Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D001337B8C for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:32:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 52899-03 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 20:32:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:20:19.206949 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com (mail-yx0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFC41337B82 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:32:07 -0400 (AST) Received: by yxt3 with SMTP id 3so266262yxt.19 for ; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:32:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.202.21 with SMTP id z21mr2141721ybf.334.1297281993282; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:06:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from AnibalVAIO ([190.128.222.90]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8sm404375yba.2.2011.02.09.12.06.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:06:31 -0800 (PST) From: "Anibal David Acosta" To: "'Bryan Keller'" , References: <9424C7B4-672D-4C64-BE6A-699708981C0B@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9424C7B4-672D-4C64-BE6A-699708981C0B@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Postgres on NAS/NFS Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:05:47 -0300 Message-ID: <001c01cbc894$bfe43470$3fac9d50$@devshock.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIZ7OvD/Q0QRpOQGwia2OTlU2/yG5NdTjYA Content-Language: es-py X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201102/58 X-Sequence-Number: 36697 I think SAN is better for block access instead of file access (NAS) -----Mensaje original----- De: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org] En nombre de Bryan Keller Enviado el: mi=E9rcoles, 09 de febrero de 2011 05:00 p.m. Para: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Asunto: [ADMIN] Postgres on NAS/NFS I am considering running a Postgres with the database hosted on a NAS = via NFS. I have read a few things on the Web saying this is not recommended, = as it will be slow and could potentially cause data corruption. My goal is to have the database on a shared filesystem so in case of = server failure, I can start up a standby Postgres server and point it to the = same database. I would rather not use a SAN as I have heard horror stories = about managing them. Also they are extremely expensive. A DAS would be another option, but I'm not sure if a DAS can be connected to two servers for = server failover purposes. Currently I am considering not using a shared filesystem and instead = using replication between the two servers. I am wondering what solutions have others used for my active-passive Postgres failover scenario? Is a NAS still not a recommended approach? = Will a DAS work? Or is replication the best approach? -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin