| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>, PostgresSQL General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS |
| Date: | 2002-08-13 16:01:29 |
| Message-ID: | 3D592D59.4060505@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 03:57, Greg Copeland wrote:
>>Ext2 & 3 should be okay. XFS (very sure) and JFS (reasonably sure)
>>should also be okay...IIRC. NFS and SMB are probably problematic, but I
>>can't see anyone really wanting to do this.
>
> Hmm. Whereas I can't see many people putting their database files on an
> NFS mount, I can readily see them using pg_dump to one, and pg_dump is
> the program where large files are really likely to be needed.
I wouldn't totally discount using NFS for large databases. Believe it or
not, with an Oracle database and a Network Appliance for storage, NFS is
exactly what is used. We've found that we get better performance with a
(properly tuned) NFS mounted NetApp volume than with attached storage on
our HPUX box with several 100+GB databases.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-13 16:02:36 | Re: Sourceforge moving to DB2 |
| Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-08-13 16:00:03 | Re: Sourceforge moving to DB2 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | strange | 2002-08-13 16:03:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-13 16:00:53 | Re: Temporary Views |