From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
To: Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: NFS, file system cache and shared_buffers
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:26:56 +0300
Message-ID: <53848490.6060001@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17CFE61C@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at>
References: <A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17CFE61C@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 05/27/2014 02:06 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> I just learned that NFS does not use a file system cache on the client side.
>
> On the other hand, PostgreSQL relies on the file system cache for performance,
> because beyond a certain amount of shared_buffers performance will suffer.
>
> Together these things seem to indicate that you cannot get good performance
> with a large database over NFS since you can leverage memory speed.
>
> Now I wonder if there are any remedies (CacheFS?) and what experiences
> people have made with the performance of large databases over NFS.
I have no personal experience with NFS, but sounds like a
higher-than-usual shared_buffers value would be good.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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: hlinnakangas@vmware.com, laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at
Subject: Re: NFS, file system cache and shared_buffers
In-Reply-To: <53848490.6060001@vmware.com>
* 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