| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)qwest(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Rawnsley" <ronz(at)ravensfield(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Hammond" <ahammond(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres over Linux NBD or NFS |
| Date: | 2004-06-22 03:46:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1087876005.1187.941.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 20:46, Andrew Rawnsley wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2004, at 2:02 PM, Andrew Hammond wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > We're looking for an alternative to fiber-channel disk arrays for mass
> > storage. One of the ideas that we're exploring would involve having the
> > cluster on an NFS mounted filesystem. Another technology we're looking
> > at is the Linux NBD (Network Block Device).
> >
>
> No idea about NBDs, but its generally accepted that running over NFS
> would significantly
> decrease reliability and performance, i.e. it would be a Bad Move (tm).
> Not sure what you
> think to gain. I sure wouldn't trust NFS with a production database.
>
> What exactly are you trying to gain, avoid, or do?
I've gotten good performance over NFS using switched 100, then later
gigabit. But I wouldn't trust it for diddly.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mischa Sandberg | 2004-06-22 04:46:44 | Re: Major differences between oracle and postgres performance - what can I do ? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Rawnsley | 2004-06-22 02:46:41 | Re: Postgres over Linux NBD or NFS |