| From: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Scott Mead *EXTERN*'" <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>, anj patnaik <patna73(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: can postgres run well on NFS mounted partitions? |
| Date: | 2015-11-11 08:37:32 |
| Message-ID: | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B50FE2CE4@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Scott Mead wrote:
> Don't do it. Period. I've used 4 big-vendor appliances with NFS as well as my own server. With
> maybe 3 exceptions, most of the 'total-data-loss' scenarios I've dealt with regarding transactional
> data was due to NFS.
Can you share more details?
What happened and what had caused the problem?
While researching the same topic, I came across two scenarios where people
had encountered problems:
1) A background mounted NFS failed to mount in time.
A smart startup script triggered initdb on the empty mount point,
then while PostgreSQL was running, the mount completed
and data corruption ensued.
2) The NFS server implementation didn't actually sync the data
(or keep it in a battery powered buffer) when it said it had
synced them.
It would be good to know of other pitfalls; I (and no doubt not only I)
keep getting asked why we shouldn't run PostgreSQL on NFS when Oracle
has no problem with it (and don't tell me that Oracle does not care
about data corruption).
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John R Pierce | 2015-11-11 08:42:06 | Re: can postgres run well on NFS mounted partitions? |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2015-11-11 02:59:44 | Re: can postgres run well on NFS mounted partitions? |