From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Cott Lang <cott(at)internetstaff(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PG over NFS tips |
Date: | 2004-08-05 14:37:41 |
Message-ID: | 18186.1091716661@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Cott Lang <cott(at)internetstaff(dot)com> writes:
> The higher-ups are attempting to force me to run Postgres over NFS at
> least temporarily.
> Despite giving me a queasy feeling and reading quite a bit of messages
> advising against it, running Oracle over NFS with a NAS filer doesn't
> seem to be unusual. Is there a reason PG would be more sensitive than
> Oracle?
No --- the issues are not with Postgres per se but with the reliability
of your NFS setup. On top of the not-infinite reliability of disk drive
hardware you now have to stack risk of failure of the NAS machine itself,
network problems, and misconfiguration problems (eg, ill-chosen mount
options).
The people who run Oracle over NFS successfully have usually paid top
dollar for quality NAS hardware and a network run by people who know
what they're doing. Put PG into that same environment and it will work
just as well. But put PG on a lesser-grade setup, run by not quite such
competent admins, and you're in for trouble.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-08-05 14:38:02 | Re: Non-superuser connection limit exceeded |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2004-08-05 14:32:36 | Re: case insensitive sorting & searching in oracle 10g |