From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: Ketema Harris <ketema@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:44:57 -0400
Message-ID: <20060427124455.GF31328@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C076339F.2CE2%ketema@gmail.com>
References: <20060427045524.GV97354@pervasive.com>
<C076339F.2CE2%ketema@gmail.com>
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
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mstone+postgres@mathom.us, ketema@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory
In-Reply-To: <20060427124455.GF31328@mathom.us>
* 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