Stick to 4k linux block size and you should be OK. I've yet to run into a situation where changing either has made any measurable difference. On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:58 AM, chiru r <chirupg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks Scott. > Please suggest the OS block sizes for Linux redhat 7.2, where as default > Linux block size is 4k. > > If we keep 8k block size at OS level is it improves PostgreSQL performance? > Please suggest what is the suggestible default OS block size for Linux > systems to install PostgreSQL. > > Thanks, > Chiru > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:41 AM, chiru r <chirupg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I am building new server to run PostgreSQL 9.5.4 version on it. Please >> > provide the recommended Block size for Linux systems. >> > >> > We are using PostgreSQL blocks size is 8k default one. >> > >> > postgres=# show block_size ; >> > block_size >> > ------------ >> > 8192 >> > (1 row) >> > >> > Is there any recommendation for separate block sizes on OS level for >> > Pg_xlog, pg_log and Actual data files to improve the performance for >> > reads/Writes?. >> >> Unless you've done some testing to show some other block size is >> better, it's best to stick to 8k block size. Keep in mind that while >> it is configurable at compile time, it doesn't get much testing at >> other sizes and you could run into corner cases where there are >> problems and the only acceptable fix is to compile with 8k blocks and >> reload your whole db etc. >> >> tl;dr: Stick to 8k blocks. >> >> -- >> To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion. > > -- To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
