| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NFS, file system cache and shared_buffers |
| Date: | 2014-05-27 12:26:56 |
| Message-ID: | 53848490.6060001@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 05/27/2014 02:06 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> I just learned that NFS does not use a file system cache on the client side.
>
> On the other hand, PostgreSQL relies on the file system cache for performance,
> because beyond a certain amount of shared_buffers performance will suffer.
>
> Together these things seem to indicate that you cannot get good performance
> with a large database over NFS since you can leverage memory speed.
>
> Now I wonder if there are any remedies (CacheFS?) and what experiences
> people have made with the performance of large databases over NFS.
I have no personal experience with NFS, but sounds like a
higher-than-usual shared_buffers value would be good.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-05-27 14:40:13 | Re: NFS, file system cache and shared_buffers |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2014-05-27 11:06:49 | NFS, file system cache and shared_buffers |