| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ketema Harris | 2006-04-27 12:57:51 | Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory |
| Previous Message | Ketema Harris | 2006-04-27 12:38:55 | Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory |