On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 20:46, Andrew Rawnsley wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2004, at 2:02 PM, Andrew Hammond wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > We're looking for an alternative to fiber-channel disk arrays for mass
> > storage. One of the ideas that we're exploring would involve having the
> > cluster on an NFS mounted filesystem. Another technology we're looking
> > at is the Linux NBD (Network Block Device).
> No idea about NBDs, but its generally accepted that running over NFS
> would significantly
> decrease reliability and performance, i.e. it would be a Bad Move (tm).
> Not sure what you
> think to gain. I sure wouldn't trust NFS with a production database.
> What exactly are you trying to gain, avoid, or do?
I've gotten good performance over NFS using switched 100, then later
gigabit. But I wouldn't trust it for diddly.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Mischa Sandberg||Date: 2004-06-22 04:46:44|
|Subject: Re: Major differences between oracle and postgres performance - what can I do ?|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Rawnsley||Date: 2004-06-22 02:46:41|
|Subject: Re: Postgres over Linux NBD or NFS|