From: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: NFS performance tuning |
Date: | 2003-09-12 00:53:53 |
Message-ID: | 3F611921.6090009@selectacast.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joseph Shraibman wrote:
>
>>Is it considered safe to run postgres over nfs if the sync option is used?
>
>
> No, because NFS is not atomic in its operations. However, a number of
> people are running PostgreSQL over NFS to network attached storage
> devices, and it seems to run fine --- I just am not sure what will
> happen if the network attached storage devices goes down.
>
From the FAQ at http://nfs.sourceforge.net/ :
Clients ensure that data that was written using a safe asynchronous write has been written
onto permanent storage using a new operation available in Version 3 called a COMMIT.
Servers do not send a response to a COMMIT operation until all data specified in the
request has been written to permanent storage. NFS Version 3 clients must protect buffered
data that has been written using a safe asynchronous write but not yet committed. If a
server reboots before a client has sent an appropriate COMMIT, the server can reply to the
eventual COMMIT request in a way that forces the client to resend the original write
operation. Version 3 clients use COMMIT operations when flushing safe asynchronous writes
to the server during a close(2) or fsync(2) system call, or when encountering memory pressure.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-12 01:34:19 | Re: selecting random rows |
Previous Message | Joseph Shraibman | 2003-09-12 00:36:09 | Re: selecting random rows |