| From: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jeff Janes *EXTERN*" <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost *EXTERN* <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NFS, file system cache and shared_buffers |
| Date: | 2014-05-28 08:41:18 |
| Message-ID: | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17CFEA12@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> All that said, there has always been a recommendation of caution around
>>> using NFS as a backing store for PG, or any RDBMS..
>>
>> I know that Oracle recommends it - they even built an NFS client
>> into their database server to make the most of it.
>
> Last I heard (which has been a while), Oracle supported specific brand named implementations of NFS,
> and warned against any others on a data integrity basis.
I couldn't find any detailed information, but it seems that only certain
NFS devices are supported.
> Why would they implement their own client? Did they have to do something special in their client to
> make it safe?
I think it is mostly a performance issue. Each backend mounts its own copy
of the data files it needs.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grzegorz Olszewski | 2014-05-28 09:59:50 | Re: Planner doesn't take indexes into account |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2014-05-28 07:50:40 | Re: NFS, file system cache and shared_buffers |