| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aditya <aditya(at)grot(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, sfpug(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [sfpug] DATA directory on network attached storage |
| Date: | 2005-04-11 17:59:51 |
| Message-ID: | 425ABB17.305@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance sfpug |
Aditya wrote:
> We have not, AFAICT, had any problems with the traffic over NFS as far as
> reliability -- I'm sure there is a performance penalty, but the reliability
> and scalability gains more than offset that.
My experience agrees with yours. However we did find one gotcha -- see
the thread starting here for details:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-12/msg00479.php
In a nutshell, be careful when using an nfs mounted data directory
combined with an init script that creates a new data dir when it doesn't
find one.
> FWIW, if I were to do this anew, I would probably opt for iSCSI over GigE with
> a NetApp.
Any particular reason? Our NetApp technical rep advised nfs over iSCSI,
IIRC because of performance.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aditya | 2005-04-11 18:20:32 | Re: [sfpug] DATA directory on network attached storage |
| Previous Message | Joel Fradkin | 2005-04-11 17:14:32 | Is there somthing I need to do on my production server? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steven Ericsson-Zenith | 2005-04-11 18:19:12 | Re: Need RSVPs, meeting tommorrow. |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-04-11 17:57:31 | Need RSVPs, meeting tommorrow. |