Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [sfpug] DATA directory on network attached storage

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performancesfpug
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jeff FrostDate: 2005-04-08 17:11:07
Subject: Re: DATA directory on network attached storage
Previous:From: Jeff FrostDate: 2005-04-08 17:01:55
Subject: DATA directory on network attached storage

sfpug by date

Next:From: Jeff FrostDate: 2005-04-08 17:11:07
Subject: Re: DATA directory on network attached storage
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2005-04-08 17:03:04
Subject: Soliciting for future topic requests

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group