pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

postgresql on NFS.. recommended? not recommended?
2+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]

* postgresql on NFS.. recommended? not recommended?
@ 2007-10-08 12:39  Gábor Farkas <gabor@nekomancer.net>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread

From: Gábor Farkas @ 2007-10-08 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: pgsql-performance

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



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: postgresql on NFS.. recommended? not recommended?
@ 2007-10-08 13:43  Josh Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>
  parent: Gábor Farkas <gabor@nekomancer.net>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread

From: Josh Tolley @ 2007-10-08 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gábor Farkas <gabor@nekomancer.net>; +Cc: pgsql-performance

On 10/8/07, Gábor Farkas <gabor@nekomancer.net> wrote:
> 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
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match
>

This came up recently on pgsql-hackers.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-09/msg01182.php. See
continuation of the thread here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg00017.php

- Josh/eggyknap



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-10-08 13:43 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-10-08 12:39 postgresql on NFS.. recommended? not recommended? Gábor Farkas <gabor@nekomancer.net>
2007-10-08 13:43 ` Josh Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>

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