Re: NFS performance tuning

From: Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NFS performance tuning
Date: 2003-09-12 00:53:53
Message-ID: 3F611921.6090009@selectacast.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joseph Shraibman wrote:
>
>>Is it considered safe to run postgres over nfs if the sync option is used?
>
>
> No, because NFS is not atomic in its operations. However, a number of
> people are running PostgreSQL over NFS to network attached storage
> devices, and it seems to run fine --- I just am not sure what will
> happen if the network attached storage devices goes down.
>

From the FAQ at http://nfs.sourceforge.net/ :

Clients ensure that data that was written using a safe asynchronous write has been written
onto permanent storage using a new operation available in Version 3 called a COMMIT.
Servers do not send a response to a COMMIT operation until all data specified in the
request has been written to permanent storage. NFS Version 3 clients must protect buffered
data that has been written using a safe asynchronous write but not yet committed. If a
server reboots before a client has sent an appropriate COMMIT, the server can reply to the
eventual COMMIT request in a way that forces the client to resend the original write
operation. Version 3 clients use COMMIT operations when flushing safe asynchronous writes
to the server during a close(2) or fsync(2) system call, or when encountering memory pressure.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-09-12 01:34:19 Re: selecting random rows
Previous Message Joseph Shraibman 2003-09-12 00:36:09 Re: selecting random rows