Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VlMU0-0004zG-Nh for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:31:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VlMU0-0000tF-6T for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:31:32 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VlMTy-0000s4-Tx for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:31:30 +0000 Received: from smtp.01.com ([199.36.142.181]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VlMTv-00042r-Mw for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:31:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E579C4F439F for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:31:26 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DsQZ6OqLgb2r for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:31:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtp.01.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C648C4F43A4 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:31:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95FF4F439D for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:31:26 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id h8Ts_viMEUZV for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:31:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] (or-67-237-244-167.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [67.237.244.167]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07A274F439F for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:31:25 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <5294DAEB.8070204@agliodbs.com> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:31:23 -0800 From: Josh Berkus Organization: PostgreSQL Experts Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgresql in a Virtual Machine References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org On 11/25/2013 12:01 PM, Lee Nguyen wrote: > Hi, > > Having attended a few PGCons, I've always heard the remark from a few > presenters and attendees that Postgres shouldn't be run inside a VM. That > bare metal is the only way to go. This is pretty dated advice. Early VMs had horrible performance under load, which is mostly where this thinking comes from. It's not true anymore. It *is* true that getting good performance in a virtualized environment requires more tuning than bare metal, because you have to tune the VM system as well. > Here at work we were entertaining the idea of running our Postgres database > on our VM farm alongside our application vm's. We are planning to run a > few Postgres synchronous replication nodes. Biggest pitfall here is IO performance configuration. I can't give you specific advice without knowing the platform and the desired workload. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance