Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:40:32 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Claus=20Guttesen?= <cguttesen@yahoo.dk> To: Sean Chittenden <seanc@FreeBSD.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>, freebsd-database@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some additional tests run on my performance testing Message-ID: <20030828204032.97741.qmail@web14102.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20030828171955.GE83759@perrin.nxad.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi. I'm implementing postgresql 7.3.4 on FreeBSD 5.1, and decided to place the pgsql-folder on it's own partition so it was easier to test which blocksize to go for. So I newfs'ed it with 8 and 16 kb blocksize did an import of a 1.5 GB pg-dump. > numbers you suggest above, I loaded a DB with 8k and > 16K blocks > (translation: almost all write activities). > > them to stay about the same across the board. If > someone wants to do > some good read tests, I'd be interested in those > results. > The 8 kb blocksize took 60 min. to import, and the 16 kb ditto took 45 min. So I'm settling on 16 kb blocks. Softupdates was enabled in both scenarios, db was dropped and recreated and server rebooted before each import. The fragsize was the recommended 1/8 of blocksize, i.e. 1 and 2 kb. 2 GB ECC RAM. I haven't done any further testing than that, but it seems that FreeBSD internally caches 16 kb blocksize better than 8 kb. regards Claus Yahoo! Mail (http://dk.mail.yahoo.com) - Gratis: 6 MB lagerplads, spamfilter og virusscan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030828204032.97741.qmail>