Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB002E0085 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:34:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65863-04 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:34:12 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com (hu-out-0506.google.com [72.14.214.232]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E969E2E0088 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:34:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 22so965955hug.23 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:34:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=e6T9ZFY0wyZKuk2sYYjez224sq1/7iIEG7leVqLhWac=; b=PDuj8gvjMFycoFbFADArlmYiPysOcPp3ef7dj079uaG9ocrZSIIuccNYWIHkuY3q4eh8T6WKnYjdicNfAEXaXBaR/ZBgsauPkgdUHpvyMkKiIFPX5XCMjdUifL3WtyA7KViqd6EEE5WoSZDFaQ8jEBzK8xVvXduWGfYi5HITjQk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=TbCis6uUXY4YWJOFd8aLwZTgYmayOZADkIn4iuiBUKA4cs5xVq9+eUADJV7EdNkbbsK28lakA7Qjy7vtO6F/VSYI6nJMKdb7PofdcRhg287DFkGfmqkGJDPoxQ24shPzkj/YDfQnSW0yceSPUpB5FyWTGMuf1w25BslKatVbN6Y= Received: by 10.82.113.6 with SMTP id l6mr6916003buc.20.1206092049685; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.186.16 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <758d5e7f0803210234l785b115as6f4b42f42fa97f13@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:34:09 +0100 From: "Dawid Kuroczko" To: "Chris Hoover" Subject: Re: PostgreSQL NetApp and NFS Cc: "PGSQL Performance" In-Reply-To: <1d219a6f0803201232g54924fb3ka206c9b03e4664c7@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1d219a6f0803201232g54924fb3ka206c9b03e4664c7@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/418 X-Sequence-Number: 29372 On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Chris Hoover wrote: > I just found out that my company is planning on migrating my databases from > our current ISCSI storage solution to NetApps connected via NFS. I knew > about the NetApp migration, but always assumed (and shame on me) that I > would have direct attachments to the servers. It is also possible to present block devices from NetApp over iSCSI or FC (I am not sure about licensing model though). You get all the goodies like thin provisioning (only non-zero blocks are allocated), snapshots and all, but you see it as a block device. Works fine. It is also worth to mention that NetApp utilizes somewhat "copy on write" write strategy -- so whenever you modify a block, new version of the block is written on its WAFL filesystem. In practical terms it is quite resilient to random writes (and that read performance is not stellar ;)). I didn't try putting database on NFS mount directly, but I know NetApp advertises that such setups are being used with Oracle database (and allegedly Oracle website's databases are on such setup). So I would feel quite safe with such a setup. Oh, and don't forget to set rsize and wsize to 8K-32K (test and write here what gives best performance!). Regards, Dawid