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 D85C911F60B1 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:07:01 -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 18560-02 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:06:52 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.229]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC77711F65AD for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:06:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i32so1588617wra for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:06:51 -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=ZhhaknAllm3eoL5vCd1FenmQTMJWnSLXwqXTJ6xrycCdub1Llai0EHNQJMQN+0iu7hP0ILLoiQbYEMENO4YEyi4EHF2TLsB+H0127tHYsEXCkW5o/amOxUAOGLpANRJyGVDjkFRqBSzVpj8y80mLCYc5pfXGw97OB1YMUxajK+E= Received: by 10.54.107.17 with SMTP id f17mr6096236wrc; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.12? ( [72.156.236.193]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 7sm488320wrl.2006.04.27.06.06.50; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:06:50 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:06:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory From: Ketema Harris To: Bruno Wolff III CC: Michael Stone , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory Thread-Index: AcZp+3D9r6PWJtXuEdqi1AARJHlfcA== In-Reply-To: <20060427130555.GE6159@wolff.to> 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: 200604/637 X-Sequence-Number: 18721 Yes, your right, I meant not have to do the backups from the db server itself. I can do that within the storage device now, by allocating space for it, and letting the device copy the data files on some periodic basis. On 4/27/06 9:05 AM, "Bruno Wolff III" wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:57:51 -0400, > Ketema Harris wrote: >> performance from the db. I also would hopefully then not have to do >> periodic backups from the db server to some other type of storage. Is this >> not a good idea? How bad of a performance hit are we talking about? Also, > > You always need to do backups if you care about your data. What if someone > accidental deletes a lot of data? What if someone blows up your data > center (or there is a flood)?