| From: | postgresqlgeneral(dot)domain(dot)thewild_codata(at)spamgourmet(dot)com |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Block_Size on NTFS |
| Date: | 2009-06-09 12:33:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4A2E56A8.2070406@codata.eu |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian - bruce(at)momjian(dot)us a écrit :
> postgresqlgeneral(dot)domain(dot)thewild_codata(at)spamgourmet(dot)com 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 ?
Regards
--
Arnaud Lesauvage
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-06-09 12:35:01 | Re: Block_Size on NTFS |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2009-06-09 12:32:16 | Re: Block_Size on NTFS |