X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1011B11F60A2 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:45:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13295-03 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:45:02 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net (vms044pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.44]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD3711F60E5 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:45:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([70.108.132.172]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IYD00H9DSQZ2TS4@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:45:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB31C6E6C0; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:44:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath.home.mathom.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 16366-02-2; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AFD346E7A7; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:44:57 -0400 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory In-reply-to: To: Ketema Harris Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: Ketema Harris , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20060427124455.GF31328@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mathom.us References: <20060427045524.GV97354@pervasive.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200604/634 X-Sequence-Number: 18718 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