'nother test in support of 16K blocks for FreeBSD, this time it was
25% faster to import.  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden

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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-database@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-database
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-database-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:45:45 -0700
Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>
[cguttesen@yahoo.dk: Re: Some additional tests run on my performance
	testing]

what sort of hardware was this run on?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:

> 'nother test in support of 16K blocks for FreeBSD, this time it was
> 25% faster to import.  -sc
>
> --
> Sean Chittenden
>

Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:01:56 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [cguttesen@yahoo.dk: Re: Some additional tests run on