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

Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: Ketema Harris <ketema(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory
Date: 2006-04-27 12:44:57
Message-ID: 20060427124455.GF31328@mathom.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:38:55AM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote:
>I am looking for the best solution to have a large amount of disk storage
>attached to my PostgreSQL 8.1 server.  

>What other options/protocols are there to get high performance and data 
>integrity while having the benefit of not having the physical storage 
>attached to the db server?

These are two distinct requirements. Are both really requirements or is 
one "nice to have"? The "best" solution for "a large amount of disk 
storage" isn't "not having the physical storage attached to the db 
server". If you use non-local storage it will be slower and more 
expensive, quite likely by a large margin. There may be other advantages 
to doing so, but you haven't mentioned any of those as requirements.

Mike Stone

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ketema HarrisDate: 2006-04-27 12:57:51
Subject: Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory
Previous:From: Ketema HarrisDate: 2006-04-27 12:38:55
Subject: Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory

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