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>