Re: Best options for new PG instance

First - NEVER USE NFS TO STORE DATA YOU DON'T WANT TO LOSE. That said, what
you want to host on depends a lot on whether your system is typically CPU
bound or I/O bound. A VM for the computational side is generally quite
fine. If you're seriously CPU bound then you're likely to want to cluster
the thing and/or use PG10 if you can take advantage of parallel requests.
Once you get I/O bound things get trickier. AWS has horrible I/O
characteristics compared to any "bare metal" solution out there for
example. Yes, you can buy I/Oops but now you have incredibly expensive slow
I/O characteristics. If you're I/O bound your best solution is to host
elsewhere if possible. We have clients who cannot and they're paying a lot
more as a result sadly.

A great way to host PG is inside docker containers and there's some
excellent kubernetes solutions coming around. It is best if you can mount
your data on a host file system rather than a data volume container. The
reasons for that may be less strong than before (that was one area where
early Docker had defects) but we still see better I/O performance when
pushed. That said, I am aware of people happy with their deployments using
volume containers although I don't know their I/O profiles so much. Anyway
- Docker can be run within VMs or directly on bare metal quite easily and
is a great way to compare the impact of the two.

Oh - and lots of memory is always good no matter what as others have said.

Good luck,

-- Ben

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:53 PM, David Gauthier <davegauthierpg(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Hi:
>
> I'm going to be requesting a PG DB instance (v9.6.7) from an IT dept in a
> large corp setting. I was wondering if anyone could comment on the
> pros/cons of getting this put on a virtual machine vs hard metal ? Locally
> mounted disk vs nfs ?
>
> Thanks !
>
>
>
>
>
>