postgresqlgeneral.domain.thewild_codata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Bruce Momjian - postgresqlgeneral.domain.thewild_codata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a ?crit : > > postgresqlgeneral.domain.thewild_codata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> Reading through the list of settings returned by "SHOW ALL", I noticed > >> the "block_size" variable, which defaults to 8192. > >> > >> Running on Windows Server, my data directory is on an NTFS partition. > >> Running CHKDSK on this partition tells me that there are "4096 bytes in > >> each allocation unit." > >> > >> Are these allocation units the same as the "block_size", or does this > >> only have to do with disk geometry ? > >> If they are the same, is it important that they match ? > > > > It is not necessary they match. It just means that Postgres extends > > files in 8k chunks while your file system extends them in 4k chunks. > > Thanks for your answer Bruce. > So I guess it is good practice to have postgresql's "block_size" set to > an exact multiplie of the filesystem's block_size, right ? Yes. -- Bruce Momjian <postgresqlgeneral.domain.thewild_codata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
