Re: can postgres run well on NFS mounted partitions?

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM, anj patnaik <patna73(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback. I have setup a second Linux VM (running RHEL
> 5.11) and Postgres 9.4. I ran some insertions today from a client running
> on Windows. The client does a loop of 30 updates.
>
> I am seeing about 10-20% increase in latency in the case where DB is on
> NFS (over TCP) compared to directly on disk.
>
> The other machine I am using to compare is running RHEL 6.5 and Postgres
> 9.4.
>
> Are there any specific tests that are recommended to test that postgres
> over NFS works well?
>
> I am planning on doing a few large data inserts and fetches.
>
> With the little testing, the DB over NFS appears fine.
>
>
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.

--Scott

>
> Thanks for any feedback.
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
> wrote:
>
>> anj patnaik wrote:
>> > Can anyone advise if there are problems running postgres over NFS
>> mounted partitions?
>> >
>> > I do need reliability and high speed.
>>
>> I have got the advice not to use NFS from a number of people who should
>> know,
>> but there are also knowledgable people who use PostgreSQL with NFS.
>>
>> You need hard foreground mounts, and you need an NFS server that is
>> guaranteed not to lose data that the client has synced to disk.
>>
>> You should probably only consider storage systems that directly
>> support NFS, and you should run performance and reliability tests.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Laurenz Albe
>>
>
>