From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-novice@postgreSQL.org, Mija Lee <mija@scharp.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:13:41 -0700
Message-ID: <47012AC5.9040808@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25517.1191038302@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <25517.1191038302@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom,
> Maybe we need to actively discourage people from running Postgres
> against NFS-mounted data directories. Shane Kerr's paper cited above
> mentions some other rather scary properties, including O_EXCL file
> creation not really working properly.
Wouldn't you be describing a Linux-specific issue, though? And possibly
kernel-specific?
It's hard to reconcile this with the real-world performance of
PostgreSQL on NFS, which is happening all over the place. Most notably,
Joe Conway's 20,000 txn/sec.
I *do* think it's an accurate statement that if you're going to use
Postgres, or any other OLTP database, on NFS you'd better have access to
a NAS expert. But to say that it's a bad idea even if you have expert
help is probably going to far.
--Josh Berkus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mija@scharp.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
In-Reply-To: <47012AC5.9040808@agliodbs.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox