Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79462E003D for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:52:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45386-05 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:52:27 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84AE2E0033 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:52:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2KLqT55024851; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:52:29 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian cc: Chris Hoover , PGSQL Performance Subject: Re: PostgreSQL NetApp and NFS In-reply-to: <200803202009.m2KK9dc26453@momjian.us> References: <200803202009.m2KK9dc26453@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:09:39 -0400" Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:52:29 -0400 Message-ID: <24850.1206049949@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/415 X-Sequence-Number: 29369 Bruce Momjian writes: > Chris Hoover wrote: >> 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. > We do have an NFS section in our documentation at the bottom of this > page: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/creating-cluster.html Aside from what's said there, I'd note that it's a seriously bad idea to use a "soft mount" or any arrangement wherein it's possible for Postgres to be running while the NFS disk is not mounted. Joe Conway can still show you the scars from learning that lesson, I believe. See the archives... regards, tom lane