Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3B62E00E6 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:38:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49239-02-2 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:38:51 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D3A2E00B0 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:36:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id f5so587130nfh.23 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:36:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=Fv8BexUmwR7jVFEDt4aY2dDQIjNpqWRcRFhd6ngevxg=; b=YCLHxUgFd5N7J7+j1cgonrFTZzs9H5lXWhRU8MFn3IS3tf7NFB42j3b6FlcqH9zTGFZRgICpkhitMkyF0kzuo1ll0cQvtz9IRqsTNnQAvYHcr2nNEzSt8Fo1NueP+xPvZp87sp3+PhPfs1N0dLzXI7hGx+Pt4rLSHChbl/wAYUo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=hcY2+RxWhLhtyyrc7EtTQ+PCv24nDWcykAomtMHGGgNTmEyDT6Z2sESb+SkixoxuIyxthrM+NXE+gXpFw6wGrzEs6Un60Yvmjd/IFIH4kx3ptX4xxOkubYHPCkinhfVEfYyLSVQdIeLa7Z6QAfVo7cn/rTzEY43JHirjfEfNdJo= Received: by 10.150.148.7 with SMTP id v7mr1072421ybd.26.1206041567944; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.225.12 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1d219a6f0803201232g54924fb3ka206c9b03e4664c7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:32:47 -0400 From: "Chris Hoover" To: "PGSQL Performance" Subject: PostgreSQL NetApp and NFS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_909_10907964.1206041567936" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.586 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=-1.547, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_OB_SURBL=2.132 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200803/410 X-Sequence-Number: 29364 ------=_Part_909_10907964.1206041567936 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I just found out that my company is planning on migrating my databases from our current ISCSI storage solution to NetApps connected via NFS. I knew about the NetApp migration, but always assumed (and shame on me) that I would have direct attachments to the servers. Well, I am very uncomfortable with the NFS attachement. I have been searching the archives and see a lot of anocdotal stories of NFS horrors, but so far, nothing but general stories and statements. I need to know if anyone out there is/has run their PostgreSQL on NetApp arrays via NFS. My particular situation is RH Linux 4 servers running Postgresql 8.1. I need to provide our Operations manager with specific reasons why we should not run PostgreSQL over NetApp NFS. Otherwise, they will go forward with this. If you have any real life good or bad stories, I'd love to hear it. Given the NetApp arrays supposedly being very good NFS platforms, overall, is this a recommended way to run PostgreSQL, or is it recommended to not run this way. Feel free to reply directly if you are not comfortable talking to this on the list, but list replies would be preferred so others in my shoes can find this information. Thanks, Chris -- Come see how to SAVE money on fuel, decrease harmful emissions, and even make MONEY. Visit http://colafuelguy.mybpi.com and join the revolution! ------=_Part_909_10907964.1206041567936 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I just found out that my company is planning on migrating my databases from our current ISCSI storage solution to NetApps connected via NFS.  I knew about the NetApp migration, but always assumed (and shame on me) that I would have direct attachments to the servers.

Well, I am very uncomfortable with the NFS attachement.  I have been searching the archives and see a lot of anocdotal stories of NFS horrors, but so far, nothing but general stories and statements.

I need to know if anyone out there is/has run their PostgreSQL on NetApp arrays via NFS.  My particular situation is RH Linux 4 servers running Postgresql 8.1.  I need to provide our Operations manager with specific reasons why we should not run PostgreSQL over NetApp NFS.  Otherwise, they will go forward with this.

If you have any real life good or bad stories, I'd love to hear it.  Given the NetApp arrays supposedly being very good NFS platforms, overall, is this a recommended way to run PostgreSQL, or is it recommended to not run this way.


Feel free to reply directly if you are not comfortable talking to this on the list, but list replies would be preferred so others in my shoes can find this information.

Thanks,

Chris
--
Come see how to SAVE money on fuel, decrease harmful emissions, and even make MONEY. Visit http://colafuelguy.mybpi.com and join the revolution! ------=_Part_909_10907964.1206041567936--