| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| 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: | 2014-05-27 15:32:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1yjrGE2zpZHpm90v1wBhQfgY1s7kRMuy8RdD1HaoWWkUw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>wrote:
> Stephen Frost 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.
Why would they implement their own client? Did they have to do something
special in their client to make it safe?
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-05-27 16:54:23 | Re: NFS, file system cache and shared_buffers |
| Previous Message | David Boreham | 2014-05-27 15:18:47 | Re: NFS, file system cache and shared_buffers |