On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:43 PM, pinker wrote:
> I've seen very big differences with huge_pages set to on, especially in
> context of CPU usage on multiple socket servers.
>
> You could play as well with storage options, for instance inode size and
> check if there is any advantage for your db fr
I've seen very big differences with huge_pages set to on, especially in
context of CPU usage on multiple socket servers.
You could play as well with storage options, for instance inode size and
check if there is any advantage for your db from inlining, which is
supported by xfs. You can find more
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 wrote:
> Thanks Scott.
> Please suggest the OS block sizes for Linux redhat 7.2, where as default
> Linux block s
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,
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:41 AM, chiru r 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
> --
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
