| From: | Shaw Terwilliger <sterwill(at)sourcegear(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Shaw Terwilliger <sterwill(at)sourcegear(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL over NFS? |
| Date: | 2001-02-09 23:44:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20010209174414.A11502@lister.sourcegear.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It is not performance I would be concerned about, but reliability. NFS
> has no state for reliability. I have to ask why they are using NFS
> rather than putting it on a drive local to the machine. If they say
> they want to share the data between two machines, that is even crazier.
I did search through the archives, and saw the reliability thing mentioned
(no state means locks aren't gone when the database server dies).
Nothing has been deployed yet, and I'm pretty sure I can convince them to
go for local disks (this is a large deployment, and they've got the
budget for the system).
--
Shaw Terwilliger <sterwill(at)sourcegear(dot)com>
SourceGear Corporation
217.356.0105 x 641
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2001-02-09 23:51:16 | Re: PostgreSQL over NFS? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-09 23:30:07 | Re: PostgreSQL over NFS? |