| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Christensen <david(dot)christensen(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Initdb-time block size specification |
| Date: | 2023-06-30 23:01:29 |
| Message-ID: | ZJ9eyYSNt0Ge+bMp@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I just got a new server:
>
> https://momjian.us/main/blogs/blog/2023.html#June_28_2023
>
> so tested this on my new M.2 NVME storage device:
>
> $ /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/physical_block_size
> 262144
>
> that's 256k, not 4k.
I have another approach to this. My storage device has power
protection, so even though it has a 256k physical block size, it should
be fine with 4k write atomicity.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-06-30 23:04:57 | Re: Initdb-time block size specification |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-06-30 22:59:09 | Re: Initdb-time block size specification |