| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> |
| Cc: | sfpug(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [sfpug] DATA directory on network attached storage |
| Date: | 2005-04-08 17:05:45 |
| Message-ID: | 200504081005.45539.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance sfpug |
Jeff,
> Specifically is the performance of
> gigE good enough to allow postgres to perform under load with an NFS
> mounted DATA dir? Are there other problems I haven't thought about? Any
> input would be greatly appreciated.
The big problem with NFS-mounted data is that NFS is designed to be a lossy
protocol; that is, sometimes bits get dropped and you just re-request the
file. This isn't a great idea with databases.
If we were talking SAN, then I don't see any reason why your plan wouldn't
work. However, what type of failure exactly are you guarding against? How
likely is a machine failure if its hard drives are external?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Frost | 2005-04-08 17:11:07 | Re: DATA directory on network attached storage |
| Previous Message | Jeff Frost | 2005-04-08 17:01:55 | DATA directory on network attached storage |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Frost | 2005-04-08 17:11:07 | Re: DATA directory on network attached storage |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-04-08 17:03:04 | Soliciting for future topic requests |