Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB579FB1BC for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:10:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19359-03 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:10:46 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (floppy.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B642C9FB1EA for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:10:45 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id 3F53130E34; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:10:44 +0100 (MET) From: Hannes Dorbath X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Running PG on cluster files systems Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:15:26 +0100 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 11 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200701/110 X-Sequence-Number: 22711 GFS2, OFCS2, lustre, CXFS, GPFS, Veritas and what else there is.. ..has someone experience with any of those? Is it bearable to run PG on them from a performance point of view? I guess not, but any positive reports? Thanks -- Regards, Hannes Dorbath