From: Gábor Farkas <gabor@nekomancer.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: postgresql on NFS.. recommended? not recommended?
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:39:31 +0200
Message-ID: <470A2503.5030107@nekomancer.net> (raw)
hi,
is it recommended to run a postgresql server on a nfs-share
(gigabit-network)? so basically i have a NAS + a database-server,
and wonder if i should put the database on local hard-drives in the
db-server, or on the NAS, and mount it using NFS on the database-server.
i haven't investigated the issue much yet (checked the
mailing-list-archives, but couldn't find anything definitive.. ), so
would like to hear opinions/recommendations?
can the NAS solution be faster? how much is usually the NFS-overhead?
or is there a consensus on this? saying for example "generally, you
should never use NFS with postgresql?" or it depends on some factors?
intuitively it seems to me that NFS will be always an extra overhead,
but maybe it's an unmeasurably small overhead?
thanks,
gabor
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: gabor@nekomancer.net
Subject: Re: postgresql on NFS.. recommended? not recommended?
In-Reply-To: <470A2503.5030107@nekomancer.net>
* 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