X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE16611F60E5 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:39:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13993-01 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:38:58 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.233]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A00711F60A2 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:38:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i32so1583805wra for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:38:57 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic:thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=lrWGE1aTRkzzukhc7v8gPlN8BmT/6Hox1hDWWLsnwG316kmQ+jDuPH06mEBgl85sp8wG3QDNuAE8QMYuzF8Bn0b5+Pbd+SH9t+5cz9sB2awSfjGZhxVK0s43yoz+cPmLsEP34Yg4FnxJnK853+VcViFqQQsokfKeJ/4i8VqXqxg= Received: by 10.54.140.11 with SMTP id n11mr2168287wrd; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.12? ( [72.156.236.193]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 28sm802435wrl.2006.04.27.05.38.56; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:38:57 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:38:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory From: Ketema Harris To: "Jim C. Nasby" , Steve Wampler CC: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Running on an NFS Mounted Directory Thread-Index: AcZp94vNypahiNXqEdqi1AARJHlfcA== In-Reply-To: <20060427045524.GV97354@pervasive.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200604/633 X-Sequence-Number: 18717 I am looking for the best solution to have a large amount of disk storage attached to my PostgreSQL 8.1 server. I was thinking of having a san or nas attached device be mounted by the pg server over nfs, hence the question about nfs performance. What other options/protocols are there to get high performance and data integrity while having the benefit of not having the physical storage attached to the db server? On 4/27/06 12:55 AM, "Jim C. Nasby" wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:35:42PM -0700, Steve Wampler wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:06:58PM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote: >>> I was wondering if there were any performance issues with having a data >>> directory that was an nfs mounted drive? Say like a SAN or NAS device? Has >>> anyone done this before? >> >> My understanding is that NFS is pretty poor in performance in general, >> so I would expect it to be particularly bad for a DB. You might run >> some (non-DB) performance tests to get a feel for how bad it might me. >> (Someone once told me that NFS topped out at around 12MB/s, but I don't >> know if that's really true [they were trying to sell a competitive >> networked filesystem]). >> >> In any event, you're at least limited by ethernet speeds, if not more. > > More importantly, the latency involved will kill commit performance. If > it doesn't then it's likely that fsync isn't being obeyed, which means 0 > data integrity.