bs=1), like somebody on one of those lists suggests, too? Then we
> > > could see, if there is a high latency that ruins everything...
> > 
> > FYI, PostgreSQL does 8kB I/O by default. This can only be changed by
> > modifying a header file.
> 
> That's definitely small in my book (certainly compared to the 1MB block
> size the first responder suggested), knowing that, you should
> definitely do dd tests with 8k blocks since that's the best performance you
> are likely to get.

Agreed, it is small from a OS/filesystem viewpoint, but it's also
nowhere near 1 byte which is the test that had been suggested. :)
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                decibel@decibel.org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060119011550.GN17896>