| From: | Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah(dot)rajesh(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10GbE / iSCSI storage for postgresql. |
| Date: | 2011-09-23 06:26:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4E7C26AB.3060608@ringerc.id.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 22/09/2011 5:47 PM, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> Dear Craig ,
>
> The other end of the iSCSI shall have all the goodies like the raid controller
> with a WBC with BBU. There can even be multiple raid cards for multiple
> servers and disksets. I am even planning for NICs having TOE features .
>
> The doubt is will it work withing a acceptable performance range as
> compared to the situation of DAS (Direct Attached Storage). Has anyone tried like this before ?
Sure, people use iSCSI and similar relatively frequently, and as I said
it depends a lot on the controller (client- and server-side), the
workload, and the details of the implementation.
If the iSCSI storage is fast, PostgreSQL will be fast. If the iSCSI
storage has slow writes, PostgreSQL will have slow writes. And so on.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Christensen | 2011-09-23 07:03:20 | Re: Materialized views in Oracle |
| Previous Message | Roger Niederland | 2011-09-23 06:00:10 | pg_dump compress |