| From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14555: EBUSY error on read() on NFS |
| Date: | 2017-02-20 05:00:47 |
| Message-ID: | c0b37e04-2e23-492f-2e9c-d46e40046aaf@hogranch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2/19/2017 8:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> (FWIW, a lot of Postgres hackers consider NFS to be too unreliable to
> keep a database on. NFS is great, don't get me wrong, but it's got a
> very long track record of intermittent weirdness like this. If you're
> trying to get from three-nines to five-nines reliability, keeping your
> data on NFS is a serious stumbling block to getting there.)
For what its worth (about $0.02), I remember Oracle saying DO NOT USE
NFS for database storage, unless it was a NetApp Filer with a specific
set of options configured, that no other configuration was considered
robust enough for database storage.
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-20 05:03:24 | Re: BUG #14555: EBUSY error on read() on NFS |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-20 04:43:24 | Re: BUG #14555: EBUSY error on read() on NFS |