| From: | Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | N/A <srichardjanet(at)charter(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Chris Travers <chris(at)verkiel(dot)metatrontech(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question on placing database on a network attached storage |
| Date: | 2005-07-30 21:59:30 |
| Message-ID: | 42EBF842.5090306@travelamericas.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
N/A wrote:
>Chris,
>
>The NAS is a Network Appliance 920c. I understand that an individual file
>while be "intact" during a snap, (not sure I believe it, but that's what I'm
>told).
>
Depending on the way that data is journalled, this may be a possibility
(istr XFS is able to do this).
> The NAS may be able to monitor the state of an individual file and
>not "snap" it if it is on an "open" state or has a pending write, or some
>such, but as the NAS has no knowledge of groups of files that need to exist
>in a known state, (it deals on the file level), it cannot guarantee a
>consistent state across a group of files.
>
That is a serious concern. Every table in PostgreSQL consists of at
least one physical file. Transactions may touch several of these
files. While it is not impossible to solve this problem (as I
mentioned, I think XFS has this capability), it is hardly trivial or
something you would normally expect.
Also I wonder what the impact of several Postmasters trying to access
data over NFS would be.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Frost | 2005-07-30 22:56:05 | Re: Question on placing database on a network attached |
| Previous Message | N/A | 2005-07-30 21:27:44 | Re: Question on placing database on a network attached storage device |