| From: | Fortuitous Technologies <null(at)fortuitous(dot)dot(dot)nul> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Running on an NFS Mounted Directory |
| Date: | 2006-05-02 14:58:51 |
| Message-ID: | pan.2006.05.02.14.58.50.836991@fortuitous.dot.nul |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:55:24 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:35:42PM -0700, Steve Wampler wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:06:58PM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote:
>> > I was wondering if there were any performance issues with having a data
>> > directory that was an nfs mounted drive? Say like a SAN or NAS device? Has
>> > anyone done this before?
>>
>> My understanding is that NFS is pretty poor in performance in general,
NFS is not a good choice for several reasons. First, NFS takes
priority in the system kernel, and will slow down all other
operations. Your best choice, as pointed out by others, is a DAS
solutions. If you must use NFS, you should consider putting it on
a fast dedicated network by itself.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-02 17:14:58 | Re: Easy question |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-02 04:44:16 | Re: Why is plan (and performance) different on partitioned table? |