Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A6E6133616B for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 22:28:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95399-09 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 02:28:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.10]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D75413364DE for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 22:28:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MRhPx-1PlKUj2VGT-00Syh7; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 03:28:33 +0100 Message-ID: <4D2285CF.3050304@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:28:31 -0500 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mladen Gogala CC: Rich , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Performance of PostgreSQL over NFS References: <4D10FFEE.4070907@vmsinfo.com> <4D112E5E.9090309@vmsinfo.com> In-Reply-To: <4D112E5E.9090309@vmsinfo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:V+lik9kbFhph1MtLVWmdwlIxXrDzaqGwIch0sTQbUq3 Q0CnnC4F9Ctfst/3w91cQR+tvyBAHXAzrNgMbbIs/0D9PYuW5Q VumoAPYGy9k0+lG7vdMupYO6OEZDhBpTyk3JElWsP+jIa1CHnO PoLjZDlUhLev+X+uv4U5J79N0xkzTopWpAYdsgXCwyjsTfFh5h 2WFLoJpDpJ4ENK4WhTphvMXlBjSbglodjGFW784qbU= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201101/7 X-Sequence-Number: 41794 Mladen Gogala wrote: > Rich wrote: >> I am wondering why anyone would do that? Too much overhead and no >> reliable enough. > > Apparently, NetApp thinks that it is reliable. They're selling that > stuff for years. I know that Oracle works with NetApp, they even > have their own user mode NFS client driver, I am not sure about > PostgreSQL. Did anybody try that? > You have hit upon the crucial distinction here. In order for NFS to work well, you need a rock solid NFS server. NetApp does a good job there. You also need a rock solid NFS client, configured perfectly in order to eliminate the risk of corruption you get if the NFS implementation makes any mistake in handling sync operations or error handling. The issue really isn't "will PostgreSQL performance well over NFS?". The real concern is "will my data get corrupted if my NFS client misbehaves, and how likely is that to happen?" That problem is scary enough that whether or not the performance is good is secondary. And unlike Oracle, there hasn't been much full end to end integration to certify the reliability of PostgreSQL in this context, the way NetApp+Oracle has worked out those issues. It's hard to most of us to even justify that investigation, given that NFS and NetApp's offerings that use it feel like legacy technologies, ones that are less relevant every year. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books