From: Fortuitous Technologies <null@fortuitous.dot.nul>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 14:58:51 GMT
Message-ID: <pan.2006.05.02.14.58.50.836991@fortuitous.dot.nul> (raw)
References: <C0759F82.2C4E%ketema@gmail.com>
<20060427023542.GA14672@weaver.tuc.noao.edu>
<20060427045524.GV97354@pervasive.com>
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:55:24 -0500, 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,
NFS is not a good choice for several reasons. First, NFS takes
priority in the system kernel, and will slow down all other
operations. Your best choice, as pointed out by others, is a DAS
solutions. If you must use NFS, you should consider putting it on
a fast dedicated network by itself.
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: null@fortuitous.dot.nul
Subject: Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory
In-Reply-To: <pan.2006.05.02.14.58.50.836991@fortuitous.dot.nul>
* 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